Sitting of 27 June 1978

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

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Belfast Aircraft (Disposal)
    Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the disposal arrangements for the RAF's fleet of seven Belfast transport aircraft.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): Yes.
    Mr. Pattie: Is not the Minister aware that these seven aircraft represent a specially constructed capability for transporting heavy equipment in support of our land forces? Is he not further aware that there is widespread concern in the country to the effect that the Government may not have the aircraft capability to meet a requirement for a rescue operation? In that case, does he not think that the decision to cannibalise these aircraft is the height of Government irresponsibility?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not accept that. Our VCIO fleet and the Hercules fleet are adequate to cope with all foreseeable contingencies which we have in mind. As for our total capability, I should be more impressed by what the hon. Gentleman says if he and his hon. Friends were supporting us in our attempts to increase
    1192
    our air-to-air refuelling capability rather than making niggling complaints about commercial decisions of this nature.
    Mr. Churchill: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, thanks to this Government, the military airlift capability of the Royal Air Force has been slashed by 50 per cent.? Does he appreciate that in consequence of that the decision was taken by his Government to stand down the only remaining brigade-size formation of airborne forces remaining in this country? Is that not a serious situation, bearing in mind the rising Soviet threat to British interests and British lives in other parts of the world, specifically Africa?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear to the House, the Government are satisfied that they have the capacity to come to the aid of citizens involved in difficulties overseas, where that is necessary.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have told the House at the beginning of Question Time that yesterday I had another complaint about our going slow on Questions. Without any reflection at all on those who have taken part so far in Question Time today—because their remarks have been to the point—I express the hope that we shall have brief supplementary questions today; otherwise I shall have to be more ruthless about calling supplementary questions.

    Manpower
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and what were the equivalent figures on the same date in 1976 and 1977.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): The total strength of the Navy and Royal Marines, the Army and the Air Force at 30th April 1978 was 74,449, 159,740 and 84,590 respectively. The corresponding figures for 1976 are 75,577, 168,651 and 90,291; and for 1977, 75,720, 165,603 and 86,608. All these figures exclude locally entered Service personnel.
    Mr. Gow: Is it the policy of the Government that the steady reduction in the numbers of the Armed Forces of the

    1193
    Crown should continue? How does that reduction compare with the increase in the Armed Forces of those countries from which an attack, in so far as an attack is apprehended, may come?
    Dr. Gilbert: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The figures are not likely to change greatly in the near future. As to the second part of the supplementary question, numbers are only a part of the capability. Equipment and training are also important elements.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Has there not been over the same period a huge increase in spending on military research and development to a figure of £872 million and on military equipment to a figure of £2·8 billion? Would not this research and development expenditure have been better devoted to non-military matters?
    Dr. Gilbert: I agree with my hon. Friend that in the best of all possible worlds we should far rather spend research and development money on nonmilitary matters. Unfortunately, such is the state of international tension that we do not believe that that option is open to us.
    Mr. Banks: What is the sense in the Government's policy of creating unemployment by reducing the number of Service men and then spending millions of pounds paying people to count lampposts and the like?
    Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that those two questions are not connected. That story has been traded across the Floor of the House many times. The reduction in the Armed Services was due to a planned programme consequent upon the defence review of 1974. That defence review was based on a realistic assessment of what this country's defence commitment should be for the last quarter of the twentieth century.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government's defence cuts have yet cost 200,000 jobs? If not, by what date will they have cost 200,000 jobs?
    Dr. Gilbert: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to opportunities in defence industries, he is wildly in excess of the figures that I have at my disposal,
    1194
    which indicate that the maximum will be about 140,000 next year.

    Equipment Standardisation
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, at the next meeting of NATO Ministers of Defence, he will seek to place on the agenda the question of equipment standardisation.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): When I next meet my NATO ministerial colleagues collectively at the defence planning committee towards the end of this year, we shall discuss general defence issues, including those arising from the long-term defence programme, and also the report by the conference of national armaments directors to the council which deals with equipment standardisation and inter-operability.
    Mr. Arnold: Within the context of the 10-year long-term defence programme and the recent announcement about accelerating co-operation between Europe and America in the development of new weapons, will the Secretary of State now say what specific obstacles he sees in the way of undertaking further moves in the direction of standardisation generally?
    Mr. Mulley: Standardisation is much more easily dealt with by talk and resolution than in actual practice, because all countries have problems of industrial equipment. There are also problems of time scales. For example, I believe that we were right to decide to go for Nimrod for our airborne early warning aircraft. If we had not done so, the whole of the NATO airborne early warning system might have collapsed. Although we are seeking the maximum inter-operability, it was contrary to standardisation.
    We have to try to get the widest possible agreement on operational requirements for the next generation of weapons, and then, between Europe on the one hand and the United States of America on the other, try to devise a much better system than we have managed to achieve in the past.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it has been argued that the Warsaw Pact Powers are able to obtain much greater efficiency for the same expenditure purely because they

    1195
    have a higher level of standardisation? Will he accept that this matter should be treated very much more urgently?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that there is an enormous military bonus to be gained from complete inter-operability of equipment, although I should hesitate to want an alliance dominated by one partner in the way that the Warsaw Pact is arranged. Within the realms of practical possibility, we and our European allies are seeking, with the United States, to achieve what we can in this direction.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the real obstacles to standardisation are the short-term economic interests of each member country in the NATO alliance? We are all pressing here for standardisation on security grounds, but there would be a howl of protest from each side of the House if there were standardisation which resulted in far fewer jobs in this country. That is true of all the NATO countries. How is this matter to be resolved?
    Mr. Mulley: Not only in defence but in the wider context it is easier to agree to the general proposition than to the particular propositions which flow from it. I believe that we can, by devising a system of packages, work out a means whereby in Europe we can sustain employment in our industry and at the same time achieve, with our United States allies, a better arrangement than we have now.
    Mr. Goodhart: Now that the Germans appear to have won the tank gun competition in the United States, will the Secretary of State say whether we are to press ahead with our own tank gun development or whether, on the grounds of inter-operability, we are to accept the German 120-mm smooth bore gun?
    Mr. Mulley: We are still considering the options open to us for the next tank to succeed Chieftain, and I have not yet reached any decision. But clearly the question of standardisation or inter-operability is one of the factors in that decision. On the other hand, I still believe that the British gun is the best gun in the business.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a fitting prelude to standardisation of equipment
    1196
    would be to standardise the contribution that we make to NATO as a percentage of our gross national product, in view of the constant complaints that we receive from the Opposition, when we are paying, as a percentage, more than anybody else?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend is even sharper than usual today, because he has asked a supplementary before I have been able to answer the Question on the Order Paper in his name, to which I was looking forward. I do not think, however, that it is quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests to standardise the contribution that each country makes. It depends not only on defence expenditure but on the size of the country's gross domestic product. I look forward to carrying the argument further when we reach my hon. Friend's Question.

    HMS "Bulwark"
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS "Bulwark" to commission.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): As I told the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 9th June, HMS "Bulwark" will be brought to a fully operational state in the course of this year and will rejoin the operational Fleet early in 1979.
    Mr. Brotherton: Bearing in mind that we now have no commando ship, may I ask how long HMS "Bulwark" will take to convert from her primary role as an anti-submarine warfare carrier to a commando ship, should such a necessity arise?
    Mr. Duffy: No such conversion is called for. The hon. Gentleman above all should know that she was withdrawn from an amphibious role and is being introduced into an ASW role, because that is where the Soviet threat is now greatest.

    Service Pay (Parliamentary Lobby)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Defence what advice was given by higher authorities to Service men against their wives attending the parliamentary lobby on pay.
    Mr. Mulley: The Ministry of Defence has issued no such advice. I should like

    1197
    to make it clear that Service wives are completely free to speak in public, write to the Press or contact their Members of Parliament and that any anxieties about possible retaliation against their husbands are completely groundless.
    Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that wives alleged that pressure was put on their husbands to advise them not to attend? Will he make it clear to commanding officers that wives have the right to lobby Parliament or to visit Members of Parliament on any matter they choose, Service pay included?
    Mr. Mulley: We have made the position absolutely clear throughout. Indeed, from the number of letters that right hon. and hon. Members have sent to me there does not appear to be any great inhibition—rightly so—on the part of wives. Indeed, there is no reason why Service men themselves cannot contact their Members of Parliament.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is not the rather pathetic sight of Service men's wives coming here to lobby Parliament, appearing on television or writing to the Press on behalf of their husbands another clear indication that it would be far more sensible if we regularised the position and allowed Service men to take part in negotiations about their own wages? Is it not time that we encouraged them to join a proper trade union?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion would entirely remove the problems. Although I firmly believe that the Government's pay policy has been absolutely essential to the economic recovery of the nation, nevertheless I know that many of my constituents and others who are in trade unions are not totally satisfied with their pay settlements. I do not necessarily think, therefore, that the matter would have been resolved in this way.
    Rear- Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Secretary of State think that it was or was not a pity that no Members from the Labour Party were present to hear the views of the Service wives?
    Mr. Ernest G. Perry: That is untrue.
    Mr. Mulley: I read in the Press about arrangements for such a lobby, but until late in the afternoon I had no intimation
    1198
    that the wives wished to see me. Certainly I would not have thought of visiting them without prior notice. I have written to several of the wives concerned. If they had intimated their desire to see me, I would naturally have tried to rearrange my programme, but we had no intimation that they desired any such interview. Frankly, I have other things to do than just sit in the Central Lobby in the expectation that somebody might want to see me.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, whereas many working people are dissatisfied with pay policy, it is difficult to find another example where they have to send their wives here to lobby Members of Parliament? I urge my right hon. Friend once again that the only way to deal with the problem is by effective trade union organisation and effective collective bargaining to look after the pay and, indeed, the working conditions of the workers and technicians in uniform.
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for again making quite clear his views on this subject. I do not happen to think that the particular problems we had with regard to pay would have been easily resolved. Other problems could have arisen. As I have said, one of the difficulties is that I am not at all sure that the Armed Forces are at present anxious to join trade unions, but this is obviously a problem which we must look at in the longer term.

    Airlift Capacity
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the airlifting capacity available to Her Majesty's Forces.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Within the resources available, I believe that we have the most cost-effective mix of airlift capacity and other military capabilities.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware how completely his complacency contrasts with the view of other observers, including the Expenditure Committee of this House? If it should be necessary for this country to mount a rescue operation comparable with that mounted in Zaire by the Belgian and French forces, could we do it?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already dealt very exhaustively with that point. As always, he is accurately reflecting the considered view of the Government on their capabilities to protect British citizens overseas.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: "Mix" is a highly sensitive word, and perhaps "mix-up" is better. Does not the Minister agree that there is nothing like sufficient air capacity to do a rescue operation? There are not sufficient airborne forces to carry out any sort of operation. In the event of an emergency, what plans does the Minister have to take steps to make use of the nationalised air corporation—British Airways—and the various other companies? It is very important that on this point I should be informed as to what plans there are.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about "mix-up", I can think of no greater mix-up than the activities of Conservative Members who are continually criticising the Government in respect of defence capability, yet many of them are queueing up outside my office to protest against the enlargement, expansion and increase in the air defence capacity of this country and our NATO allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. As to the availability of civil aircraft, long-standing arrangements have operated under successive Administrations whereby we would have availability of civil aircraft to reinforce our military transport capability.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: That is the second time when the hon. Gentleman has made absurd allegations against my hon. Friends. Why does he not make clear that what they have done is to object on environmental grounds to their constituencies being chosen? They have all made perfectly clear that they are in favour of this capability, and the Minister knows that perfectly well.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Making clear that one is in favour of an improvement in air-to-air refuelling capability could be best demonstrated by Members of Parliament, particularly Opposition spokesmen, making clear to electors, especially their own supporters, the vital necessity of having the capability in this country to carry out air-to-air refuelling.

    BAOR
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of equipment to those regiments serving in the British Army of the Rhine.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I am satisfied that the British Army of the Rhine has the equipment it needs to perform its role. Our aim is to ensure that BAOR can continue to meet the threat as it develops, and there is a major re-equipment programme under way to achieve this aim.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the first priority of any Government is to be able to guarantee the security of the State against external aggression? Is he aware that certain units in BAOR cannot undertake exercises because of shortage of material and equipment and also because it takes a tremendous time to get the necessary spares for the obsolete equipment which they have?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first premise. There has been no significant shortage of spares in BAOR during the last year. In an organisation as large as the British Army, it is inevitable that temporary shortages will occur from time to time, but these are overcome as a matter of normal equipment management.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Bearing in mind that the State with which we are concerned is Germany, and that in percentage terms of the gross national product Germany's contribution is less than ours although her exchange position is very strong, would not it be in the interests of NATO for Germany to make a bigger contribution to the equipment of BAOR?
    Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly on this issue, but it does not arise from this Question. Perhaps he would care to put down a Question on the Order Paper for next time.
    Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winston Churchill.
    Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made it impossible for me to call the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

    Otterburn Range (Farms)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy to let farms on the Otterburn range without giving opportunity to potential tenants to tender for them.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: No. Farms belonging to the Ministry of Defence are normally let by competitive tender, but very occasionally a letting by private treaty may be justified.
    Mr. Beith: How does the hon. Gentleman justify doing precisely that in the recent case of Carl Croft? Is he not aware that, whatever value may be found in the use of this farm as an adjunct to the county agricultural college, many farmers in the area very much resent the fact that the normal opportunity to tender for this opportunity to farm was not provided?
    Mr. Brown: I can understand the feelings of hill farmers in the Northumberland area, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Northumberland County Council badly needed a hill farm to improve the teaching facilities of the Kirkley Hall agricultural college and wished to rent Carlcroft farm. It was considered to be in the public interest that the farm should be made available to the county council.
    Mr. Viggers: When the Ministry of Defence land is let for farming, will the Minister make sure that it is let for farming in acceptable practices? In other words, will he keep his pigs out of residential areas?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in constant correspondence in recent months about pigs, and he well knows that his Gosport constituents should not be troubled by pigs on Ministry of Defence land.

    NATO
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects next to meet his NATO colleagues.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet other NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends next to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.
    Mr. Mulley: I shall next meet my NATO colleagues collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee towards the end of this year.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will the Secretary of State at least discuss with them the possibility—I appreciate the difficulties—of France rejoining NATO because of the absolute necessity of having a clear command structure in times of emergency, not to mention the obvious difficulty of a successful resolution of the Vienna talks without France being in NATO?
    Mr. Mulley: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this point. Of course, it will not be my colleagues in the defence planning committee who will be mainly concerned. It is France herself which does not attend. While I would welcome the return of France to full participation in the Alliance, I think it is good to know that co-operation, as far as it is possible, outside the integrated arrangements is good. I have no doubt that, should difficulties arise, we could count on the support of our French allies.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Secretary of State urge the acceptance of the new Warsaw Pact proposal for force reductions in central Europe, whereby for the first time the Warsaw Pact would make a greater reduction than NATO? Is not this an opportunity for ending the four-year impasse—this minuet—whereby one side advances or retreats as the other side advances?
    Mr. Mulley: I would agree with my hon. Friend that the Warsaw Pact response, which was delivered quite recently, is extremely significant. It is not a case of a minuet. It is really the first time that it has made a significant response There are problems about the data. Clearly, one cannot discuss detailed reductions without knowing the base. Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who talks about percentages without a base, one cannot do that kind of arithmetic. Therefore, it is important to clarify the data. This is under way and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for these negotiations, is, like myself, most anxious that there should be a positive response. For that reason, I would not want to wait until the next meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commissioner Davignon has welcomed, on behalf of the EEC Commission, a recent report of the European Assembly which calls for the establishment of an EEC arms procurement agency? When the Secretary of State next meets his NATO colleagues, will he put this suggestion before them and ascertain whether they would welcome or resent such a development?
    Mr. Mulley: I have seen the proposals of Commissioner Davignon but I am not sure that they represent the best way of trying to get standardisation and inter-operability in Europe. For the moment, I am persuaded that the independent European Programme Group is a better approach to this problem, not least because it includes all the European members of the Alliance. Certainly I shall sound out my colleagues informally and let my hon. Friend know if I receive any positive response.
    Mr. Buck: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the geographical guidelines of NATO no longer make sense? Will he see about a renegotiation of these when he next meets his colleagues in NATO?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not sure that I agree that the geographical guidelines make no sense. In view of the substantial long-term defence programme that NATO has undertaken following the
    1204
    Summit, it would not be wise for me at this juncture to bring up the problem of redefining the boundaries of the Alliance. However, I understand and share the concern of the hon. and learned Member that there are problems outside the strict NATO geographical limits.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State feel sufficiently encouraged by the significant response of the Russians on the limitation of armies on the central front to suggest to his colleagues in NATO that they should seek a limitation on naval forces, particularly on submarines, in order to see what kind of response the Soviets give?
    Mr. Mulley: Since it has taken rather a long time to achieve anything in Vienna—some five years—I would hesitate, until we make significant agreed progress in central Europe, to start another set of such discussions. Naturally, however, I am anxious for multilateral arms control agreements in any areas of conflict.
    Mr. Clemitson: Was my right hon. Friend saying earlier, in effect, that the fact that our gross domestic product is lower than that of a number of our NATO allies justifies our having to make a higher proportional contribution to NATO? Is that not the equivalent of saying that the lower a person's income, the higher the proportion of it that he should have to pay in income tax? That is patently absurd.
    Mr. Mulley: I hope that my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I would not suggest such a proposition as he is trying to attribute to me. It is not easy to adjust one's defence expenditure on an annual basis, according to how the total figures work out, at the same time as the NATO European countries are increasing their defence expenditure. In fact, we have already moved from 5·1 per cent. to 4·9 per cent. of our gross domestic product, and this year it will be 4.75 per cent. We are moving down to the NATO European average, while our NATO European allies are moving up as a result of the additional expenditure that they have undertaken.
    Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind SACEUR's request to the NATO allies for increased readiness, how can the Secretary of State explain to his NATO

    1205
    colleagues, when he next meets them, that he has given instructions for more than 10 per cent. of Britain's Chieftain tank forces on the Rhine to be placed in mothballs? When will the manpower situation be such as to allow them to be put into normal operation again?
    Mr. Mulley: I think it is unlikely that they will raise this matter. They are aware of the very substantial contribution that we make through the Rhine Army. I believe that that problem is in hand and will not exist when the next NATO ministerial meeting takes place. While I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raise the shortcomings in our Armed Forces—it is right that they should do so—I would like them to say something positive from time to time about the excellent job our forces are doing.

    Low-flying Training Overseas
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Defence what new plans he has to enable the Royal Air Force to utilise areas in certain Commonwealth countries for training in low-flying techniques.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We are currently considering the possibilities for low-flying training in other countries.
    Mr. Farr: Will the Minister say what representations he has had from the Canadian Government, who have, I understand, offered parts of Labrador for training in low-flying techniques? Labrador is relatively unpopulated, and low flying in that area would not cause the same disturbance as it causes over parts of the United Kingdom at night.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We already enjoy very good relationships with the Canadian Government and very good facilities in Labrador. I hope that this relationship will continue for a long time. We would certainly be prepared to respond to any initiatives from the Canadian Government to expand these facilities if that is their wish.
    Mr. Tebbit: Has the Under-Secretary received any representations from any Labour Members about the environmental damage done in their constituencies by low-flying aircraft? If so, has he condemned them in the same unreasonable and vitriolic way as he did my hon. Friends who resent the reactivation of
    1206
    Greenham Common, which has not been used for military purposes for some years? Also, is he aware that a housing estate has been built on the approach to that common?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: I have received representations from both sides of the House about low-flying aircraft. I have also received from hon. Members on all sides very great understanding about the essential role that low flying plays in training the RAF to perform its functions of preserving the security of this country. However, at a time when we are trying to increase the defence capacity of NATO and the United Kingdom, I am entitled to take it rather hard when I am criticised by Conservatives who claim that the Government are not doing enough. When we attempt to do more, we are condemned for doing so.
    Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend has replied in a most courteous manner to the representations from my constituents about the problem of low flying. Will he take account of the need to vary the flight patterns of the aircraft on their way to low-flying areas so that they do not overfly exactly the same areas on every occasion?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We are reviewing the whole pattern of low flying in the United Kingdom. When that review is complete, I hope that it will be possible not only to vary the route but to spread the burden that exists. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for the care they take in representing the views of their constituents on this difficult problem and their understanding of this essential requirement of our defence capabilities.
    Mr. MacCormick: While I appreciate the great skills of the officers involved to avoid the possibility of another massacre of Glencoe, could I remind the Minister of the problem of low flying there? Is he aware that a lot of my constituents in that area are night-shift workers who find it very difficult?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: We take enormous care to vary the routes and to take account of particularly sensitive areas and activities in undertaking low flying. The disturbance that occurs from this training is nothing compared with the massacre that would occur if this country

    1207
    were left defenceless and the RAF were not capable of performing its proper function.

    Paratroop Regiment
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to strengthen the Paratroop Regiment.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: No, Sir.
    Mr. Aitken: If Britain were to mount a rescue operation comparable with that mounted recently by the French in Zaire, is the Minister satisfied that this country has enough paratroops, aircraft and resupply and reinforcement facilities to carry out a proper job capably, or are the Government as complacent about this matter as they are about everything else?
    Mr. Brown: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated recently,
    "the capacity to look after the lives of our citizens is there".—[Official Report, 23rd May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1330.]
    Mr. Crocott: Does it not ill become hon. Gentlemen who constantly complain about Soviet and Cuban military intervention in Africa to look constantly for ways in which we ourselves can intervene militarily? Does my hon. Friend further agree that by far the best, the most sensible, the most moral and the most popular policy that the Government could adopt would be for them to take an even-handed approach in condemning any foreign military intervention in Africa, whether from the Soviet Union, Cuba or France?
    Mr. Brown: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's basic premise, but I believe it is important that this country should have the right and ability to protect the lives of its nationals.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the Minister aware that those who were most strident in their criticism of the introduction of members of the Paratroop Regiment in South Armagh, where they have carried out a good job, have been very silent in the past few weeks about the atrocities committed by the IRA? Will he further accept that, although the Parachute Regiment can carry out a good anti-terrorist job, the terrorists will be defeated only by the proper application of anti-terrorist techniques employed by the SAS?
    Mr. Brown: I was with the 1st Parachute Regiment in South Armagh less than a week ago, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is indisputable that that regiment has carried out a superb job in South Armagh, and considerable sympathy for the losses sustained by the regiment has been expressed by the people in the area. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that IRA terrorists can be defeated only by the SAS. Every regiment operating in Northern Ireland has the capability to defeat terrorist-type activities of the IRA and will continue to do so.

    Reciprocal Procurement (United States of America)
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the "Two-way street" sales between the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Gilbert: The position remains substantially as I set it out in my reply to the hon. Member on 6th April. The United States Government are playing their part in the implementation of the 1975 memorandum of understanding on reciprocal defence procurement. United Kingdom firms have been increasing their efforts to win orders in the United States and sonic successes have already been achieved.
    Mr. Warren: With respect to the Minister, I must point out that he did not tell me anything more on 6th April than he has told me now. Why is it that this House is not allowed to know what is available publicly in the United States to Members of Congress about precisely what has been sold each way across the Atlantic? Why should we not know the truth?
    Dr. Gilbert: We have been at pains to show that our disclosure procedures with respect to these memoranda of understanding have marched step by step with those in the United States Congress. If the hon. Gentleman has information that is on public record on the other side of the Atlantic, which has not been disclosed in this country, I shall be happy to examine it.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in addition to the two-way programme between this country and the

    1209
    United States of America, many people in this country are disturbed at the activities of private entrepreneurial manufacturers who, as it appears from BBC programmes, can easily sell arms made in one country to another and they can then be used against the interests of the country which made them? Will he examine this matter and deal with it when he discusses the subject with NATO and American officials?
    Dr. Gilbert: If my hon. Friend is referring to the BBC programme which was put out last night—
    Mr. Molloy indicated assent.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assent. That programme dealt more with the activities of an international arms salesman than with a manufacturer of armaments. There is a certain amount of private enterprise manufacture of arms in this country, but all exports of arms from this country are under Government control and must have an export licence issued by Her Majesty's Government. We control these sales very closely.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: If the agreement is working as well as the Minister of State suggests, in both civil and defence aspects, why was it necessary for British Airways to borrow £34 million from the Japanese to buy a jumbo 747?
    Dr. Gilbert: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The memorandum of understanding on which his hon. Friend's Question was based related merely to military procurement—the "Two-way street" sales.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Since the sales of weapons to the United States may not be going as well as my right hon. Friend would like, will he say whether his Department is considering the sale of arms to the People's Republic of China? If it is, what kind of arms does it think would be acceptable to sell to that country?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the subject of sales to the People's Republic of China hardly arises on a Question relating to the sale of arms to the United States. As for the progress under the "Two-way street" arrangement, I would inform the House that, although we are far from
    1210
    complacent, I am wholly satisfied with the good faith which the United States Government and United States manufacturers are exercising to see that the memorandum is brought fully into effect.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. John Evansasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is today returning from the United States, where he received the first Hubert H. Humphrey International Award. My right hon. Friend has also had talks with President Carter and with leading figures from the United States aircraft industry.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Prime Minister the congratulations of every hon. Member of the House on his being the first recipient of this international award for statesmanship? But will he also make it clear when he sees the Prime Minister that many Labour Members are concerned at suggestions that the Government may implement the Boyle Report on top salaries? Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Prime Minister that if the Government implement that report there is no chance whatsoever of their achieving a further round of pay restraint with the trade union movement?
    Mr. Foot: In reply to the first matter mentioned by my hon. Friend, I shall certainly convey his representations to the Prime Minister. I believe that the House would wish to congratulate the Prime Minister not only on the prize he received but on the speech he delivered in the United States, which is a speech of major importance on the international scene. I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks in the second part of his supplementary question, but I have nothing to say to the House on that subject today.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Lord President suggest how the Prime Minister

    1211
    reconciles the Government's present difficulties over pay when the Financial Statement said that inflation would go up unless pay increases were kept down and when the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government would make their views on pay known in due course? In view of the fact that the present policy runs out in four weeks' time, when will the Government speak?
    Mr. Foot: I see nothing irreconcilable in those statements. The prophecy about the figures was given, and the Prime Minister has already said that a further statement will be made on these matters before the House rises for the recess.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton. (Mr. Evans).
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the thousands of redundancies that have occurred on Merseyside and the 600 redundancies now pending in Kirkby? Will he accept that only a bold, new, imaginative initiative by the Government, such as the funding of the 1988 Olympics operation on Merseyside, could adequately deal with Merseyside's problems? Will he also firmly repudiate the Tory proposals to make areas such as Merseyside safe havens for spivs, racketeers, speculators, exploiters of labour, Soho pornographers and ponces, and Tory crooks, because we want none of it?
    Mr. Foot: It is easy enough to accept what my hon. Friend says in the latter part of his remarks, and I am sure that all of us on the Labour Benches are glad to agree with him. On the first matter raised by my hon. Friend, I trust he agrees that tackling the appalling unemployment problems on Merseyside and elsewhere calls for a whole series of measures at home and abroad. It was especially those international measures which must be taken on a wide front to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech. I believe that he carries the support of all Labour Members in giving a lead to the whole Western world in
    1212
    seeking to deal with this problem of unemployment.
    Mr. Whitelaw: When the right hon. Gentleman is reflecting on respect for the law, will he consider the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, published today, and reflect on his own attitude to the independent judiciary? Does he appreciate how much his personal attacks on judges undermine respect for the law in this country?
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has been misled, perhaps by his leader, on the subject of my comments on the judiciary. All that I have done is to give some simple history lessons to those who ought to have learnt their history at school.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans).
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend find time to comment further on the Shadow Chancellor's suggestion that the solution to unemployment in deprived areas such as Clydeside and Merseyside is to create tax-free havens for employers, with little, if any, employment protection legislation for workers? Would that not increase deprivation by creating lawless ghettos where workers would have little, if any, protection under the law in basic matters such as health, safety and job security? If this idea is typical of what is coming from the Tory think-tank, is it not clear that it has become rather septic?
    Mr. Foot: I should not like to comment further in response to my hon. Friend's invitation. A most apposite statement was made the other day. It was:
    "There is no way in which this problem"—
    the problem of inner urban areas—
    "can be solved by easy application of free market forces. Mr. Milton Friedman has only to take a short cab ride from his university in Chicago to see what free market forces have done to some districts of that city."
    That was said by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and it is the

    1213
    best speech that even he has made for quite a long time.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In his acting capacity, will the right hon. Gentleman do a useful job for the Prime Minister and look into a case of apparent lack of co-ordination between two Ministries, one of which expresses regret about the murder of British missionaries while the other pays direct aid to a country which harbours terrorists who do that sort of thing?
    Mr. Foot: This whole question was dealt with fully and adequately by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday. I do not believe that there is any contradiction in what he said to the House and the whole of our policy on this matter. I am sure that the best course for the House to take in this respect is to follow the advice of the British Council of Churches, which is fully in accord with what was said by the Foreign Secretary yesterday.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Lord President referred to his orginal reply. May I refer him to his reply to the first supplementary question? Does he not think that it is disgusting that top civil servants should get a 20 per cent. pay increase without one murmur from the Government and that there should be rumours of 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. rises for the members of boards of nationalised industries without one murmur from the Government, while he has said that he can do nothing for hon. Members who, if their pay were set at the same real level as the salaries they were receiving in 1965, would be entitled to just on £11,000 per annum? If he cannot do it for one, why does he do it for the other?
    Mr. Foot: I have nothing to add to the earlier answer that I gave on this subject.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why did the right hon. Gentleman bother to turn up at all?
    Mr. Foot: Of course, hon. Members' salaries will be debated in the House in a few weeks' time, as I have indicated on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the first four Ques-
    1214
    tions to the Prime Minister are pretty ridiculous, make a mockery of the House and make it look even more ridiculous than it sounds on the radio? May I ask him a question that is directly relevant to the answer that he gave about the Hubert H. Humphrey memorial award? Is he aware that the main barrier that Hubert Humphrey met on his way to the White House was the lack of cash? Is he further aware that the United States Government subsequently had to change the regulations governing the remuneration of political parties in America? What will he and the Government do about the Houghton Report?
    Mr. Foot: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be of great benefit to democracy in this country if we could carry into effect the recommendations of the Houghton Report or recommendations along those lines. I should like to see a majority in the House to achieve that purpose, and as soon as there is such a majority I hope that this will be one of the many excellent measures that will be brought forward. Whether the hon. Gentleman will be here to join us in that happy event, I am not sure.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 27th June 1978.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans.)
    Mr. Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in addition to increasing the cost of defence and promising £700 million on the training of youth, the Conservatives also have a General Election gimmick of £4,000 million cuts in public expenditure? If the Prime Minister is not aware of this, will he ask the Leader of the Opposition to explain how the Conservatives are to bring about those cuts?
    Mr. Foot: As to my right hon. Friend being aware of these simple facts, I think that the idea has crossed his mind occasionally and I dare say that over the months ahead he may be provoked into making references to these matters. Of course, it would greatly assist us if the Opposition

    1215
    —perhaps the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) himself—would make a full statement of all the expenditure increases they have recommended. I gather that they are having deep disputes on this subject, and the sooner we can see them resolved, the better.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: While the Prime Minister was in America, did he express to President Carter the Government's support for the lifting of the United States arms embargo on Turkey, which the British Secretary of State for Defence supported last week and which the Western European Union Assembly also recommended last week?
    Mr. Foot: I do not think that that was one of the special subjects which the Prime Minister discussed, although he will, no doubt, be making a full statement to the House on this and many other aspects when he returns. The House should recognise that in his speech in the United States my right hon. Friend took a special occasion to try to ensure that the nations of the West should apply their minds at the Bonn Summit meeting to the appalling problem of unemployment. He urged that nothing should be done to injure the SALT negotiations—I believe that he will have the support of the country in that—and he also outlined an attitude towards the problems of Africa which should command the support of people throughout this country. The House should recognise that the Prime Minister on his visit to the United States spoke for the whole country—or, at any rate, for the more civilised section of the country.
    Mr. Henderson: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about whether the Prime Minister has discussed with President Carter the question of the Singer Company on Clydebank? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Glasgow, Garscadden by-election great promises were held out to the people of Clydebank that the Prime Minister would be able to save the jobs of the people in Singer and that these expectations have been cruelly dashed in the last few days?
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the situation. This was not one of the subjects which the Prime
    1216
    Minister was discussing with President Carter. Of course we have been eager to sustain jobs on Clydebank, and it was partly because of action by the Government that the jobs were available in the first place.
    Mr. Grocott: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to get hold of a Conservative Central Office list of official Tory parliamentary candidates and note that they include these days the names of extremists such as Ward of Grunwick? Will he point out to the electorate on every conceivable occasion that, should it he misguided enough to vote Tory next time, we shall be in for a long, hard winter if people such as Ward are elected?
    Mr. Foot: I must say that my hon. Friend is a generous fellow. It is hard to think that some of the prospective candidates would be any worse than a few of the Conservative Members we already have on the Opposition Benches.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (CATERING STAFF DISPUTE)
Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I came to the House this afternoon I was informed by the Refreshment Department that there was a danger of all functions downstairs being cancelled tonight and later in the week as a result of industrial activity by the staff employed in the department. This will undoubtedly cause considerable confusion and disappointment to many constituents who are booked to attend functions in the House over the next few days. There seems to be considerable uncertainty about the extent of the industrial action and how long it is to last.
The Government boast of their ability to get on with the trade unions. Therefore, is it not right that we should expect a statement from the Leader of the House on the nature of the action, how long it is likely to last and what the Government propose to do to resolve it?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a Services Committee and a Catering Committee, but if the Lord President seeks to reply, I shall be very relieved.
Mr. Foot: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear that it was a

1217
point of order: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was asking a question. I apologise for rising on that account. I fully understand the desire of the House to ensure that there is no disruption of our nomal methods of proceeding in these matters. I am making inquiries to see whether we can overcome the difficulties. I do not have a statement to make now. However, I fully understand the desire of the House that we should enable our normal customs and practice to proceed satisfactorily and I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Goodhew: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Lord President has been kind enough to say something on the matter, may I ask him whether it is possible to get the strike delayed by 24 hours? For instance, I have 60 constituents coming to the House this evening. It is impossible for me to contact all of them to tell them not to come.
Mr. Foot: I understand the feelings of hon. Members and I understand the feelings of those responsible. I see that the hon. Member for Fareham (Dr. Bennett), who has an intimate knowledge of these matters, is in his place. We were hoping to have a discussion before the proceedings of the House started today. We shall be having a discussion very soon. We shall ascertain how best we may seek a solution of the difficulties.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: The General Manager of the Catering Department received a note this morning informing him that all labour would be withdrawn in all the Catering Department branches from 6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. today. We hope to try to persuade those concerned that that should not be done, but I cannot hold out very much hope. However, I shall engage myself in all conversations both with the Leader of the House and with the union to try to avert this action.
1218
The reason behind the proposed action has been the inordinately long delay in making any progress towards pension rights. The matter also concerns days off for the staff, which in Civil Service arrangements may be taken at any time but which the staff thought would be unduly disruptive for the Catering Department. Therefore, they were asking for a certain allowance of holiday time in lieu. Those are the issues on which the action has been called. I shall do my best on behalf of the House to try to resolve it.

BILLS PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Mr. Secretary Rees, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Secretary Milian and Mr. Brynmor John presented a Bill to increase the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections and to enable the Secretary of State by order to vary the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary and other elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS ACT 1970 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Jack Ashley, supported by Mr. John Hannam and Mr. Bruce Grocott presented a Bill to amend the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Roads and Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

MENTAL HEALTH (TRIBUNALS)
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision with respect to appeals by patients to mental health review tribunals.
The House, in the exercise of its role in the law-making process, has regard to the responsibilities of individual citizens and also has regard to their rights. Among the most precious and fundamental of rights is that of any citizen not to be deprived of his or her liberty without due process of law. Most schoolchildren know of the writ of habeas corpus.
There is, however, one group in our society that enjoys no such automatic rights. I refer to those who are formally admitted—that is to say, compulsorily admitted—to mental hospitals because they are mentally ill and require treatment.
Residents who are detained in hospital through short-term compulsory orders have no right to apply for a mental health review tribunal. Over 90 per cent. of those compulsorily admitted in any average year have no right to apply for a tribunal, or to any other independent body.
The House has been waiting for a long time for the Government to produce their White Paper on the working of the Mental Health Act 1959, which is the present governing statute. The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, and the wheels of the Department of Health and Social Security turn much more slowly than most.
It is because I think that it would be sensible to wait to see whether the Government have any any proposals in their White Paper to rectify the situation that I have outlined that I am asking the House to give me leave to introduce a Bill that is much more humble in what it seeks to achieve.
The Bill addresses itself to the remaining 10 per cent. of formally admitted patients who do have the right to apply for a tribunal. These residents are those who have been admitted pursuant to Sections 26, 60, 65, 71 and 72 of the 1959 Act, and they are compulsory longterm admissions.
1220
The House may wonder why I should single out a group of patients who have a legal right already. The answer lies in the fact that for the most recent years for which figures are available only 12 per cent. of those eligible to apply have applied for a tribunal. It should be remembered that that is 12 per cent. of a group detained against its will. Such a low take-up suggests that something is wrong.
The problem is that to get the legal process under way the onus is on the patient to initiate proceedings. When it is appreciated that the patient may be under sedation or undergoing a course of treatment, is probably under stress and may not be aware of his or her rights, the reasons for the low take-up become apparent. After a comparatively short period patients can become institutionalised and suffer isolation and withdrawal. It is also not unknown for various forms of pressure to be put on patients not to apply for tribunals.
The Bill would seek to rectify that situation by making a referral to a mental health tribunal mandatory within three months of admission. That would not cause many patients to be released who should not be released. It would merely ensure that cases are automatically reviewed early and that the review happens without the patient having to start the ball rolling. The suggestion of automatic review has already been broadly welcomed by the Government in their consultative document on the 1959 Act.
The Bill will also seek to make certain improvements in tribunal procedures. There is genuine concern among the Council on Tribunals and within the Department of Health and Social Security about some aspects of current procedures.
The representatives of applicants seem not to be given medical reports until immediately prior to the hearings. Decisions on new evidence have been taken without the representative being present. Legal aid is not available beyond the legal advice scheme green form, which covers only the first £25 of advice.
Improvements are also needed in the "requests for a public hearing" and the "reasons for a decision" procedures. Once again, a Government Department is looking at the position—this time, the Lord Chancellor's departmental review on

1221
tribunal procedures. As the DHSS, the Home Office and the Welsh Office are also involved, it could be a very long time before anything emerges.
The 1959 Act was a very good Act and has served as the model for several other Acts in other countries. Nearly 20 years later, however, the shortcomings of the Act are very apparent and reform is needed. Other countries are ahead of us. Ontario, for example, which followed our 1959 Act with one of its own in 1961, is now having a debate between psychiatrists and administrators whether the automatic review should be after 15 days or one month.
The World Health Organisation, in a recent report, surveyed mental health legislation and compared this country less favourably with many American states and all the Scandinavian countries.
The incidence of mental stress and illness is growing, and one person in ten can expect to be mentally ill at some time. Mental patients are not the most appealing members of society, but they, as much as anyone else, deserve our sympathy and compassion. Through no fault of their own, they have become ill. Basic human rights are not things to be doled out only to decent chaps. Human rights belong just as vitally to those who may often be their own worst enemies. We are responsible for the welfare of these, our fellow citizens. The House is being asked to give a little hope and encouragement to them, which I sincerely hope it will now do.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mt. Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Eric Moonman, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr D. E. Thomas and Dr. Gerard Vaughan.

MENTAL HEALTH (TRIBUNALS)
  MENTAL HEALTH (TRIBUNALS)
  Mr. Geoffrey Patties accordingly presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to appeals by patients to mental health review tribunals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th July and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EMPLOYMENT (CONTINENTAL SHEIF) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now real the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 56(Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
  Clause 1

    THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.
    No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
    (e) one member to be appointed by Mr. Speaker after consultation with representatives of all minority parties.'.
    Mr. English: The object of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to take you out of politics. On the present basis, the proposed House of Commons Commission will consist of six persons: yourself, or your successor in office; my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, or his successor in office; the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), the Shadow Leader of the House, or presumably his successor in office; someone appointed, as the Bill puts it,
    "by the Leader of the Opposition"
    —a Front Bencher, in other words—and three Back Benchers, although the Bill does not put it in those terms.
    I understand that there is an institution, currently not yet existing, but lurking in the background, sometimes referred

    1223
    to as the Shadow Commission, which consists of one Labour Privy Councillor, one Liberal Privy Councillor and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Mr. Cooke), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench.
    The situation, therefore, would be that, in terms of the original parties for which Members were elected, for example, the Labour Party on such a Commission would have you, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is not inhibited in claiming to belong to the Labour Party, and another right hon. Member of the Labour Party. There would be three members from the Government side and three from the Opposition. That seems reasonable until we realise that one of those members is Mr. Speaker. That is quite inappropriate. It would clearly be better for the Commission to consist of seven members, three from the Government side, three from the Opposition and Mr. Speaker of the day impartially to act as Chairman.
    That is the sole object of the amendment. It is to ensure that the Commission is balanced so that half of it consists of representatives of the Government side, whether they be Front or Back Benchers, and the other half consists of representatives of the Opposition, whether they be Front or Back Benchers, with Mr. Speaker of the day acting as Chairman of that body and not being forced to be part of either the Government or the Opposition.
    Mr. Robert Mellish: I suppose that I should wait to hear what the Government have to say on the amendment. It seemed to me that three was the right figure. The idea was that one member would be from the Government of the day, one member would be from the Opposition and the other member—perhaps the Government will correct me if I am wrong—would be by agreement with the smaller parties. The Liberals, the Scot Nats, if they ever come back—I hope that they do not—and the Ulster Unionists would have to get together, have a chat and decide who should be their member. That is how I see the composition of the three. I am not sure what four would do.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): I understood that the intention of having four rather than three members was to provide the Government of the day with a clear majority on the Commission.
    Mr. English: I think that we should get this matter clear. The intention is to ensure that the governing party—not the Government, as my hon. Friend said—should be represented by half the Commission. At the moment it has two out of five if we exclude Mr. Speaker. If we include Mr. Speaker, it has half. However, I do not think that we should classify Mr. Speaker as part of the governing party, still less of the Government.
    Mr. Price: My hon. Friend and I have met somewhere in the middle. This change is designed to ensure that, if necessary, there will be a voting majority on the Commission. Some of us believe that the intention of the Bill in setting up the Commission is to keep it on a non-voting basis, and certainly one which does not have too much regard for the politics in this Chamber. That is why I resist the amendment.
    The Bottomley Committee recommended a Commission of six members: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House, the official Opposition's nominee and three Back Benchers. It will be for the House to choose the three Back Benchers. But assuming, as recommended by the Bottomley Committee, that one of the Back Benchers were from the minority parties, the party representation on the Commission would probably be one Government Front Bencher, one Government Back Bencher, one Opposition Front Bencher, one Opposition Back Bencher and one minority party representative. In so far as Mr. Speaker as Chairman would be unlikely to vote, except in the event of a tie, the party balance would be likely to lie with the minority party representative. If Back-Bench representation were increased to four members, as proposed in the amendment, the Government would he likely to have parity, even if opposed by the minority party representative, and Mr. Speaker would be more likely to be placed in the position of having to exercise his casting vote.
    I repeat, the Commission is envisaged as essentially a House of Commons, not

    1225
    a party, body. It was not expected by the Bottomley Committee that it would have recourse to voting. In Committee I offered to look at this matter because I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had a good point. Having looked at it, I think that on balance we should leave the position as it is.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'which shall' and insert
    'and shall cause it to'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
    Mr. Price: This is a drafting improvement to an amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller), and accepted in Committee, to provide that the annual reports of the Commission's exercise of its functions shall be printed. The amendment has the effect of placing an obligation specifically on the Commission to ensure that this is done, otherwise, the responsibility for action would be left in the air.
    In practice, it is likely that the House will notify in Votes and Proceedings and the Journal of the House that it has ordered the report to be printed, thus bringing the report within the scope of the Parliamentary Papers Act, 1840.
    Amendment No. 21 involves verbal usage. It is more normal to speak of revoking a delegation than of rescinding it. Amendment No. 22 is a verbal tidying up and simplification and substitutes one word for four words. It provides that delegations of the Commission's powers should be referred to in the Commission's annual report. The amendment was agreed to in Committee. I recommend that the House accepts the amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 3

    FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
    Mr. English: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 37 leave out 'the service' and insert
    'or in connection with the administration'.
    1226
    There has been a great deal of argument about this amendment and those connected with it which have not been selected. Those amendments which have not been selected are Nos. 12 and 18. When they were tabled by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and myself, we were told by those who advise us on these matters that it was less likely that an amendment would be found to be in order if it included the question of Members' pay, which is concealed under subhead Al in Amendment No. 18.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is under a misapprehension. He can speak only to Amendment No. 8, which I gather is a probing amendment. All the other amendments dealing with Members' salaries are out of order.
    Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can discuss the matter on a point of order.
    I understood from the Clerk's Department that it was conceivable that you would be able to find all three amendments in order if they excluded Members' pay, but that it was inconceivable that you would find them in order if they included Members' pay. That seems to have happened.
    Members of the House of Commons trust you, Mr. Speaker, and your Commission perhaps more than they trust the Treasury on the question of their pay. The original suggestion that was put to me was that all three of the amendments would be ruled out of order. I was hoping that the compromise was that we could discuss Amendment No. 8 and the issues raised by all three amendments but that it would be impossible to put them all to the vote.
    Mr. Speaker: I should have liked to help the hon. Member and the House. I have leant over backwards in an effort to do so.
    I must tell the hon. Member that the Clerks do not decide what is in order and what is out of order. Let that be quite clear. The hon. Member must always indicate that he knows who decides what is in order. That trust has been given to me. I do not take it kindly when there is any indication that I am

    1227
    a rubber stamp for anyone. I decide what I believe is in order.
    I shall give a ruling to the hon. Member. My view is that Amendment No. 18, which is his main amendment of substance, is not in order since it contains references to Subheads Al and A8 of Class XIII, Vote 2 of the Civil Estimates which refer respectively to Members' salaries and cognate expenses, and contributions to the parliamentary contributory pensions scheme. In my view these matters are entirely outside the scope of the Bill. I have looked at it very carefully. The Bill is concerned solely with the internal administration in this House and with the expenses connected with our affairs. The fixing of the amount of Members' salaries and other emoluments has never formed part of any previous legislation in connection with the administration of the House. Parliamentary contributory pensions, as the hon. Member knows, are dealt with in separate legislation to which this Bill makes no reference.
    Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. But if you look up Hansard you will see that I was careful not to say that the Clerks of the House determine what is in order and what is not. I was careful not to suggest that that was not your prerogative.
    What I said was that before you, Mr. Speaker, had made your decision I was informed by the Clerks that they thought it more likely that you would find in order an amendment which excluded the question of Members' pay than the opposite. I added that that was what seems to have happened. Their advice in this context seems to have been correct.
    It would have been impossible for previous legislation on the subject of a Commission of this House to include any question of Members' pay because in 1812 and 1814 Members were not paid. With respect to you, Mr. Speaker, your suggestion that previous legislation on the internal administration of the House did not include Members' pay is because more than a century before Members' pay was instituted it was not possible for such legislation to envisage it.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is correct. But he will also know that since he has not succeeded in getting the salaries of Members included on the Order Paper
    1228
    he is not able to debate the matter. That is all that I am telling him. He must confine himself to what is before the House.
    Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. We have had the opportunity of making the relevant point.
    The issue surrounding Amendment No. 8 is that the Bill relates to the administration of the House of Commons. In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I shall assume that Members of the House of Commons have nothing to do with its administration. But the Bill does not accept in its terminology what is in the Long Title. The object of the amendment is to determine the situation.
    Clause 3(1) reads
    "For the year 1979–80 and each subsequent financial year the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House Departments and, to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons."
    The words "expenses" and "service" are part of the cause of the difficulty. The Title of the Bill reads:
    "To make further provision for the administration of the House of Commons."
    It says that it is for its "administration" not its "service". The Chair has just ruled that Members of the House of Commons should have nothing to do with its administration which apparently exists to serve itself. The Bill does not even admit the administration of the House of Commons. It merely refers to the "service" of the House of Commons.
    During Committee I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what this meant. For example, did it mean that when a Select Committee recruited from outside a professor at Cambridge, a senior partner of a firm of actuaries or accountants or advisers of the type that Select Committees now recruit, we are to be forced to pay them only the travelling expenses which the Treasury allows to consultants, or will the House of Commons Commission be able to say "No, you will be able to pay these men what they are worth. They are not permanent staff of the House of Commons, but as long as they are assisting the House of Commons they may be paid what they are undoubtedly worth to it."? Will it be possible for that to be done?

    1229
    4.0 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Minister gave a fair answer when he said that he did not know what the clause meant in effect but that he would send me a letter. He fulfilled his assurance to the full. From his letter it appears that the Estimates of the House of Commons, as they have always been envisaged in the past, will now be split into two. One set of Estimates will be the responsibility of yourself and your colleagues on the new Commission, Mr. Speaker. The other set of Estimates will remain with the Treasury as its responsibility.
    As recently as last September the Expenditure Committee produced a report on the Civil Service, but it suggested that parliamentary surveillance over the Civil Service was a matter of some importance. In the course of its report it suggested that the Bottomley Committee's recommendation, or what it thought was the Bottomley Committee's recommendation, was a matter of some importance. That was that control over the Estimates of the House of Commons should be transferred from the Treasury to the new House of Commons Commission under the Bill.
    We therefore suggested that the Bill was a highly desirable one and that we hoped it would be brought forward shortly. It was brought forward shortly, but, strangely, someone somewhere had been playing about with the simple straightforward recommendation that those Estimates should be transferred to the control of the new Commission. By a mysterious coincidence it would seem—and I stress the word "seem", because there is a great deal of uncertainty, which my amendment is aimed at clarifying—that the House of Commons Commission will have undoubted control over the Estimates for the permanent staff of the House of Commons except that it must keep that staff in line, under another clause, with the regulations of the Treasury and the Civil Service Department.
    It is not clear what
    "expenses…for the service of the House of Commons"
    may mean. I do not know what it means. I understand that when this general subject was discussed in the Shadow Commission and in the appropriate group of
    1230
    the Labour Party—and I was present on the latter occasion—this point was not observed. I fully accept my personal responsibility for that fact on the latter occasion. It is by no means clear what has been transferred to the House of Commons. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be telling us in due course.
    Mr. William Price: I wish to be helpful if I can and I therefore quote, as my hon. Friend has quoted, from Clause 3(1) which goes very wide, if that is what the Commission chooses to do, and refers to "or any other expenses". If the Commission so chooses, that could include accommodation, printing and a number of other matters. We are not specifying those matters in the Bill, however, because we believe that that would be premature. This is a matter for the Commission.
    Mr. English: My hon. Friend has revealed another slight lacuna in this whole problem. My earlier amendment suggested that the Commission should have upon it a majority belonging at least to the Government party, if not to the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister proposed, and the House accepted, that it should have a majority belonging to the Opposition. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm, as is probably the case, that this Act in effect amends the Standing Orders of the House. I presume that an Act does that since it is obviously superior to the Standing Orders of the House. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Act therefore allows the Commission to propose increases in expenditure without the consent of the Treasury?
    The Bill reads:
    "to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons."
    That is not very specific, and it is not a good means of financial control either. For example, in a given year, at a given time of year, the Treasury prepares Estimates under the heading Vote 2, Class XIII/A7. That is concerned with the Refreshment Department, if my hon. Friend wants it spelled out. At that stage the Treasury may prepare that, because the Commission may not have decided that it is an expense of the House of Commons. Then, suddenly, in the middle

    1231
    of the year the Commission may decide, if my hon. Friend is right, that this is an expense of the House of Commons. The Treasury's control ceases even before the question has been approved by the House. All responsibility for it, if my hon. Friend is right, vanishes from the Treasury and moves to the Commission. That seems to be the implication of the Bill which reads, "the Commission may determine". But that is not a good means of financial control over any institution. I would have thought that it was better to spell out in the Bill exactly which Estimates will come under the control of the Commission and which will remain with the Treasury.
    There is a vagueness about just how far the Commission can go. If the Commission lasts for as long as the previous Commission, it will last at least 150 years. In the course of that time it may increase its scope or find its scope reduced by the Treasury. But would it not be better to put in the Bill that it has power over the Estimates of the House of Commons full stop, instead of providing that it has power over some of the Estimates and that it may determine for itself which others it may have power over provided that the Treasury, presumably, does not disagree with it?
    What will happen if there is an ultimate conflict? I suppose that someone on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission, will have to go to court and say that the Treasury is wrong, that the Commission has decided what are expenses of the House of Commons, that the Treasury disagrees and that the High Court must make a declaration as to which of them is right. I do not think that most hon. Members would wish the High Court to determine what are and what are not our expenses. We would prefer that all the Estimates of the House of Commons on all reasonable issues—everything from Members' pay to the lavatory paper—should be the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission. Perhaps one would say that if the House went totally mad and wanted to build a new building, that would not be an appropriate matter for the Commission to decide without the Treasury being consulted, but that on all the normal running expenses of the House we clearly should be consulted through our new institution, the Commission. I
    1232
    see that a Treasury Minister, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, is anxious to bring this debate to a halt. He presumably does not like this discussion of the powers of the Treasury.
    Mr. Mellish: He does not understand what my hon. Friend is talking about, that is why.
    Mr. English: Ex-Treasury Ministers tend to have the same attitude.
    Mr. Mellish: It is all gobbledegook.
    Mr. English: They all believe that the Treasury should have these powers. Most legislatures throughout the world, including Congress and the European assemblies, determine their own Estimates for their own future expenditure. The question is not decided by the Government for which that legislature is theoretically responsible. That is, in effect, what is being proposed in this amendment.
    Mr. Terence Higgins: The amendment might help to clarify the wording of the clause which to me appears remarkably obscure. I have one or two specific points to raise.
    The first point at issue is whether the expression "House of Commons" is defined anywhere in the Bill, or is defined elsewhere and is applicable to the Bill. My impression is that that is not so. No doubt if I am wrong the Minister will seek to clarify the point.
    The clause is concerned with the expenses incurred for, in the present wording,
    "the service of the House of Commons."
    It is not clear from the wording whether that means the House of Commons as a building or the Members of the House of Commons. I myself would presume that the expression "the House of Commons" means the Members of the House of Commons as a group. If that is so, I should have thought that it would be reasonable to interpret this clause as covering, for example, the salaries of Members and certainly the salaries of Members' secretaries.
    Mr. Mellish: I do not understand what this debate is all about. Clause2—
    Mr. English: We are not on Clause 2. We are on Clause 3.
    Mr. Mellish: I know—but listen, thickhead. Clause 2 relates to what are the functions of the Commission. Clause 1 sets up the Commission. Clause 2 is concerned with the functions of the Commission, and Clause 3 contains the financial provisions to enable it to carry out its functions. With great respect to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)—I think that I understand what he is trying to say—the first part of Clause 2 says:
    "The Commission shall appoint all staff in the House Departments, and shall determine their numbers and their remuneration and other terms and conditions of service."
    That is what the Commission's job is. It is the administration of the House. That is what the Bill is all about. I do not know how we have got into this other tangle about the pay of Members of Parliament and everything else.
    Mr. Higgins: Perhaps I may seek to clarify the point about which I am concerned. I understand very well that Clause 3 must be related to Clause 2 but, none the less, that is precisely what the amendment is about, as I understand it. Clause 3 says
    "for the service of the House of Commons."
    I do not see that it necessarily follows that Clause 2 overrides Clause 3. However, I shall be very happy if the Minister will state his view and if, in particular, he will state categorically that he has not the slightest doubt that the wording of the Bill is adequate to carry out what he believes the intention of the Bill to be. But I am not immediately convinced about that point.
    The second matter I wish to raise is that Clause 3 says
    "the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year."
    I am somewhat concerned not only about the expression "prepare", which the Commission might do like any other Government Department, but about the expression "lay before the House". This is a matter which was touched upon a moment or two ago.
    I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is quite right in saying that an Act of this House would overrule a Standing Order, but I think that the particular Standing Order about which he is concerned is one which, in
    1234
    effect, gives the Government of the day a monopoly of the right to propose expenditure. It would not, therefore, be possible for us to carry an Act which did that unless that Act or, rather, the Bill before the House had received the Royal Assent agreeing that the Royal Prerogative should be given up in that respect. I agree that this is not a simple matter, but that is my understanding of it.
    None the less, as the clause is now drafted it says that the Estimate shall be laid before the House. It should, as I understand it, be laid before the House by the Commission, and not, as would normally be the case, by someone who was moving it on behalf of the Government.
    This is obviously a very important matter, because if that is what it did—and I think it is arguable that that is what the wording would do—we should not only be in conflict with the Standing Order, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West rightly said could be overridden by an Act, but we should be out of order ourselves, because we should be passing an Act, now represented by the Bill, which would override the monopoly of the Government, or the Queen, to propose expenditure.
    I have grave doubts on both of these points with regard to the wording, but naturally I should appreciate the Minister's comments on them.
    Mr. William Price: I do not think that anybody has ever tried to conceal the fact that as far as the financial independence of the House of Commons is concerned the changes are quite modest. There is a certain vagueness about the present situation, and I readily concede that. How does one define an expense? How does one define what might be capital expenditure? Where does the Treasury fit into the new arrangements?
    I think that the matter can be handled only on the basis of talks between people and a good deal of common sense. However, I would not have thought that it would be necessary for the Commission to ask the Treasury for a sum of money to improve the plumbing in this House. I would have thought, however, that if it were suddenly decided that we needed to spend a substantial sum of money on a new parliamentary building, that would

    1235
    be a matter which clearly the Treasury would have to look at carefully.
    What I am saying is that the effect of this amendment would be to amend the cope of the proposed new Commission Estimate under Clause 3(1) to include expenses in connection with the administration of the House of Commons instead of expenses incurred for the service of the House of Commons, on the presumption that the administration is wider than the service, and I do not believe that that is so. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) believes that a situation could arise in which it would be so, I would seek to give him the assurance, as far as I am concerned—and I have taken all the advice that is available to me on this matter —that that is not the case.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. English: I am sure that my hon. Friend may be right. He also may be wrong. Will he answer a simple question? Does he agree with me that the courts will have to determine the matter, and will he say that the House of Commons Commission would need legal personality in order to secure a declaration from the courts that the Commission is right and the Treasury is wrong, if the Treasury and the Commission happened to disagree?
    Mr. Price: I suppose that, ultimately, everything could be discussed and decided in the courts, but I do not envisage that situation ever arising. I should have thought that we had made it fairly clear in Clause 3(1) that the Commission had considerable powers over presenting its Estimates on any expense that it considered justifiable and legitimate. I believe that that is as far as we should go today.
    Mr. English: But in 150 years—that is how long the last Commission lasted—it is just possible that the Commission at some time might disagree with the Treasury over what its powers were. I put it no higher than that. It is just possible that in 150 years it might disagree with the Treasury. If it did, my hon. Friend says that he does not think that the matter would be taken to court. He may, again, be right about that. How does he suggest that this vague set of words would be adjudicated upon?
    Mr. Price: I would suggest that the only way in which this could work would be for discussions to take place in the normal way. This goes on all the time between Departments and the Treasury over demands for money. I should have thought that there was no other way in which one could do this and that there would be a Treasury involvement in public expenditure. There is a Treasury involvement.
    What I am saying is that whilst these changes are relatively modest, they are, nevertheless, important in the sense that they give the Commission greater powers over spending money on services than we have had in the past, and that is a step in the right direction. However, I do not seek to conceal the fact—I began by saying this—that it is a relatively modest change, and I understand that that is what was envisaged all along.
    Perhaps I may add a comment. The Bill as it now stands would make it possible for the Commission to consider with Ministers, for example, House printing or accommodation, in the Commission's Estimates. I know that the main argument against any provision to do so in the Bill is that any such decision would be entirely premature until the Commission has had an opportunity of considering whether such steps would be desirable or practical.
    I come back to the point that I tried to make a moment ago. This is one of the reasons why there is a certain vagueness about what exactly is meant, because it is not at all clear at this stage which role the Commission will seek to take upon itself and which responsibilities it will wish to assume. That is something that will be clear in due course.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Is not the answer that in fact as the Bill is drafted the Commission will have power to do virtually whatever it believes right in the interests of the House, but, nevertheless, it would be prudent, as the Minister said, for the Commission to consult the Treasury? As the Bill is drawn, the Commission has the absolute right to do as it pleases.
    Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman has put it far better than I had done. That is exactly the situation as I understand it and I think that the House could take

    1237
    the view that this is as far as we could go.
    Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On the broad point, my hon. Friend has used the arguments that he used in Standing Committee, saying that this was premature because the Commission had not considered it. Surely this is an argument, is it not, which could be used against almost any change. For instance, was it not an argument which could have been used in relation to some other changes in the Bill in Standing Committee? Clearly, the House must make up its mind how it wants this place administered.
    Mr. Price: I gave assurances upstairs that we would be requesting the Commission—and I can put it no stronger—to take a very early look at some of the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred. Printing is one of them, and others think that the Catering Department and its future should be another. We gave that assurance. I cannot, and nor would my hon. Friend, I suspect, wish, to give any direction to the Commission. That does, not arise. But we can certainly ask the Commission to look at these matters urgently and to come back to the House if necessary. I would say to my hon. Friend that this Bill gives to the House of Commons independence in the presentation of Estimates within the scope of Clause 3 (1), but as I understand it, it was never intended to take the House of Commons completely outside the general framework of the control of public expenditure. Under the Bill as it stands the Commission has power to include within the scope of its Estimates any expenses related to the service of the House of Commons and we do not see this being any narrower than is proposed in the amendment. On that basis I ask the House to reject it.
    Mr. Higgins: I do not consider that a very satisfactory reply. The hon. Gentle man has not answered my second point. It is not good enough to say that this will be a matter of common sense, for if it were all a matter of common sense we would not need the Bill at all.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have only just taken over the Chair but I understand that the hon.
    1238
    Member has already spoken on this amendment.
    Mr. Higgins: I was intervening.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may speak if he asks leave of the House, and if it is granted I shall allow him to continue.
    Mr. Higgins: May I ask leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I feel it right that one should have an answer on the highly technical point I have raised? This is not a matter of partisan debate in any way. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to press that point.
    If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that in some matters with regard to the actual provision of services of the House the Commission would be able, in effect, to put matters forward whether or not the Treasury objected, and that in other respects the Commission would not be able to do so. That is what I understood the Minister to say. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily unusual proposition. I hope he will reply to my other point—whether in the clause we are debating, and in the context of the amendment we are debating, the expression
    "shall prepare and lay an estimate before the House"
    means that the Commission will in fact present and lay the Estimate and that that will not be done by a Government Minister. This is a crucial and very important point.
    Mr. William Price: I can deal with the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman more easily than with the first. It is my understanding that it will come from and be presented by the Commission.
    On the first point, we are in a grey area. There is a degree of vagueness here. But if the hon. Gentleman is asking for a technical answer, I suspect that it is a fundamental rule of our procedures that a charge cannot be taken into consideration unless it is demanded by the Crown or recommended from the Crown and no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Crown. That is what my note says, and it is certainly my understanding.
    Mr. Higgins: It is very difficult on Report to make this kind of point. I am not unaware of the point that has been made by the hon. Gentleman but the first part of his reply is quite inconsistent with the second part. If the Commission is to lay the Estimate before the House, that overrides the long-standing tradition, going back I believe to the year 1500 if not to 1300, that it can be done only by the Government. We should know whether the Commission is to be allowed to present Estimates to the House or whether only the Government may do so.
    Mr. Price: The Commission may do so.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: When I intervened I was concerned about the general position of the Refreshment Department and I am glad that my hon. Friend gave us the assurance he gave that he and the Government want the Commission to look at this Department. The House should bear in mind that we have already had a full inquiry into this Department under my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), which recommended, after considerable investigation, that it should be a separate Department. Unless considerable action has been taken since that report was produced there is a need for a tremendous amount of change in that Department, as recommended in the report. There is a need for an improvement in the terms and conditions of service of the staff there.
    One of the ways of bringing that about, and doing so rapidly, is for the Commission to establish it as a separate Department of the House so that it can have the correct status and so that its staff are employed by the Commission and there is no doubt about their status here or about the terms and conditions under which they serve the House. I would reinforce the point made by the Minister and would hope that the Commission will get on and give consideration to this very important Department of the House which on some occasions in the past has received very shabby treatment from hon. Members—not as individuals, but from the House as a whole.
    Mr. Arthur Bottomley: If hon. Gentlemen who have raised queries about the Commission and its responsibility will take it from me, my
    1240
    opinion is that the Commission will be in charge, like a Government Department preparing its Estimates, but it will not be able to authorise them. The Government will have control over that. That is my impression.
    Dr. Glyn: Let us be clear that under the wording in the Bill it will have to be the Commission and not a Treasury officer who comes to present Estimates. I do not see anything abnormal in that. It still has to go through Parliament. It may he said that 700 years a Treasury Minister has had to do it, but I have no objection to the Commission doing it, for it would probably do it better than a Treasury Minister.
    Mr. English rose—
    Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend has already spoken.
    Mr. English: My right hon. Friend was only Chief Whip. He forgets Standing Order No. 55. You do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: What do I not forget?
    Mr. English: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), you do not forget Standing Order No. 55, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a rather strange statement in answer to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). He said he was advised that whatever the Commission presented to Parliament would need the Treasury's consent. He was advised that that was some kind of fundamental rule of the constitution. I do not believe that there are many fundamental rules of the British constitution. They are laid down mainly by this House or by the courts of law. But it has certainly been held by the courts that an Act of Parliament which has been passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent overrules a mere Resolution of this House of Commons. I believe the case is Boles v. Bank of England earlier in this century.
    The situation, therefore, is that my hon. Friend must be wrong for the simple reason that the rule about not imposing a charge on the people unless it is proposed by a Treasury Minister is merely a Standing Order of this House. I believe

    1241
    that it is a Standing Order which was passed shortly after the Restoration in 1660. It is not a basic rule going back to the Middle Ages. It is a very simple Standing Order of the House which could be altered or amended by the House, and my hon. Friend is proposing that it probably should be, but it would certainly be amended by Act of Parliament anyway.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. William Price: We should get this point absolutely clear if we can. If I have muddied the water, I apologise to all concerned. I take my guidance from subsection (1), which says clearly:
    "the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House Departments and, to such extent as the Commission may determine, of any other expenses incurred for the service of the House"
    Mr. English: It does not say that that Estimate may be an increase on the preceding year. That is the point that is being made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
    Mr. Price: I do not think that I suggested—if I did, I was wrong—that the Commission had the power to authorise that increase. What I am saying is that it has the power to prepare and to present the Estimate and that the matter will be subject to the usual discussions.
    Mr. English: The confusion is worse confounded. Not even the Treasury has the power to authorise it. Only this House has that power. The real question is, can it come before the House without the Treasury's consent? My hon. Friend is conspicuously evading answering that question. It may be that he does not know the answer. If that is so, why is he not honest enough to say so? He has been asked the question from both sides of the House. It is a very simple one. The Bill says:
    "the Commission shall prepare and lay before the House of Commons an estimate for that year of the expenses of the House"—
    Mr. Mellish: That is obvious. It is so obvious that I do not know why we are talking about it.
    Mr. English: My right hon. Friend seems to think that it is obvious. I am grateful to him. I take it that he thinks
    1242
    that the subsection means that the Treasury's power over the Estimates of the House ceases once the Bill receives the Royal Assent, to the extent that Clause 3 (1) says. It is somewhat vague as to what that extent is.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be trying to evade the issue. He seems to be saying at one point that the Treasury's power continues and at another point that it ceases. Which is the case? That is all he has been asked by the hon. Member for Worthing and myself.
    The object of the amendment is very simple. We, the majority of Members, wish to have the same power over the expenditure of the House as other legislatures in other countries have. We assumed that Clause 3 (1) gave that power to the Commission which would represent the House. My hon. Friend is not saying that that is so, nor, clearly, is he saying that it is not.
    Will my hon. Friend clearly and specifically say whether the Treasury's former power over the Estimates of the House is transferred by the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to the Commission? It is a very clear question. It is a matter of great importance to every hon. Member, every Committee of the House and every officer of the House. Will my hon. Friend kindly answer it, clearly and simply?
    Mr. Francis Pym: It seems to me that, arising out of the debate on the amendment, and not absolutely directly related to its wording, a substantial issue has arisen. The House would like a substantive explanation of the Government's view on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
    We are on Report, and there is no motion for Third Reading. I suggest that the Government should make in another place a substantive statement on what is a very fundamental issue.
    The question is, how do we authorise expenditure? Until now, it has always been done by the Treasury, by the Government, moving a motion from the Government Dispatch Box. We are now making what is recognised on all sides to be a departure, in that the Commission

    1243
    will lay before the House an estimate of expenditure for the House.
    There seems to be a conflict there with previous practice. The point had not occurred to me before I listened to the debate, but I think that it is very important. The most appropriate way to handle it may be for the Government to make a substantive statement in another place when the Bill is considered there.
    Mr. William Price: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, which I think is helpful.
    I began by saying that I thought we were in a greyish area and that there was a degree of vagueness. I have made the position as clear as I can, but if what I have said does not satisfy the House, I undertake to do what the hon. Gentleman asks so that there shall be no misunderstandings.
    Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but I am a little doubtful whether it is possible to make a statement on this issue in another place. Perhaps I may take the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to mean that if it is not possible the statement will be made here, which I think would in any case be more appropriate.
    What worries me fundamentally is that if the hon. Gentleman is correct in his answer—that the Commission will prepare and lay an Estimate before this House, contrary to all precedent, which is what only the Government can do that—the Bill might well be proceeding through the House without the Royal Assent having been given to its being debated when it should have been given. If that is so, we shall be committing a very unusual act.
    I hope that in making a response on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that point into account.
    Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President can be formally conceived to have nodded assent.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 4

    THE HOUSE DEPARTMENTS
    Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 12 at end insert—
    "(1A) In this section 'the Department of the Official Report of the House of Commons' means that branch of the Department of the Speaker which immediately before the passing of this Act had the function of producing that Report, and accordingly on that passing that branch shall become a separate department and shall cease to be part of the Department of the Speaker, without prejudice however to any power exercisable by the Commission in relation to either department under subsection (2) below.".
    In Committee an amendment was accepted providing that the Department of the Official Report of the House of Commons should be added to the list of House Departments in subsection (1). The Department of the Official Report is at present a constituent part of the Speaker's Department, and without a formal separate identity. The effect of the amendment is to remove any doubt as to what is meant by
    "the Department of the Official Report of the House of Commons"
    at subsection (1)(f), and to establish its separate identity from the Department of the Speaker as soon as the Bill is enacted.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 5

    SHORT TITLE, ETC.
    Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 12 leave out "1st August 1978" and insert "1st January 1979".
    The effect of the amendment is to defer the Commission's assumption of its staffing responsibilities as the statutory employer of staff in the House Departments from 1st August 1978 until 1st January 1979. I apologise for the change. I think it regrettable, but we believe it to be inevitable.
    It had been hoped earlier that the Bill would be enacted in time to provide a sufficient interval between Royal Assent and 1st August to enable the Commission to assume its statutory employer responsibilities on that date. The minimum period required between Royal

    1245
    Assent and the Commission's assumption of its employer responsibilities is estimated at about one month. This should enable the full Commission to be appointed and the necessary preliminary administrative arrangements to be made —for example, establishment of the Board of Management, the appropriate delegation of powers, the appointment of the accounting officer and the like. It would seem essential for the House to be in Session during this period and thus for Members and officials to be available.
    It now seems impossible for all the stages of the Bill, including passage through the House of Lords, to be completed before mid-July at the earliest. There will thus not be a sufficient interval before the Summer Recess, and 1st August to enable the 1st August implementation date to stand.
    The amendment accordingly proposes a new implementation date for Clause 2, and related provisions, of 1st January 1979. That would seem the earliest convenient date which will with certainty give the House enough time, after Royal Assent and whilst in Session, to elect the Back Bench members of the Commission and for the Commission and officials to make the necessary administrative preparations before the Commission takes on its staffing responsibilities.
    The commencement date—Estimates for 1979–80—for the Commission to take over responsibility for presenting the Estimates for House Departments, dealt with in Clause 3(1), is unaffected.
    I repeat that I think it a pity that we have had to do this, but we see no alternative. I hope that the House will approve.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1

    SCHEDULE 1—THE COMMISSION
    Mr. William Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 5, line 27, at beginning insert
    'Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Amendment No. 20.
    Mr. Price: Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 as at present drafted all members of the Commission can remain Commissioners after a Dissolution until—in
    1246
    the case of ex officio members such as Mr. Speaker and the Leader of the House—other persons are appointed to their offices or, in the case of the non-ex officio members, for example, the nominee of the Leader of the Opposition and the three Back Benchers, other members are appointed or nominated in their places.
    The purpose and effect of the amendment is to provide that, in the case of non-ex officio members of the Commission, they shall be required, following a Dissolution, to resign from the Commission "forthwith" if "it appears" that they have either not been nominated as a candidate at the ensuing General Election or, having been nominated, are not elected. The effect of the amendment, accordingly, is that such ex officio members of the Commission will not be entitled to remain Commissioners until their successors are nominated or appointed.
    Mr. English: I am grateful to the Government for tabling this amendment, which arises in response to an amendment which I moved in Committee when an assurance was given that the Government would stop this extraordinary likelihood that people who might even be in another place would be sitting on the Commission representing this House. I think that the Government have dealt with the matter, with one possible exception. I can see why the Government wish to continue with Mr. Speaker in office even if he is not standing again for Parliament or is not re-elected. He would continue in office, presumably, until his successor was selected. I can see why the same might apply to the Lord President of the Council who, again, would continue in office until his successor was appointed, if there was a change of Government.
    I am not quite clear why this provision should apply to a Shadow Leader of the House. I think that it is extremely unlikely, but it might be that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) decided not to stand at the next General Election and took a peerage instead He would, apparently, still be entitled to sit on the House of Commons Commission. The amendment is nearly right but I wonder whether, on the way between here and another place, my hon. Friend will see whether a bit of tidying up is necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 20, in page 5, line 29, leave out from "place" to end of line 30 and insert—
    "(3) Where at any time after Parliament has been dissolved it appears that a member of the Commission who is not an ex officio member—

    (a) has not been validly nominated as a candidate at the ensuing general election; or

    (b) although so nominated, has not been elected a Member of Parliament at that election,

    that member shall resign from the Commission forthwith; but nothing in sub-paragraph (2) above or this sub-paragraph shall be taken as preventing any such member from resigning otherwise than in pursuance of this sub-paragraph.".
    No. 21, in page 6, line 6, leave out "rescindment" and insert "revocation".
    No. 22, in page 6, line 7, leave out "presented in accordance with" and insert "under".—[Mr. William Price.]
    4.45 p.m.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
    "(5) Notwithstanding any delegation under this paragraph, the Commission shall retain the ultimate responsibility for considering representations made in relation to matters affecting the interests, in connection with their employment, of staff in the House Departments by trade unions who are recognised by the Commission in respect of such staff, and for the conduct of consultations and negotiations about such maters with those trade unions.
    (6) In sub-paragraph (5) above "trade union" has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and "recognised", in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in Part IV of the Employment Protection Act 1975.".
    We have made good progress with the Bill so far and I hope that we can make equally good progress with this amendment. I hope to put the point to the House in a way which will win the general acceptance of bon Members.
    The purpose of the amendment is to confirm the ultimate responsibility of the new House of Commons Commission for considering representations from recognised trade unions on behalf of the staff of the House notwithstanding any delegation of its staffing powers to heads of House Departments. Under the provisions of the Bill the Commission will become the employer of staff employed in the House Departments. The Com-
    1248
    mission will thus become responsible, as employed, in respect of matters arising from the body of employment legislation applied to the staff of the House by Section 122 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, as amended by paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of this Bill. This includes rights in relation to trade union recognition and what follows from this, set out in Sections 11 to 15 of the Employment Protection Act 1975.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear in Committee, when this question was raised, that staff representatives would already have the opportunity, without the need for an amendment of this kind, to make their case direct to the Commission on points which they had been unable to resolve through the usual consultative procedures. Since then, however, it has been strongly represented to me by a number of hon. Members and by union representatives that an explicit statutory confirmation of the position in the Bill would be welcomed.
    I am aware that fears have been expressed to the effect that such a provision might lead to abuse and that unions might insist on their right of access to the Commission to an unreasonable extent. I do not believe that these fears are justified. The amendment makes it quite clear that the Commission's responsibility is an ultimate responsibility I am confident that the unions will recognise that their right of access must be used with discrimination and that they must recognise the existence of that word "ultimate" and that the normal channels for staff representations must first he fully utilised before such a step is taken.
    As for non-union members of the stall —and I realise that there are considerable numbers of such people—this provision in no way restricts the Commission from considering their representations, as the Commission may decide. It is one of the principal aims of this legislation, as it was of the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), to foster the development of full consultative procedures among the staff of the House and in the working of the Whitley system. In confirming the Commission's responsibilities as a statutory employer in this forthright way the amendment will make an important contribution towards this aim. It is for that

    1249
    reason that I commend the amendment to the House.
    I know that some concern has been expressed in the discussions that have taken place that in some way or other we were doing something different from that which I have sought to describe this afternoon. I can assure the House that that is not the case. What I should like to emphasise—and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough will confirm this—is that one of the reasons for the establishment of this Commission is that we believe that it will make an important contribution to better relations in the House of Commons and in its administration generally. It is partly for that reason that I put the amendment forward. There are many other major reasons, concerning the whole administration of the House of Commons, which led to the establishment of my right hon. Friend's Committee and to its report, but one of the factors that we have had in mind has been the necessity to attempt to improve relations generally.
    That is the sole purpose of this amendment. I believe that what we are doing is carrying out the general spirit of what we said in our Committee discussions. I had a report from my hon. Friend about the Committee proceedings and I read the report of those proceedings. What we have put forward is in full conformity with what was said in Committee. It is solely in that respect that we have brought forward this amendment. I very much hope that the House will agree to it. It is a modest improvement but none the less an improvement.
    Mr. Pym: I rise to oppose this amendment and to say that I regret that the Government decided to table it. I do not think, and nor do many of my hon. Friends, that it will have the beneficial effect which the Lord President has said he hopes it will have. The amendment concerns the question of the access of the staff and its representatives to the Commission.
    The first reason why I regret the amendment is that it is essentially unnecessary. By implication it indicates the possibility of a lack of trust, a lack of mutual confidence within this building, and I do not think that that is the position.
    1250
    Everybody knows that the staff side has direct access to the authorities in this House and, in the context of the Bill, has and would have access to the Commission. No one at any stage has suggested anything else. We all wish for that normal direct access to be available, and I think that all of us on each side of the House would see to it that that was so. Speaking for myself and my hon. Friends, I can say that we have received no representations of any kind which suggest anything else.
    The Minister, in Committee, gave an assurance about direct access. Quite frankly, I do not think that that is in dispute. We all know and accept that what he said then is true. Nevertheless, as the Leader of the House said just now, some representations on the staff side have been made to some Members of Parliament. The weight of that representation, apparently, has been that the assurance given by the Minister, and the understanding that we have all had in the House about the importance of that assurance, was not good enough. If that is how they felt—and I think it is understandable—then in my view our response should have been that a reaffirmation of the assurance about direct access would have been adequate. The Government could and should have given that reaffirmation of the assurance. Certainly we on our side would also have given it.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: May I ask for clarification? The right hon. Gentleman said that the staff had made representations to some Members of the House. Will he not agree that representations have been made by the staff side to the Leader of the House officially, so that the Members of the Shadow Commission knew what were the feelings of the staff?
    Mr. Pym: The Leader of the House indicated that. He said so just now, and that is so.
    I think we are all agreed, and always have been, that we are extremely well served in the House by the staff in all departments. I would say that mutual trust most certainly exists, and has existed for a very long time. An assurance about access has been given by the Leader of the House. It was given, of course, privately, but also publicly, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It comes from the Government for whom he speaks,

    1251
    supported by the Opposition of the day, and no doubt the whole House. I find it almost incredible that that assurance should not have been accepted. At any rate, that is the proposition, I think, that is behind the amendment, and what the Leader of the House has sought to indicate. But I think that those assurances, given in good faith and genuinely by right hon. and hon. Members, would be accepted by the staff.
    Mr. English: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The assurance was given to me. I interpreted the assurance to mean that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would go away and consider putting in the Bill a fairly innocuous statement such as we have in this amendment. That has been done. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman is objecting to my hon. Friend carrying out the assurance he gave to me.
    Mr. Pym: I am not referring only to the assurance that was given in Committee, with the usual Committee background. What I am saying is that an assurance to the staff of this House of direct access to the Commission, given in good faith on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of the Opposition and other Members of Parliament, would be adequate from the point of view of the staff, and that they would accept it. That is my first point.
    I suppose that if a statutory provision of this kind were a normal and usual part of our legislative provisions, it could indeed be argued by the staff that a similar provision in this Bill would be appropriate. Indeed, the staff would have every justification for asking for it. But the fact is that a provision such as this amendment provides is not a normal part of our legislative process, or of our statute law. Indeed, it is unique. None of my right hon. or hon. Friends has been able to find any precedent for a provision of this kind. Certainly nothing like it has been required before for the Whitley procedure or the Civil Service procedure, and therefore we are breaking new ground here.
    I was interested to see that the Leader of the Liberal Party had tabled an amendment in this area, but on a different basis. For some reason he withdrew it yesterday. He was trying to provide an alternative
    1252
    method of fulfilling the wish of the Lord President, but in a different way. In point of fact, he had taken a precedent from another Act of Parliament. My argument would not be valid in regard to his amendment, and I will not go into it because it is no longer on the Order Paper.
    My view on the amendment before us is that it ought not to be passed, because I think that a precedent of this kind ought not to be set. Most especially, I think that it ought not to be set in a Bill about the administration of the House of Commons, which on all matters ought to be a non-party, non-controversial issue. Essentially, the Bill has been an agreed measure, without any controversy at all. I am sure that I am right in saying that there was consultation between the Government—and perhaps hon. Members as well—and the unions—before the Bill was ever proposed. It was known before the Bill was ever proposed that the staff side, whether the union or not, wanted the Bill to come on to the statute book. At no stage was any mention made, as far as I know, privately, and certainly not publicly, that there should be a provision of this kind included in it.
    I appreciate that there have been representations since it was produced. I completely accept that, and it is quite usual for the House of Commons to make amendments of this kind in the passage of legislation. But I still think that it is a mistake to break new ground and create a statutory precedent in a Bill of this kind.
    As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) indicated, he raised the matter in Committee. It was very fully discussed and an assurance was sought not only by him but also by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley), whose report is the basis of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "What we want… is that the staff side should have direct access to the Commission. If we could agree on that and give that assurance to my hon. Friends, we might avoid a Division."
    The Minister replied:
    "I certainly give that assurance, I thought that I had done so. I gladly repeat it"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27th April 1978; c. 33.]
    But the Minister concluded the debate by saying that after what had been said

    1253
    he would go away and think about it again in the usual manner. That is what he has done, in the usual parliamentary manner. But I am still of the view that an assurance, given genuinely on our part and, of course, on the Government's part, would be and should be adequate.
    I have a further objection to the amendment, and that concerns the terms in which it is drawn. I draw attention to the amendment, in which the proposed paragraph (5) refers to
    "trade unions who are recognised by the Commission in respect of such staff."
    It seems to me that that is very much to particularise those representatives of the staff they represent who shall by this means have guaranteed statutory access to the Commission. It does not refer to all staff. It does not refer to all trade unions. It does not refer to those members of the staff who are not in trade unions.
    I should have thought it reasonable to argue that if the assurances asked for by the staff are not enough and the Government think it necessary to write in a statutory provision such as this, it is curious that they should single out some trade unions and some staff instead of including the whole staff. I should have thought that by implication, if nothing else, it would narrow the right that members of the staff would have to appeal to the Commission, or to take their case ultimately to the Commission, if they were not represented by trade unions recognised by the Commission. It seems to me that there is a slight contradiction here in the case that was put by the Lord President.
    If it is the position that any guarantee given by right hon. and hon. Members is not adequate for the staff, I should have thought that they all ought to have had in one way or another the same statutory right. I think it would be true to say that, notwithstanding this amendment, other members of the staff who were not perhaps trade unionists, or who were represented by trade unions not recognised by the Commission, would still have the right of access. I do not think that anyone has sought to pretend that they would not. But it seems to me to be very curious to make a statutory differentiation
    1254
    between the staff represented by recognised unions and all the rest of the staff. I think that it would have implications, and that is my third criticism of the amendment.
    In opposing the amendment, I hope and believe that I have made it absolutely plain that the normal, ordinary access that any member of the staff would have to the Commission is and would be available in the case of any representations of the staff to the Commission, as asked for by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough in Committee. For that matter, in the last analysis any member of the staff could go to the Commission if the situation on a staff dispute matter reached that point.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Leader of the House said that he thought the amendment would contribute to good and harmonious relationships, and I share that objective. But so far from contributing to these good and harmonious relationships between every one of us in this Palace, whether we are Members of the House or members of the staff, I fear that the end result may not be that. In any case, it is a departure from our normal legislative practice. It is controversial, which is the last thing which we ought to contemplate or engage in in any Bill which deals with the administration of our own affairs in this House. I think that we ought to avoid anything of that kind.
    For all these reasons, I hope very much that it will be possible to proceed with the Bill, and without the amendment, in the full knowledge that there is, and will be, direct access for any member of the staff to the Commission if the normal procedures of discussion and negotiation require that that ultimate step should be taken by the staff concerned.
    Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Black-ley): If the Opposition welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance, I find it difficult to understand why they do not also welcome the fact that that assurance is actually written into the Bill and given statutory recognition. It seems fitting to me that the right of employees of this House and, therefore, of the new Commission should have the same statutory rights as those employed elsewhere. It

    1255
    was for that reason that on the Employment Protection Act I moved an amendment to include employees of this House. I am glad to say that that was accepted.
    By analogy, the same proposition has been accepted on Report by my right hon. Friend with regard to this Bill. There is an argument for staff recognition on the Commission itself, for example. One could go that far, but that may be a little too revolutionary at this stage. Although I would favour that provision myself, I recognise, as I think do the unions themselves, that so advanced a stage is unlikely and would be particularly controversial. That controversy can be avoided.
    Members of the House of Commons staff, and its recognised trade unions, attach a great deal of importance to the right of access to the Commission. A great deal of importance is attached particularly by the recognised trade unions among the staff of this House. At last, after one and three-quarter centuries, we have regularised the position of the employer in the shape of the new statutory employers, namely, the Commission. Until now no one seemed to know who the employer in this House was. Access, is, therefore, the necessary corollary to setting up the Commission. I understand that in the past it was emphasised that a public statement to the effect that there would be access was welcome. Therefore, if it was welcomed, I would say a fortiori that it should be even more strongly welcomed when it is actually written into the Bill and made a statutory provision.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I was given to understand that an undertaking was given in Committee at least to meet the relevant trade unions in order to discuss this proposition. I understand that that discussion has taken place and has culminated in the tabling of Amendment No. 23. Therefore, it meets the wishes of the staff and adds to the mutual trust between the employer and the staff in that respect. Therefore, it cannot be said that in any sense this derogates from the mutual trust which has already been referred to.
    There have been various precedents. I notice that Amendment No. 6, which has been withdrawn by the Liberal Party, took precedents from the Gas and Post Office Acts and similar Acts with regard
    1256
    to public employment. I may be wrong, but so far as I can remember the latest precedent comes from the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act. That was indeed a welcome Act. If I remember correctly, the form of words used in that Act was "the relevant trade union". That wording is acceptable in this amendment. I believe that the trade unions concerned should be the bodies with which the new statutory employer consults. That is not exclusive of any other organisations, but it safeguards the rights of those trade unions which by and large represent the members of the staff of this House.
    I believe that the amendment embodies a valid and valuable principle in relation to consultation with the trade unions which represent the interests of staff. It should be recognised that in moving this amendment the Government themselves have recognised a very important principle. I am sure that the motivation behind the Liberal amendment, which has unfortunately been withdrawn—it was worthy of discussion—was that it included one point which is not emphasised in the form of words used in Amendment No. 23, namely, safety, health and welfare. Goodness knows, not only the staff but Members of this House have to put up with conditions in regard to safety, health and welfare which no one outside this Palace would accept. However, that amendment has been withdrawn and I make no further comment on it, following the precedent of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire.
    Mr. David Steel: I note the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for Liberal amendments which are not before us. That is indeed a new form of debate in the House. However, the hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that the non-union members of the staff, who are I think about 50 per cent., should rest on the assurance given by all of us that they have the right of representation to the Commission and that they should be satisfied with that, but that somehow the organised trade union members are so weak and powerless that they must have a statutory provision. That appears to be the burden of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
    Mr. Rose: My follow-up to that is that it is the right of every one of those

    1257
    non-union members to join a trade union and become a member of a recognised trade union. That would immediately give them that statutory right. If they so choose, they can stand or fall by their non-representation, but if they are not organised in a trade union it is very difficult for them to consult my right hon. Friend or the employers on anything, because they are not organised so to consult. Therefore, the Leader of the Liberal Party advances a very good argument in favour of trade unionism.
    All I would say is that the Liberal amendment—I do not really want to debate amendments which are not on the Amendment Paper—would have dealt with any organisations appearing to be appropriate. That could mean a breakaway organisation or any unrepresentative association. We do have a structure here of organisations which are recognised as being the trade unions—four of them—which by and large represent the interests of the members of the staff. They have consulted my right hon. Friend and have arrived at a form of wording.
    We have been through all this argument before, not least when we discussed the Industrial Relations Act. I do not want to rehearse all that again. However, I believe that the wording of Amendment No. 23 is the appropriate form of wording. It is certainly acceptable to the trade unions involved. It is an amendment which is, therefore, acceptable to the organised staff of this House.
    I therefore commend the amendment to the whole House, including the Liberal Party, notwithstanding the minor difference it may have with regard to this form of wording. It is, above all, the result of consultation. It does not set up any machinery or provide for any complex structure. It merely gives the right of access by statute to the trade unions, and takes nothing away from other members of the staff. On that basis it should not be contentious and should be accepted by all sides of the House.
    Mr. Hal Miller: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) with regret. I found to my disappointment that as he went on I dis-
    1258
    agreed with him more and more, although we share a responsibility to a trade union association of civil servants.
    The hon. Member spoke of "mutual trust". On every example that he cited in support of that proposition, he raised a picture of a great deal of controversy. He spoke of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, but that got through the House in circumstances which did no credit whatever to the Government, and it was discussed in an atmosphere that was far from being one of mutual trust.
    The hon. Member went on to say that of course those employees of the Commission who are not represented by unions have a right of access and consultation but those in unions have a statutory right. How does he expect to increase mutual trust and respect in that way among those who seek to serve us? He went on to say how greatly the proposed amendment had been welcomed, but it cannot have escaped his attention that that amendment has raised a great deal of discussion and controversy in some quarters among those who support us in this House. I do not think that the hon. Member gave a fair record. The longer he went on the more difficult he made it to support the amendment.
    I still do not understand why this amendment is necessary. As I understood the Leader of the House, he referred to several sections of the Employment Protection Act and the schedules of that Act which apply to employees of the Commission. I understood that these were statutory rights of general application.
    I sought to raise this point on Committee. I asked whether there were general rights to be applied, and why we should seek to go beyond that, especially if it aroused controversy. It is most unfortunate that we should reach a position where the House might divide on a measure for the administration of the House, affecting all those who help and support us in our work. The basis of mutual trust is that the help and support will be given indiscriminately without fear or favour to Members in all parts of the House. There is a grave danger of this being impaired if we are driven to a Division. I cannot see why it is necessary if general statutory provisions apply.

    1259
    5.15 p.m.
    This is very serious and I cannot see how the Leader of the House has managed to get us into this position. I cannot see why it is not possible to resolve this matter in some other way—
    Mr. English: The hon. Member should look to his own side.
    Mr. Miller: The hon. Member comments from his usual position. The Leader of the House must be gravely conscious of his responsibilities. I was not clear whether the Bill would apply to the Refreshment Department. This is one of the most difficult areas and one in which a difficulty is expected in a short time —I believe from 6.30 p.m. onwards. Yet this Department is not yet included within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, one of the most difficult areas is not being touched either by the Bill or by the amendment that is proposed.
    Not only is the amendment unnecessary, it is also irrelevant to the main source of difficulty. There is no valid reason for supporting it, and I cannot understand why there should be a better form of assurance for one section of the workers who help and support us and a lower form of assurance for the others. If there is not some distinction between the two forms of assurance, why is the amendment necessary?
    I wish that the Government had found it possible to deal with the queries that I raised in Committee about the functioning of the Whitley Committee machinery. Some complaints have been made to me about the functioning of that machinery. There is no guarantee that the inclusion of the amendment will resolve these difficulties. The questions that I asked in Committee were how that machinery was functioning and whether it was functioning in a different way in the House from the way it functions in other Civil Service Departments. We have not received any replies on this point, yet this is the real substance of our argument.
    The Government amendment does not meet the major difficulties to which I have referred, or the queries about the functioning of the Whitley Committee machinery. That is why I certainly will not support the Government amendment.
    Mr. Arthur Bottomley: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) has already expressed the view that there has not been the happiest relationship in the past on the working of the Whitley machinery. I do not know whether the Government will answer that point, but I am certainly not in a position to do so. I have heard of these difficulties not only from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), but from others.
    As Chairman of the Committee I always said that it was our intention that legalisation should be kept to the minimum. We wanted that because we were anxious that the changes brought about should be made in a spirit of friendly co-operation. I did not want a reference in the Bill to the Speaker's staff, and for the same reason I would have preferred that this amendment had not been made. I had hoped that mutual understanding and trust could prevail.
    In our report to Parliament we sought a solution drawing upon the present well-established and operating departments, their loyalty and experience, which we believed could provide greater flexibility for responding to the changing needs in the future.
    By this means we felt that the quality of the staff in the House of Commons at all levels would be secured and more understanding attitudes might be taken. It was our aim that those with ability could rise to the top in every Department.
    The amendment before us is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. It arises out of discussions in Standing Committee where the majority—indeed, almost everyone—accepted that a move of this kind should be made. I am sure that the staff will recognise that the normal trade union procedure is that grievances and problems have to be settled with the management. It is only on a matter of principle which in the last resort protest should be made to the Commission.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that all the assurances sought in the amendment had been given, but I would remind him that it binds this House and not subsequent Parliaments. Therefore, if the House rejects the amendment, we shall do more harm than good. The staff will take

    1261
    the view that if Parliament intended that it should have the right of access to the Commission, it should be contained in the Bill. I believe that it will worsen relations with the staff if the amendment is opposed and I plead with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to oppose it.
    Mr. English: I am grateful for the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley). I wish to support what he said.
    Perhaps I should give a little of the history of this amendment. At the beginning of the Standing Committee I thought that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and his hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) were basically right. I thought that there was no reason or necessity for an amendment of this character. It was only subsequent events that pointed to its necessity.
    I tabled in Committee Amendment No. 6, and I freely admit that I tabled that proposal somewhat tongue in cheek. That amendment provided that "three members of the staff" should be elected to the Commission
    "in accordance with such regulations as such staff may by secret ballot approve by a majority of those voting".
    Liberal Members will understand that I, as a Labour Member, consulted the trade unions and I found that they slightly objected to what I had tabled because it did not specifically say that the workers' representatives should be members of trade unions.
    If we had been arguing here and now about that matter, I could well understand what the issue would have concerned. It would be about a matter which has been discussed all over Europe—in Germany, in the Brussels Commission and here—relating to whether workers' representatives on boards of management should be representative of all the workers inside and outside trade unions or only those who are members of trade unions.
    The intriguing aspect was that when I consulted the trade unions on the premises about that matter, they made their point—the Members of the Liberal Party in the House may have disagreed with
    1262
    them—but they said "What we want is a simple amendment stating that we should be consulted about our pay and conditions—that is all." I said I would table that provision. I did so and it became Amendment No. 32. This debate springs from that amendment.
    It will not surprise the House to learn that I did not obtain the total support of the Standing Committee for the idea that there should be workers' representatives on the Commission. Opposition Members did not support it, nor did many hon. Members on my own side. That latter point surprised me a little because many hon. Members on my own side would like to see worker representatives on the boards of other institutions. If hon. Members in any part of the House advocate the placing of workers' representatives on company boards, I suggest that it is not unreasonable that we should start in this place and have some staff representatives on our own Commission.
    However, that is not the issue to be dealt with on this amendment. I am intrigued why there should be such argument about what is the issue here. The Minister, realising that I had received a little more support on the mere point of consultation with trade unions, sensibly and simply gave me an assurance that he would go away and consider the matter and he went away and did so. I do not think I am telling tales out of school if I say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was perhaps a little surprised to learn how little in the last 20 years Ministers of any party had consulted trade unions—certainly how little the trade union representatives on the premises felt that they have been consulted by successive Ministers in successive Governments. Whatever the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire may think, the trade union representatives in the House of Commons feel that in the past they have been positively discouraged from even talking to Ministers of the Crown.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Or Members.
    Mr. English: Possibly even to Members, as my hon. Friend says. If members of trade unions—who, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said, comprise some 50 per cent. of the staff on the premises—are discouraged from consultation and

    1263
    are told by their superior officers on the staff of the House of Commons that it is undesirable for them as trade unionists to approach Ministers of the Crown or Members of Parliament to consult on issues that concern them, how much more difficult is it for individuals who do not happen to be trade unionists to consult Ministers of the Crown or Members of Parliament whose decisions affect pay and conditions of the staff?
    Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has reported, I am sure faithfully, to the House what was said to him about the possibility of trade union members being discouraged from talking to Ministers and heads of Departments, but is that true? I am not sure that it is true. I should be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman has consulted heads of Departments or Ministers to see whether any kind of discouragement or encouragement was given. Is what he is saying accurate, because I am not sure that it is?
    Mr. English: It would be very difficult to prove what heads of Departments in the House have said to their trade unionists but I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman is consenting on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench to a breach of the "previous Administration" rule, I would accept his consent so that the Civil Service can reveal the precise number of occasions and the precise length of time that hon. Members in both parties—if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would also consent—when Ministers of the Crown consulted trade union officers on the premises. I accept his assurance if he is saying on behalf of the Opposition that the "previous Administration" rule can be broken into so that we can ascertain the precise number of occasions when Ministers of the Crown consulted the trade unions.
    Mr. Pym: I was making the point that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying as a matter of fact that there had been positive discouragement of the kind he indicated. I was questioning whether that was true. It might be a matter of opinion or a view held by such people that such discouragement was given—but was it? I do not think he should give the impression that there was such discouragement without giving much more positive evidence to that effect.
    Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to point out that I would not say something to the House that was not said to me—and, as he realises, it was said to me. If he wishes to prove or disprove the number of occasions over the last 20 years on which Ministers of the Crown have consulted trade unions in the House of Commons, if he thinks that what I have been told by the trade unions is untrue, all he has to do is to ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for permission to reveal the records of such discussions as there may have been. That cannot be done without the consent of the Opposition for the period when they were in Government. If he is prepared so to consent, well and good. If he is not prepared to do so, I think that we must legitimately draw the conclusion that what the trade unions have said to me may well be right.
    Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman also spoke of Departments in the House and of the senior people in this House under whom the staff work. I do not know what evidence there might exist in that respect. However, to proceed on the basis of an assertion—and of course he is reporting faithfully what was said to him—and to accept it without question might not be an accurate reflection of what had happened. That was the only point I was making.
    Mr. English: We all suffer from the possibility that our informants may be telling us something that is not true. The point I was making was that Ministers of the Crown are constantly accompanied by private secretaries who make a note of conversations which take place with non-Ministers. Those conversations on this issue can be produced with the consent of the Leader of the Opposition and with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The conversations involving Officers of the House and their subordinates are probably not so regularly and frequently recorded, so that they could not be produced as evidence of whether what the trade unions had said to me was true. There is, however, a price of evidence available and the right hon. Gentleman has only to consent to its revelation to prove or disprove what the trade unions are saying.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend by telling him of an incident that occurred during discussions on the Bill when a trade union representative in the House was impeded in his access to me—I am the parliamentary adviser to the union that has the largest membership in the House—and when I attempted to make contact with that member of the staff, I had representations from our Deputy Chief Whip about why I was trying to do so. Certainly, the situation that my hon. Friend describes does exist.
    Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance. Like all the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I am a sponsored Member. I am a representative of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the members of which are, alas, on the verge of taking industrial action in the House.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: Shame.
    Mr. English: The hon. Member may say "Shame", but the reasons for the dispute which were given at Question Time by the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee were rational and sensible. Ultimately, all these reasons boil down to consultation.
    I just fail to understand what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire meant when he talked about our having almost perfect industrial relations in the House. He said that there was no trouble here and that the amendment was unnecessary. But we are almost in the middle of a strike. I understand that industrial action will take place and that it will not cease until 9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pym: That is not relevant to the Bill.
    Mr. English: But it is relevant to whether our industrial relations are perfect.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: As a member of the Catering Committee, may I advise the hon. Gentleman that negotiations have been taking place between the union and the Committee for the last seven days and that this has been able to happen without an Act giving the union access.
    Mr. English: The Conservative Member who is Chairman of the Catering Com-
    1266
    mittee made clear that the negotiations were continuing and that he had some sympathy with the problem at issue. I begin to suspect that perhaps the dark hand of the Treasury is operating in the background of the Committee, and to judge from the nods that I am getting from the other side of the House, this is clearly true. I should be out of order to go into detail on the cause of today's industrial action. The point at issue is whether our industrial relations are so good that there is no need for the Government amendment. They cannot be perfect if the present situation has arisen, whatever its cause.
    I have been told something that, conceivably, differs from what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire has been told —though it is easily susceptible to proof with a measure of consent on his part. I am told that over the last 20 years, within the memory of members of the staff who are still here, there has been a lack of consultation with trade unionists and, it follows that there must have been an even greater lack of consultation with individual, junior members of the staff who are not in trade unions, because they do not have the same degree of power and authority as similar members of the staff banded together may have.
    I started by thinking that the amendment was not necessary. I had put down an amendment about workers' representatives on the Commission. The trade unions said that they would be glad of even a small amendment saying that they should be consulted. I tabled such an amendment and the Minister gave me certain assurances. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, who is an honourable man, should say that the Minister and the Leader of the House should not have carried out the assurance given in Committee.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire talked about this being an agreed Bill. I think that he meant a Bill agreed by people such as the members of the Shadow Commission and the two Front Benches. No Bill is agreed until the House has agreed to it, and the House will have to agree to the amendment and the Bill.
    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for tabling an amendment which carries out the assurance given by his junior in Committee

    1267
    and which will enable members of the staff, if they have real difficulties, to consult their ultimate employer. That is all it does. The surprising thing about the amendment is that we have on this side of the House the whole paraphernalia of a three-line Whip and the resources of one of the major parties of the State being rolled out because of the persistent opposition of the other major party in the State. Why is this so? It is because the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is opposing mere consultation—not workers' power or workers' control. He is saying that there shall be no provision in the Bill requiring consultation.
    Clearly, there should be such a provision. If it were not necessary, there would be no opposition to it. There is opposition because of the old, deep-seated, deep-rooted principle of the Tory Party. Whatever the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) may say, the truth and the reality is that Opposition spokesmen still have their old deep-rooted fear and frustration whenever presented with the thought that they should talk or listen to trade unionists.
    Mr. Cyril Smith: My intervention will be brief, but I must say that the closing words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) have made me even more suspicious of the amendment. There must be a reason for this sort of innocuous amendment having a three-line Whip on it. There must be a reason for the Government being so desperately anxious to carry through this simple, innocuous amendment which we are told does not really mean very much. We are told that it means only that a few trade union leaders can have the right of access to people serving on the Commission.
    I must be blunt. It is time to put our cards on the table. Some of us suspect that this is an enabling amendment towards a closed shop for the staff of the House. When we hear about three-line Whips being put on, we begin to understand that the amendment has much greater significance than every speaker so far has suggested.
    It has been said that the amendment represents normal procedure and hon. Members have asked why anyone should get upset about it. My party will not be pushed along any road that leads to a closed shop in the House. We shall require assurances from the Leader of
    1268
    the House that the amendment is not the thin end of the wedge. There are aspects of the amendment, such as the reference to recognised trade unions and so on, that lead us to believe that it might be the thin end of the wedge, and that worries us considerably.
    Mr. English: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), said that there are certain aspects of the wording of the amendment, such as "recognised trade unions", that he did not like. If that is so, why did not the hon. Member for Rochdale, his colleagues or the right hon. Gentleman table an amendment to the amendment? It may be that many Labour Members share their dislike of certain aspects of the wording of the amendment, but we want to see the principle of consultation enshrined in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wanted an amendment to the amendment, why did he not table one?
    Mr. Smith: We have not tabled an amendment because we doubt whether this amendment is necessary. We take the view that there are already adequate avenues for consultation within the House. Although I do not subscribe to the view, the House is supposed to be the most mature democracy in the world. If we cannot have proper trade union consultation and staff consultation without having to write that into the Bill, without having to have it pushed through as a point of law, there is something wrong with a place that claims to be such a mature democracy.
    We believe that there must be adequate opportunity for consultation between trade unions, between staff who are not trade unionists, and between officers and members of the Commission. However, we question the need to do that by legislation. We view with some suspicion the reason for legislation and we doubt the need for it. Unless the Leader of the House is convincing in saying that the amendment is not the thin end of the wedge, I suspect that we shall vote against it.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and his Liberal colleagues the assurances that they seek. I am the parliamentary adviser to the CPSA. That is well known in the House. I can say

    1269
    without fear of contradiction that the issue of the closed shop has never once arisen in any of the discussions that we have had on the amendment, or in any discussions that we have had on the Bill. From my knowledge of trade union members and trade union representatives in the House, I am sure that that has not in any way played a part in their thinking in seeking the amendment.
    The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to the Whips. I, too, regret that there has been whipping. That applies not only to the Government but to the Opposition. The Opposition as well as the Government are seeking to get their Members to the House to vote. I regret that. I wish that it had been possible to arrive at an agreement between both sides of the House on a form of words that would have commended itself to the Conservative Opposition, the Liberals, the other minority parties and the Government.
    When we began considering a form of words for the amendment we went to the statutes that contain sections referring to consultations and negotiations with trade unions. If in the initial stages we had tabled an amendment without having full consultation, it would have been very much along the lines of that which apparently was proposed.
    I regret that there has not been agreement. In Committee the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), said:
    "I believe I speak for all my hon. Friends in saying that the spirit of Amendment No. 24"
    —that was the amendment seeking consultation and negotiation—
    "could not be objected to."
    The hon. Gentleman added:
    "The Commission, through its agents… would not wish not to recognise those who represent substantial bodies of opinion. I cannot believe that the Commission would want to be immune to the views of people who serve us here."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 27th April 1978, c. 33.]
    5.45 p.m.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has made it clear that the Opposition believe that there should be access to the Commisison. If they believe in the principle of access to the Commission, I do not understand why
    1270
    they are so worried about the amendment being incorporated in the Bill. If they believe in the principle of access, which they apparently do, what is wrong with enshrining that principle in a small clause so that it stands for all time? It seems that the opposition goes not to the principle of access, despite the anxieties that have been mentioned, but to the writing of that principle into legislation.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he was anxious because a precedent was being set. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has said that a precedent does already exist in the Employment Protection Act 1975. My hon. Friend referred to various measures that have passed through the House such as the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1975, the British Airways Board Act 1977 and the Post Office Act 1977 all of which in statute put a responsibility on the various boards to have negotiations and consultations on terms and conditions of employment and other matters. They spell out in some detail the access and the activities that the boards shall negotiate with trade unions and representative bodies.
    It is not true to say that a precedent does not exist for an amendment of this sort. As there are precedents, and as the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the principle, I am at a loss to understand why the Conservative Opposition should be seeking to defeat the amendment.
    Mr. English: That is because they do not like trade unions.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I turn to the reasons that led the staff to think it necessary to have the amendment incorporated in the Bill. For the most authoritative views we must turn to the report of the Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) entitled House of Commons (Administration). Paragraph 5.27, which is about staff relations in the House, sets out in chapter and verse the history of relations between trade unions and staff in this place as they have existed over the years. Those relations have been in a pretty sorry state. The report states:
    "We have noted evidence of feeling amongst staff representatives that on some occasions the Staff Board"

    1271
    —that is the body that has been responsible for these matters—
    "has lacked sufficient authority to deal with representations made by staff representatives without reference back to Heads of Department. In consequence, they have, in effect, to make their representations to individual Heads of Department without there being a single focal point on the official side to whom, as in the normal structure of a Government Department, they could make their case. This has, in their view"
    —that is, the trade unions' view—
    "tended to weaken the development of full Whitley consultative procedures in the House and the adoption of standard conditions of service. In this regard we understand that meetings of the full Whitley Committee have been infrequent."
    That is testimony to the lack of adequate procedures that have existed in the past. The trade union consultative committee of the various staff associations in the House feels that the procedures have been totally inadequate. It considers that the position has been so bad that the experience of the past few years and the history of the House should not be repeated. That is why it takes a strong view. That is why it wants to see the amendment incorporated in the Bill.
    As the paragraph in the Bottomley Report indicates, one of the reasons for there being difficulty over consultation is the lack of a unified structure. One of the difficulties that we are now experiencing is that even under the new structure, which will be unified, there is not to be a chief executive officer, a head of the whole administration of this place. That has been one of the difficulties that I have found with so many of these matters. The team management that we are to have is a strange thing with which to get to grips, because there is no chief executive officer, managing director, or anyone else who will be responsible for all these matters. Different people will be responsible for different things, and the Commission corporately in the final analysis will be responsible for them all. That is why some of the difficulties have arisen on the amendment.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that he feared that the staff would abuse this provision. The Conservative Opposition and Liberal Members should be aware that the staff associations and trade unions are clear in their minds about what they want. They are not asking for day-to-day negotiations
    1272
    with the Commission on all kinds of piffling or, indeed, serious matters. They have made it clear that they intend to exercise the right of access to the Commission sparingly and with discrimination. They understand and fully accept that the normal channel shall be the Board of Management, which is referred to in the Bottomley Report and which is to be established when the Bill comes into force. They appreciate that the Commission should be used only as a last resort for pleas on serious matters on which agreement has not been possible at the lower level with the Board of Management or, indeed, with the establishments officer. The trade unions accept that this right must be used with discrimination and that only as a final court of appeal should the Commission be used by the staff side.
    Mr. Pym: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. I do not think that anything that I said could possibly be taken to mean that I was suggesting that the trade unions would in any way abuse what is intended behind the amendment. The hon. Gentleman said that the trade unions would wish to use the Commission only as an ultimate resort. I have no doubt that is right. But that would be the position without the amendment. How would the Commission resist seeing them? Apart from anything else, I am sure that it would wish to see them. They have the assurance that they may see the Commission even without the amendment. As I indicated, this provision breaks new ground in a variety of ways. It is not necessary to have the amendment to manage relations with the unions in this place in the way described by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am sorry if I misinterpreted or misrepresented what the right hon. Gentleman said. I wanted to make clear to the House that there was no desire on the part of the unions to abuse the procedures proposed in the amendment. The trade union side fully understands that the Commission should be a final court of appeal on serious matters just as it will be for the Board of Management and for individual heads of Departments when difficulties have to be resolved. That is clearly understood and I want the House to be aware of that position.

    1273
    I think that I have already covered the second point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale. The fact is that, if there had been a history of sweetness and light and of constant negotiations and helpful discussions between the staff side and the management of this place, this matter would not have arisen. It may have been better if it had not arisen. It may have been better if we had had a history of sweetness and light and good discussions going on over the years. But the simple fact is that that has not been the position. The staff have felt frustrated with the system. Here is a good opportunity to reform the system with proper negotiations. I think that it will be of assistance to all Members to have this provision.
    I hope that what I have said will at least convince Liberal Members, if not the Conservative Opposition who have sent out their Whips, that there is no underhand attempt here to do anything more than the amendment lays down. The reason for it is basically the history of negotiations in this place. Therefore, I hope that at least Liberal Members will support the amendment, even if the Conservative Opposition do not.
    Dr. Glyn: I am glad that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth) clearly said that the unions intend to use this provision only as an ultimate sanction.
    We are really discussing the interests of the staff. I think that we all acknowledge their loyalty and hard work. I should have thought that this matter, above all, was a House of Commons, not a party, matter. I very much regret that we could not obtain agreement on this clause and that it should have caused dislocation between the two sides.
    The important point is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, everyone ultimately should have access right through as far as the Commission to redress what is felt to be a grievance. I do not consider that the amendment is necessary. I agree with my right hon. Friend that access is available without it being written into the Bill.
    I should like to raise two matters with the Leader of the House. There will presumably be two methods of approach.
    1274
    Having listened to what has been said, matters will obviously go to the Board and ultimately to the Commission. Therefore, there will presumably be two forms of approach. Those who are not members of unions will represent themselves and union members will no doubt be represented by their unions.
    I cannot see why the amendment is necessary. I hope that, in reply to the debate, the Leader of the House will make clear that there is no intention of this matter leading to a closed shop. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), but I agree with him that the amendment is not necessary because the provisions in the Bill already allow access. Therefore, it seems a great tragedy to make this a party issue.
    Mr. Foot: I believe that, in replying to the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I shall cover most of the matters which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. However, I shall refer to them as I proceed. I hope not to omit any major question.
    It was the Government's intention and hope that the Bill should go through the House with general support—I do not say without any amendment, because obviously hon. Members, who are all authorities on this subject, have important questions to raise.
    I am sorry that a difference should have arisen on this subject. I do not make any allegation against the right hon. Gentleman about his attitude towards trade unions generally. I believe that he has raised this matter perfectly legitimately, and he is entitled to call upon me to answer the points that he made.
    The origin of the amendment was the debate which took place in Committee upstairs. I believe that it was a legitimate deduction for me to make from that debate that it would be desirable to incorporate the general understanding in Committee in an amendment. There was no question, and there never has been from the beginning to the end of this discussion, of seeking to establish a closed shop in any form. That has not been put to me by any representative of any trade union in any of the discussions which I have had upon the matter. That

    1275
    is certainly not the Government's intention and I am sure that it would not be the intention of the Commission. After all, the Commission would have a say in the matter. Without its agreement, there could not be any such possibility. I say to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that that was not the origin of this matter. I do not believe that there are any grounds whatsoever for suspicion. We have reached this situation through a perfectly natural procedure, and I should like afresh to outline how we have arrived at this point.
    6.0 p.m.
    During discussions in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and others raised the question of trade union access to the Commission. They were entitled to raise that matter. They raised the matter for reasons to which I shall come later and which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth). They said that they wished it to be made clear that there was access and that it was provided in the Bill. The Government gave an undertaking in Committee that they would look at the matter and see whether the position could be strengthened and improved by an amendment.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that in one sense this amendment is unnecessary. I agree that it would be possible under the original Bill for access to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) rightly said that the breakthrough came under the Employment Protection Act and the new clause to that Bill which he and others helped to devise and which the Government happily accepted. That was the real change that took place. We are building upon that, although the access could and would take place even without the amendment.
    I am not saying that that is a reason for not having the amendment. I say that even without the amendment there would be direct access to the Commission in the cases in which the Commission judged that access was desirable from the industrial relations point of view.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire asks, since that undertaking has been given in the name of the Government,
    1276
    why there should be any further trouble about it. I shall give the House a reason in a moment. The right hon. Member also asked whether there was a statutory provision exactly of this kind in any other legislation. He is correct; there is no statutory provision exactly of this kind. There are some similar forms of statutory provision under nationalisation measures. The Liberal Party looked for an amendment of that character. Liberal Members tabled an amendment but it did not include the essential provisions which provide for there being other machinery, such as Whitley machinery, I understand the Liberal Party's motive, but its approach was not necessarily the best.
    There is no body like this Commission. It is a body which deals with a unique situation and, therefore, since there has been no certainty about industrial relations in the previous arrangements, it is not absurd or outrageous for us to incorporate in such a new piece of machinery a clear undertaking that there should be the right of direct access for recognised trade unions. That is a reasonable approach.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire also said that there were dangerous implications in what we propose. I do not think that there are any such dangerous implications. I said earlier that, of course, the Commission would have the right to decide whom else it may take into account and whose representations it may take into account, just as it will have the power to decide how industrial relations should be conducted generally. There is nothing sinister in that.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) made a point which was underlined afresh by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby. Over the years industrial relations in this place have not been wholly satisfactory. Some of the things that I hear about industrial relations here shock me. In many spheres we have not lived up to the claims that we make on the subject. Because of that there is a background of suspicion. It is not a suspicion that the House will not carry out undertakings that are given in debates. But there is a background of suspicion about industrial relations here. When we are setting up

    1277
    an organisation of this character we should do everything in our power to remove that suspicion.
    The debate has been initiated and the discussions have taken place. They were legitimate and above-board discussions between the Government and the unions following representations in Committee. To throw this amendment into the wastepaper basket now would not help industrial relations. It is not a question of a gulf of principle between the two sides. I want to see the Commission set up on the best possible basis. I should prefer the House to pass the amendment without a vote. It is a question not of principle but of judgment. It is a question of how we are to establish good industrial relations in the House of Commons. If we cannot do it here we had better not lecture people in other places. I may be wrong—I am on rare occasions—but in my opinion, having had all these discussions, it would be wrong for the House to say "No. We have an amendment which the Opposition say is all right but unnecessary and we are going to throw it out." To do that would not be conducive to good industrial relations. It could sour them. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire is as eager as I am to prevent the souring of industrial relations.
    I hope that the House as a whole can accept the amendment. There is mysterious talk about three-line Whips and it is said that these extraordinary instruments are being mobilised to deal with the issue. I should prefer no mention to be made of such a matter. I never mention three-line Whips. It is not my business: it is the job of the Patronage Secretary—I hope that he has been doing his job properly.
    The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire knows what happened at the end of last week. To have a vote now and vote the amendment down on a party vote after these discussions and have it said that an innocuous amendment was defeated which insisted that recognised trade unions have direct access to the Commission would not be the best way to proceed.
    I urge the right hon. Member to think afresh. In my judgment, to throw out this
    1278
    amendment would injure our industrial relations. That is my judgment. I believe that it is the judgment of the House and of those who have paid special attention to these matters. I do not say that such people are on this side of the House exclusively. But hon. Members must take account of the fact that spokesmen have been in touch with the unions. We must take all those factors into account.
    I am strongly in favour of the Bill. The House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and all those who have worked to bring forward this change in our affairs. One of the reasons why I am so strongly in favour of the Bill is that it can put industrial relations in the House on a much better footing than they have been. It is high time that we moved in that direction. On that basis I much prefer a unanimous vote than a Division. I hope that we shall reach a conclusion soon.
    Mr. Pym: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to reply. Although the Leader of the House was unable to accept the third criticism that I made in my opening remarks about the recognition of particular trade unions and the representations they make, he conceded that in one sense the amendment was unnecessary. That was the first point I made. He also conceded that the proposal was without any equivalent precedent, although, to be fair, he went on to say that as the Bill was breaking new ground, in a sense perhaps a precedent was not a precedent. At any rate, he admitted that there was nothing like it in previous statutes. So I think I might be said to have scored two out of three points there.
    The Opposition have certainly supported the Bill throughout, and the only argument has arisen over this amendment, to which no reference was made before the Committee stage. In a sense the Leader of the House exaggerates what happened as a result of that. He and I share one view. The last thing either of us wants is to sour the atmosphere. I certainly do not want a Division on this Bill, and certainly not one on partisan lines.
    I would have thought, however, that in view of all that has been said in this

    1279
    debate, instead of the right hon. Gentleman urging me not to press the matter to a Division, it would be appropriate for him to agree to withdraw the amendment. Let us enact the Bill without it. Let us embark upon this new course. It is a completely new system for administering the House. Let the Commission come into existence and get on with its work. Let representations be made from any member of the staff ultimately, if that proves necessary, to the Commission in the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed would happen without the amendment. I believe that we should then find that the Bill would lead to that improved degree of industrial relations for which we are all striving. We are both agreed across the Floor of the House on this matter.
    My answer, therefore, to the Lord President's plea to me is that he should withdraw the amendment. Let us set up the Commission, let us try it, let us see the representations made by trade union representatives and by those who are not members of trade unions, if necessary, ultimately, to the Commission. If after a year or two's experience that does not work, we could return to the matter. I believe that we shall find the new arrangement a great improvement. My reply to the Leader of the House is that he should withdraw the amendment and let us embark upon the Bill without it.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes, 211.

    Division No. 239]

    AYES

    [6.13 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Dempsey, James

    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

    Allaun, Frank

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Barry (East Flint)

    Anderson, Donald

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dormand, J. D.

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kelley, Richard

    Ashley, Jack

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kerr, Russell

    Ashton, Joe

    Dunnett, Jack

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

    Eadie, Alex

    Kinnock, Neil

    Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

    Edge, Geoff

    Lamborn, Harry

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

    Lamond, James

    Bain, Mrs Margaret

    English, Michael

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

    Lever, Rt Hon Harold

    Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

    Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

    Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

    Bates, Alf

    Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

    Evans, John (Newton)

    Luard, Evan

    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

    Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

    Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

    Faulds, Andrew

    McCartney, Hugh

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

    MacCormick, Iain

    Boardman, H.

    Flannery, Martin

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Booth, Rt Hon Albert

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McElhone, Frank

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    MacFarquhar, Roderick

    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

    Forrester, John

    McGuire, Michael (Ince)

    Bradley, Tom

    Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

    Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

    George, Bruce

    Maclennan, Robert

    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

    Buchan, Norman

    Ginsburg, David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

    Golding, John

    Madden, Max

    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Magee, Bryan

    Campbell, Ian

    Graham, Ted

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Canavan, Dennis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marks, Kenneth

    Cant, R. B.

    Hardy, Peter

    Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Hart, Rt Hon Judith

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Cartwright, John

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Meacher, Michael

    Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

    Clemitson, Ivor

    Hooley, Frank

    Mikardo, Ian

    Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

    Horam, John

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Cohen, Stanley

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

    Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

    Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

    Huckfield, Les

    Molloy, William

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

    Crawford, Douglas

    Hunter, Adam

    Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

    Cronin, John

    Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

    Newens, Stanley

    Cryer, Bob

    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

    Noble, Mike

    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

    Jackson, Colln (Brighouse)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

    Ogden, Eric

    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

    Janner, Greville

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

    Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Davies, Ifor (Gowar)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Padley, Walter

    Deakins, Eric

    John, Brynmor

    Palmer, Arthur

    Dean, Joseph (Leads West)

    Johnson, James (Hull West)

    Parry, Robert

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

    Perry, Ernest

    Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)

    Ward, Michael

    Phipps, Dr Colin

    Snape, Peter

    Watkins, David

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Spearing Nigel

    Watkinson, John

    Radice, Giles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Watt, Hamish

    Richardson, Miss Jo

    Stallard, A. W.

    Weetch, Ken

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

    Weitzman, David

    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

    Stoddart, David

    Wellbeloved, James

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Stott, Roger

    Welsh, Andrew

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Strang, Gavin

    White, Frank R. (Bury)

    Roderick, Caerwyn

    Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

    White, James (Pollok)

    Rodgers, George (Chorley)

    Swain, Thomas

    Whitlock, William

    Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rooker, J. W.

    Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

    Thompson, George

    Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

    Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

    Ryman, John

    Tierney, Sydney

    Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tilley, John

    Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

    Selby, Harry

    Tomlinson, John

    Woodall, Alec

    Sever, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Woof, Robert

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

    Torney, Tom

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tuck, Raphael

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Urwin, T. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mr. James Tinn.

    Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Fox, Marcus

    McCrindle, Robert

    Alison, Michael

    Faser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

    McCusker, H.

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Freud, Clement

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Arnold, Tom

    Fry, Peter

    MacGregor, John

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

    Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

    MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

    Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Baker, Kenneth

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

    Madel, David

    Banks, Robert

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Beith, A. J.

    Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

    Marten, Neil

    Bell, Ronald

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mates, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Goodhew, Victor

    Mather, Carol

    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

    Gorst, John

    Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

    Mawby, Ray

    Biffen, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Blaker, Peter

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gray, Hamish

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Peter

    Grieve, Percy

    Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

    Griffiths, Eldon

    Mills, Peter

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

    Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Brittan, Leon

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Molyneaux, James

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Hannam, John

    Monro, Hector

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Hastings, Stephen

    Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Buck, Antony

    Heseltine, Michael

    Neave, Airey

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Nelson, Anthony

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hodgson, Robin

    Neubert, Michael

    Carlisle, Mark

    Holland, Philip

    Newton, Tony

    Chalker, Mrs Lynda

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Onslow, Cranley

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hordern, Peter

    Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

    Clark, William (Croydon S)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, John (Harrow West)

    Clegg, Walter

    Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

    Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Pardoe, John

    Cope, John

    Hurd, Douglas

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Costain, A. P.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

    Percival, Ian

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Peyton, Rt Hon John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Jopling, Michael

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Dodsworth, Geoffrey

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Dunlop, John

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Raison, Timothy

    Durant, Tony

    Kitson, Sir Timothy

    Rathbone, Tim

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knight, Mrs Jill

    Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

    Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knox, David

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lamont, Norman

    Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Latham, Michael (Melton)

    Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

    Fairgrieve, Russell

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rhodes James, R.

    Fell, Anthony

    Lawson, Nigel

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

    Loveridge, John

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Luce, Richard

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'fd)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    1282

    1283

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

    Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Stanley, John

    Wakeham, John

    Royle, Sir Anthony

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Wall, Patrick

    Scott, Nicholas

    Stokes, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wells, John

    Shepherd, Colin

    Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

    Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

    Silvester, Fred

    Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Tebbit, Norman

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Younger, Hon George

    Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

    Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

    Speed, Keith

    Townsend, Cyril D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

    Trotter, Neville

    Mr. Peter Morrison and

    Sproat, Iain

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Sir George Young.

    Steinton, Keith

    Viggers, Peter

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
    '(2A) The Commission shall appoint as its Secretary a member of the staff whose appointment lies within its power under section 2(1) and (4) of this Act.'
    It is with a sense of surprised gratification that I rise to ask the support of the House for this amendment. I only hope that it has not put you, Mr. Speaker, under any personal pressure.
    The amendment is concerned with the appointment of the Secretary to the Commission, for which there is no direct provision in the Bill. That is the sole reason for the amendment, and I should like to make it plain at the outset that there is no question of any personalities being involved or any subterranean reason why the amendment is being put forward this evening.
    In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Thomaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) spoke of the need for some sort of chief executive managing the affairs of the House. It was, indeed, suggested in Committee that the Secretary to the Commission might come, eventually, to play such a role. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me, when I moved a similar amendment in Committee, whether I, indeed, foresaw such a possibility and whether I would therefore like to make the appointment an exclusive one—in other words, that the Secretary to the Commission should not hold another office at the same time.
    I was about to say that it was a pleasure to sec the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) here, but he is no longer present. He was not present during the Committee discussion on this point.
    1284
    The reasoning for the amendment is that in the Bottomley Report it is suggested that your Secretary, Mr. Speaker, should automatically be appointed the Secretary to the Commission. It was felt in Committee that that was not appropriate because of the need to develop the work of the Secretary to the Commission and because of the need to command as large as possible a measure of assent from all those staff working through the Secretary to the Commission.
    I admit that the amendment is open to objection on the ground of defective construction, perhaps, in that the Commission would be able, first of all, to appoint somebody to the staff of the House of Commons and then subsequently to appoint that person as Secretary to the Commission. So it would be possible to get round some of the obstacles which the amendment was intended to erect.
    It is a very simple point, however, that the Secretary to the Commission will be a major appointment. We feel that it should be mentioned in the Bill. There was a large measure of assent in Committee that some such measure was required and the further consultations which the Minister undertook at that stage to have with me did not result in any agreed form of words.
    It is in that spirit, therefore, that I have put this amendment forward in an effort to clarify this most important position.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I can put briefly what I believe is the main point of this amendment, which I support. It is that if we were not very careful we might find that the whole spirit of the changes which are being brought about as a result of the Bill—the whole spirit of the Bottomley Report, which was to provide

    1285
    unification of the staff and an opportunity for staff members to gain promotion in a way they have not been able to do in the past—could be spoiled at this most important level, of the person who is to be the Secretary of the Commission. That could happen because, as you know Mr. Speaker, your staff—particularly your Secretary—could be, and indeed might well be, appointed from outside the normal staff in the House. It can be an outside appointment.
    If the Secretary of yours or of any future Speaker became Secretary of the Commission, that person would have avoided coming up through the whole ladder of promotion and of experience in the House, and would be in the potentially very important position of Secretary of the Commission. Many people at all levels of the staff of the House might resent somebody going in at that level, having bypassed the whole process of coming up through the ranks, or at least of having had broad experience at the senior level or in different Departments under the new structure in the House. It is to avoid that that this amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it in that spirit.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: I had thought more hon. Members would wish to take part in this brief discussion than have sought to do so so far. I should first like to say how much we regretted that we had to have a Division on the previous matter, to which I must not refer, but it is deeply regretted. There is a danger that it could cause difficulties, but the record of the Opposition on staff matters is as good as that of any part of the House and we shall proceed like that hereafter, the House having made a decision on that previous matter.
    There is no doubt that the appointment of a Secretary to the Commission is one of major importance, and it is important that whoever holds the position should have the confidence of all who are involved. But it is felt on the Opposition Benches that such confidence can best be achieved by leaving the choice of Secretary to the Commission itself. The Commission is an important House of Commons body, perhaps the most important House of Commons body, looking after
    1286
    the interests of both Members of the House and the staff who serve here. We believe that the Commission will be best qualified to choose who it shall have as its Secretary.
    It must also be said, however, that powerful arguments have been advanced by hon. Members today, and by some who spoke in Committee, and one could not for a moment imagine that the future Commission would be deaf to whatever has been said in Committee, and here, in relation to the kind of person who should serve as its secretary. I do not believe it is necessary to enact the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend in the way that he introduced it. I rather got the impression that he merely wanted to restate the position that he held upstairs, and still holds, but that he was not seeking to force this matter to a Division.
    I hope that the House, having had its say, will be satisfied that the Commission will have good sense in this matter. It has not been trusted, perhaps, in all matters, for the Bill has been very tightly drawn, but perhaps in this matter the Commission's good sense can be relied on. The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) spoke of the frustration of those who come up through the ranks and see someone brought in from outside to this key post. I put it to him that the whole object of the Bill, which we hope will soon be an Act, is to provide the greatest freedom of movement among this who serve us. I suppose there could be a situation in which somebody comes up through the ranks who, having gone to one of the Departments of the House, is chosen by Mr. Speaker to be his Secretary, I imagine with the acclaim of all concerned.
    It might then be the wish of the Commission and the House that this person, having served with such distinction, skill, tact and everything else required of a Speaker's Secretary in that position, should, following that service, assume the extremely important position of Secretary to the Commission. That could happen. I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind and will not wish to push the amendment to a vote and vote it into the statute, because that situation, which could exist—for we are legislating for the next century—could specifically preclude an immensely worthwhile and experienced

    1287
    person serving in that position. I hope that I have said enough to bring both sides and all quarters of the House together. Perhaps, just for once, the Commission, which does not yet exist except in shadowy form, could be trusted to get things right.
    Mr. William Price: I am delighted that harmony is restored between the hon. Gentleman and myself on behalf of the Lord President. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bottomley Committee recommended, in para 416, that the Secretary to the new Commission should be the Speaker's Secretary. The Committee said:
    "The Secretary to the Commission should be independent of any of the Departments especially in view of possible appeals to the Commission by Heads of Departments. We accordingly recommend that this post be filled by the Speaker's secretary."
    Under Clause 2(4) the secretaryship to Mr. Speaker, along with other posts, is excluded from being a Commission appointment under Clause 2(1). The effect of the amendment—we have been through this in Committee as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) will remember—would thus be to disbar Mr. Speaker's Secretary and others, including the Clerk of the House, any Clerk Assistant, the Sergeant at Arms and any other member of the Speaker's personal staff, from appointment to this post. I believe that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is the position.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the appointment of the Secretary should be for the Commission itself to decide. That is why the Bill is silent on the question of the appointment and on the method of selection, leaving the Commission entirely free to choose whom it wants. The Commission may well follow the recommendation of the Bottomley Committee and appoint Mr. Speaker's Secretary to the post or it may decide to do otherwise, but I believe that it
    1288
    would be wrong to limit the Commission's freedom of choice by ruling out in advance the Bottomley Committee's recommendation or any other of the House staff referred to in Clause 2(4). I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this. We have not written into the Bill anything on the appointment of anyone, and I do not believe we should write in any exclusion, either.
    I want to add to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). I, too, am sure that the Commission will take notice of all that has been said, both here and upstairs, and of any representations which may be made before any appointment is finalised.
    Mr. Hal Miller: I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in this debate and for the spirit in which they have approached the amendment. I should like to repeat my assurance to you, Sir, it was not intended to put you under any embarrassment. This is an important post, and I thought it necessary to state a view contrary to that which we felt had been rather facilely adopted—if I may say so without offence—in the report of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley).
    My purpose in moving the amendment was to make certain that there was a statement of an alternative position. I hope and believe that the Commission will consider the remarks made here and in Committee when it makes the appointment, and that it does not merely have the Bottomley Report in front of it.
    Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Paul Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. May I seek your advice about New Clause No. 3, which has not been selected? I understand that it is out of order. It seeks to provide parliamentary pensions at the age of 80 for former Members and widows who are at present entitled to no pension.
The Minister of State said clearly on Second Reading that the intention of the Bill was to carry out the recommendations of the Boyle Report. In paragraph 34 of that report a specific reference was made to the possibility of pensions for former Members at the age of 80. No recommendation was made, but it was specifically said that Parliament might wish to consider, and come to a decision on, this matter.
Do I understand that the Government have drawn the Bill so tightly that Parliament is being prevented from accepting the invitation issued by Boyle and prevented from coming to a specific decision on the matter? If that is so, it is disgraceful that when we are specifically invited by a Committee to consider a matter the Government should deny us the opportunity.
The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The Bill is so drafted that it deals only with contributory pensions, and therefore the hon. Gentleman's new clause is out of order.
Mr. Dean: Can you, then, assist the Committee, Mr. Godman Irvine? How, in the light of this, can we, within order, discuss a recommendation that the Boyle Committee suggested we should discuss?
The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may find some other method of discussing the matter, but he cannot do so under the Bill.
Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. We are in a very difficult position. In the Bill there is
1290
proposed a retrospective extension on a non-contributory basis for people who are already Members. They are entitled to accumulate extra credits for pension purposes for a non-contributory period, but we are excluding those of their colleagues who have subsequently left the House, although as far as one can see they were on the same basis. Why should one category be awarded a pension that is denied to others who were in the same boat at the same time?
The Second Deputy Chairman: It is simply a question whether the pension is contributory.
Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I, too, have a little beef about the questions that have been ruled in order and out of order by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I put down only one amendment and one new clause. The amendment had the object of enabling us to discuss the difference between our pension scheme, which at present has a 5 per cent. contribution rate, raised by the Bill to 6 per cent., and the Civil Service scheme, which is non-contributory, except in respect of the pensions of civil servants' widows, for whom I think civil servants contribute 1½ per cent. or 1¾ per cent. That amendment has been ruled out of order, with the result that we cannot bring Members of Parliament on to a basis of equality with the civil servants who serve them.
My new clause, which was also ruled out of order, concerns a question on which no Member was consulted. The Trustees, on the Treasury's advice, decided to opt us out of the State pension scheme. I was told earlier by Officers of the House that the Bill would provide an opportunity for Members to discuss that issue. That will not happen if my new clause is ruled out of order, yet it is a matter about which no Member has been consulted, apart from the Trustees. At some time, somewhere, we should have the opportunity of deciding for ourselves whether we shall be opted out of or into the State scheme.
The Second Deputy Chairman: That may be, but it is not within the scope of the Bill.
Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL
  Clause 2

    ILL-HEALTH PENSIONS BASED ON SERVICE AS A MEMBER
    The Second Deputy Chairman: I call the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) to move Amendment No. 2.
    Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 26, leave out
    'on the day of the poll'
    and insert:
    'during the week in which the poll takes place'.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 26, leave out
    'on the day of the poll in that election'.
    Mr. Pym: I have moved the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who is not present, because it concerns a matter that I briefly raised on Second Reading. I then told the House that it seemed to me that the words
    "on the day of the poll"
    were unduly restrictive.
    It is in a sense a probing amendment, but there is a genuine point behind it. If the provision were allowed to be couched in wider terms, it might be both fairer and more reasonable.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for moving the amendment, because I appreciate the concern that has given rise to both amendments. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question about the matter on Second Reading.
    Subsection (8)(b), which contains the words in question, affects a very small group of participants in the scheme. In fact, it covers the case only of an officeholder who is not a Member of this House —normally an office-holder in the House of Lords—who loses his office as a result of a General Election. The intention of the paragraph is to permit such a person to benefit from the ill-health retirement provision if he can satisfy the Trustees that because of his ill-health he would have been unable to perform the duties
    1292
    of a Member of this House at the time of the election. The paragraph thus safeguards the position of an office-holder in poor health whose intention to apply is overtaken by a snap election, or who suffers a sudden decline in health at the time of a Dissolution.
    The reason why "the day of the poll" is stated as the time at which the office holder must be ill has, however, no hidden significance. It is simply that the Trustees must have some definite time at which to judge the office holder's state of health. This is, I hope, made clearer by the note on the clause which has been made available to hon. Members.
    I can certainly assure the House that there is no question of the Trustees being obliged to take a blinkered look at office holders' health. The test to be applied, which is the only test it is reasonable to ask the Trustees to apply, is whether, at the time of the election, the individual is generally in a fit state to perform the duties of a Member.
    The legislation is not intended to mean that a bout of influenza on the day of the poll would qualify an office holder for ill-health retirement. Equally, a temporary remission on the day of the poll from a chronic condition which would normally render the office holder incapable of performing adequately the duties of a Member would not exclude him. I am sure that we can safely leave it to the Trustees to interpret their responsibilities as I have described.
    With that assurance, particularly drawing attention to the fact that the provision does not apply to hon. Members but to certain office holders, I hope that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire will be willing to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Pym: The fact that the amendment refers to someone who is not a member of this House is not, I believe, relevant. However, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 6

    WIDOWS', DEPENDENT WIDOWERS' AND CHILDREN'S PENSIONS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: This is the main beneficiary clause in the Bill. I have tabled three amendments which have not been selected. I do not for a moment question the choice of the Chair. The amendments may well have been defective in that they sought to add words at the end of the clause when, perhaps, they should have been added earlier.
    This clause will give three months' salary to the dependants of Members who die after the passing of this measure. It will also make some improvement to children's pensions. On Second Reading I argued that this clause, as the main benefit clause, should be back-dated by a year. I said that because I believe that the Government obliged to introduce this Bill a year ago, as the Minister of State almost implied in his opening remarks on Second Reading. I do not say that he agreed with my proposition but the implication was there when he said:
    "The Review Body's report was, of course, presented to Parliament in July 1976, but at that time pay policy virtually ruled out any improvements in occupational pension schemes and we were not able to take any immediate action."
    I accept that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "From 1st August 1977 this was no longer the case, and we were able to consider implementing the Review Body's recommendations." —[Official Report, 21st June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 615.)
    It is my contention that the Government should have acted promptly and introduced this Bill because it did not go against phase 2 of the Government's incomes policy. The Government did not do so. The Bill took some time to prepare. As a result, I believe that they should have made this clause retrospective to cover the dependants of the eight Members who have died in the past year. Of those eight Members, six have dependants. If my suggestion expressed on Second Reading had been accepted by the Government the widows of the six Members who have died would have benefited from the clause.
    1294
    It is particularly ironic, tragic and poignant that the widow of one Member who died over the weekend would have benefited if my recommendations had been accepted by the Government. What makes it even more ironic was that the last words that Mr. Joseph Harper spoke in the House were in the middle of my speech. I was saying:
    "We are the only group in society that can determine absolutely what we pay ourselves and what levels of pension we set."
    He intervened and said:
    "We have made a very bad job of it"— [Official Report. 21st June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 650.]
    I believe that we have made a very bad job of it.
    The intention of my amendments was to give the small benefits in this clause to the dependants of those Members who have died over the past year. This would have included Joe Harper, who attended the Second Reading of the Bill. I very much regret that my amendments have not been selected. It may well be that by the time we reach Report I can find a form of words that will bring my amendments into order, in which case I would ask you, Mr. Godman Irvine, to consider accepting a starred amendment to implement what I have been saying.
    Mr. John Smith: I do not believe that anyone—certainly not the Government—lacks sympathy for the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). We are conscious of the poignancy in the fact that Joe Harper was the Whip sitting on the Bench beside Ministers when the Second Reading debate took place. The fact that this Bill was before the House for consideration naturally sprang to our minds when we heard of his unfortunate death. There are, regrettably, a number of other hon. Members who have died within the past year, most of them from the Labour side of the House.
    We are in a genuine difficulty about incorporating retrospective elements in pension schemes. I ought to put the other side of the case and explain that to start introducing a retrospective element into pensions legislation of this type would raise a fundamental principle which would possibly have repercussive effects upon many other pension schemes. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with

    1295
    that but it is worth drawing to the attention of the Committee that this has to be taken into consideration.
    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has raised any other comments about the substance of the clause, of which I am sure he approves. We shall come later to amendments which seek to improve its provisions. The Government have not acted in the way proposed by hon. Members because of the principle of retrospection.
    Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Before the Minister slips off that rather uncomfortable pole upon which he has perched in an attempt to excuse the Government's conduct in respect of this clause I would point out that the pension scheme that we are discussing for Members of Parliament is unique in more ways than one. As one who has in the recent past seen fit to condemn retroactive legislation in another area I do not believe that the Government can simply say that to back-date would breach a serious principle yet at the same time continue so to denude the scheme that it continues to be a very special scheme.
    If the Government do not intend to bring forward an amendment which would implement the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), would it be possible for them to consider, as a one-off measure, some sort of arrangement in respect of those Members who have died within the period that we are here considering? The Government can be criticised for being dilatory in bringing forward this measure. If that is conceded in any way by the Minister the Government have a responsibility to see whether there is not a case for bringing in a measure to take care of the case of those former Members to whom my hon. Friend has referred. Looking to the future they should try to see that such a situation does not recur. There is a duty upon the Government to do this, out of compassion and because they can be said to have a narrow responsibility.
    Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has in essence repeated the argument of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) with the added point that there are certain unique features about the
    1296
    parliamentary scheme. That is true. Unfortunately, there are also similarities between the parliamentary scheme and other public sector pension schemes. I understand that it is the practice of those who are responsible for negotiating public sector schemes to look closely at what is decided for Members of Parliament. In the short time that I have been considering this matter I have realised that it is possible to draw parallels and non-parallels with all sorts of pension schemes.
    The short answer is that we share the hon. Member's sense of frustration over the fact that we are unable to help the widows of our former colleagues but feel that if we departed from the principle of non-retrospection we would be getting into very deep waters indeed. With great regret I have to say that I cannot offer to bring forward an amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 7

    SHORT-TERM PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS, DEPENDENT WIDOWERS AND CHILDREN
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 8, line 40, leave out from 'widower' to 'subsection' in line 43.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may also discuss the following:
    Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 44, after 'widower', insert
    'when he reaches retirement age, or if, at the time of her death, he was incapable by reason of bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living,'.
    and the following new clause:

  New Clause No. 8

    WIDOWERS' PENSIONS
    'For subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act of 1972 there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, the widower of a woman who has died on or after the passing of the Act of 1978 shall be entitled to receive a pension under this section when he reaches

    1297
    retirement age or, if, at the time of her death, he was incapable by reason of bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living and if at that time either—

    (a) she was entitled to receive a pension under section 7 or section 9 of this Act, or under both those sections, or

    (b) she was not so entitled, but had an aggregate period of reckonable service (whether as a Member or otherwise) of not less than four years and either had been a Member of the House of Commons on or after 1st January 1972 or had elected to be a participant under section 2 of this Act in respect of one or more periods of tenure of reckonable office."'.

    7.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Castle: The Committee will see that a considerable number of my hon. Friends are associated with this amendment.
    We are all conscious of anomalies and injustices which appear to occur in any pension scheme such as the one to which reference has just been made. But the purpose of this group of amendments is to mitigate one of the most astonishing injustices of all, which we have tolerated for years in our pension scheme, by making a modest improvement in our provision for widowers.
    As I have been round the House discussing this group of amendments with my hon. Friends, I have been surprised to discover how few hon. Members know what is the provision for widowers. That is a very natural state of affairs when we come to think of it, for most hon. Members, being men, have rested happy in the knowledge that provision was made for their own widows.
    Pensions for widows are now an automatic part of practically every pension scheme. In our scheme, widows will get, as of right, half their husbands' pension entitlement, regardless of their age when the husbands die, regardless of whether the widows have means of their own, regardless of whether they have children, and regardless of whether they have been earning a livelihood of their own or were financially dependent on the former Members of Parliament.
    This seems automatic justice to Members of this House, and it is these comprehensive provisions, as of right, for which we women Members of Parliament have been paying to give widows financial security. I do not regret it. I
    1298
    think it is absolutely right. But what are the men Members of this House paying for our widowers? It is an amount so minute that it would be impossible to measure it.
    What provision do we make for widowers under our pension scheme? The criteria are laid down in Section 14(1) of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972. If I were to hold an examination among hon. Members as to the provisions for widowers, I doubt whether 20 per cent. would get the answer right. Most of the 20 per cent. would be people whom I have approached and to whom I have pointed it out. The criteria for a widower to receive a pension are
    "if, at the time of her death, he was incapable by reason of age or bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living and was wholly or mainly dependent on her".
    The widower has to be incapacitated by age or infirmity at the time of her death. Later on it makes no difference how incapable of earning his own living he may be. In addition, he has to prove that his wife was supporting him. I should have thought that in this modern age of the Welfare State that second condition—
    "wholly or mainly dependent on her"—
    would be almost unprovable when he had a pension of his own, as he almost certainly would have.
    I doubt whether we have had a single case of a widower's pension being awarded under the criteria that we have laid down, yet women Members of Parliament will have their contributions increased under the scheme to provide, among other things, improved short-term benefits for widows, under Clause 7. Once again, widowers can get these improved benefits only if they meet these demeaning and almost impossible criteria. A woman Member will continue to be levied extra contributions to pay for benefits which are a solace merely to one sex in this House.
    We are introducing these new proposals and perpetuating these out-of-date criteria for widowers at a time when we have made great steps forward in sex equality. Since the 1972 Act was passed, the thinking of this country on equality of the sexes has been revolutionised. The Equal Pay Act 1970 has come into full force. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has gone

    1299
    on the statute book. The Equal Opportunities Commission has been set up. As Secretary of State for Social Services, I carried through this House a new State pension scheme which for the first time gave women equal opportunities, equal obligations and equal rights, yet here we are adding to our own pension scheme and levying on Members a higher contribution to pay for it, and continuing to embody in that scheme a piece of in-quality against the male survivors of women Members of this House which is ludicrously out of date. It just will not do.
    New Clause No. 8, therefore, seeks to amend the criteria for a widower's pension in the 1972 Act. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are consequential, in that they apply the new criteria to the short-term pensions proposed in Clause 7. I shall explain to the House the new criteria that we propose. Logically, of course, we ought to go for complete sex equality. We ought to go for a survivor's benefit. That is the only fair and logical treatment when the contributions and salaries and conditions of service of men and women in this House are identical. If salaries are identical, if contributions are identical, and if conditions of service are identical, benefits ought to be identical. For anything else to obtain is nothing short of actuarial robbery.
    I am a realist and I know that we have to phase in sex equality, just as we have had to do it, to a certain extent, in the State pension scheme. What I am pleading, and what my hon. Friends who have signed the new clause and the amendments are pleading, is that today, in this Bill, at least we should make a start in rectifying what can be held without dispute to be the most gross injustice in our whole pension scheme. The start that we are proposing—because we want the Government to listen, because we want the House to take this seriously, and because we want to practise the art of the possible—is a very modest one indeed.
    First, we suggest that the widower of a Member of this House should receive the same pension as does the widow—that is, half her spouse's pension entitlement—when he reaches retirement age and not before. For example, if an hon. Member such as my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs.
    1300
    Hayman) were prematurely to die, which we all profoundly hope she will not, her husband would not immediately draw the equivalent of the widow's pension, as he would if the sex arrangement were the other way around. He would have to wait until he was 65.
    Secondly, in order to provide for those cases where a husband may be incapacitated or incapable of earning his own living, we urge that he should receive the widower's pension on the death of his wife, whatever his age, and that he should not have to prove that he was wholly or mainly dependent on her.
    We propose that these conditions will apply to the existing widower's pension and to the proposed new short-term one. Why did we fix on the retirement criterion? Because our modest proposals fall far short of logical equality. We chose the retirement criterion because we know that the time when the widower has retired is the time when he will most need financial help, but also because we know the argument that will be made against us. It is that our scheme must not get too far out of line with other schemes, and that we cannot just legislate for ourselves entirely new concepts which might seem interesting or convenient.
    The retirement principle is the basis of the modest advance which the Government made on widower's pensions in the new State pension scheme. Under that scheme, a widower who has retired from employment will be entitled to have his pension recalculated on the same basis as his widow's retirement pension would have been if he had died first. Under the State scheme we make a provision that a widow aged 60, if she has worked and contributed, can add 25 per cent. of her own earnings above the base level to the pension which she draws on her husband's record, subject to the provision that her total pension may not exceed the maximum payable on one record under the scheme. But under that new State pension scheme we say that the widower will in future be able to do exactly the same and increase his own pension through his wife's record. That is a new breakthrough. Under the State scheme, it applies only to the widower who has retired.
    In trying to find a fair analogy for us to make a starting point, it struck me

    1301
    that we could legitimately take this first step towards a survivor benefit of equal rights under our own scheme.
    Of course, the two schemes are by no means identical. There is no ceiling of reckonable earnings under our scheme as there is under the State scheme. But what matters is the principle, and the principle which we spelt out in the White Paper "Better Pensions" which I myself presented to the House, was:
    "An important new proposal is the recognition of the financial needs of widowers".
    Therefore, under the State scheme, the widower can benefit from his late wife's earnings when he has retired. We are not putting forward on our own behalf an entirely new principle; we are using one embodied in the State scheme, which we seek to adapt to our own type of scheme and our own circumstances.
    Nor, I would point out, under the State scheme does the widower, in order to benefit from his late wife's earnings, have to meet the humiliating criterion of dependency; he gets it as of right. If we do nothing else in this Bill, we ought to remove the out-of-date concept that in order to get anything a widower would have to prove that he had been wholly or mainly dependent on his wife. That is a condition which in a modern welfare State would be unprovable to all intents and purposes.
    7.15 p.m.
    Therefore, in the changes which we propose, we are not trying to get ourselves out of line with principles that are applied generally. Indeed, we shall still be leaving ourselves well out of line to our own detriment with the best private pension schemes. There is nothing to prevent occupational pension schemes from introducing a full and equal widower's benefit, and the best ones do. It is merely a question whether the members of those private schemes are willing to pay for this type of benefit, as I hope the House would be, just as I am prepared to pay an increased contribution for hon. Members' widow's benefits.
    If they resist these amendments, which I hope they will not, no doubt the Government will put before us a case which has nothing to do with the merits of our arguments. In fact, they have already given away their case. In reply to a
    1302
    Question on widower's benefits that I put to him recently, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office said that the changes would create a precedent for comparable public service pension schemes. He did not say that the idea was ridiculous, outrageous, unjust or extravagant; he said that it would create a precedent. I challenge that. Are those public service pension schemes completely comparable with ours? We know that they are not. We know that there are variants between their provisions and ours. Some of them, at any rate in certain parts, are non-contributory, whereas ours is contributory. Others make better provision than ours in certain details.
    Indeed, in the report of the Review Body on Top Salaries, Lord Boyle went out of his way to say:
    "we do not regard the provisions of other public service pension schemes as an absolute standard for the Parliamentary scheme. Nevertheless, the improvements which we have recommended will bring the benefits of the Parliamentary scheme close to those provided in public service schemes generally."
    Close, but not exactly equal, and in many cases not as good. At another point in the report, in paragraph 55, Lord Boyle insisted on this scheme. He said:
    "We should add that our references to the provisions of other public service pension schemes do not imply that these schemes should provide a rigid measure of the pension benefits that would apply to Members of Parliament: this would clearly not be appropriate in relation to particular features of the job. Nor do we imply that the provisions of pension schemes in the private sector in general are irrelevant."
    If private sector schemes are not irrelevant, we can surely follow some of them in beginning to make better provision for widowers, just as we are doing in the State pension scheme. This would be a fitting step in a year when we are celebrating an earlier historic step towards sex equality.
    We are not asking for anything extravagant, unfair to other people, or excessively generous to ourselves. On many issues this House has been the policy maker. It is time that the logic of the widower's benefit was faced universally. We cannot do it all at once. All sorts of things must be considered, but we can begin to stand up for the principle.
    When hon. Members vote tonight to increase the contributions of women Members, I hope they will spare a

    1303
    moment to think, if not with sympathy at least with shame, of the inequality of the benefits that they impose upon us. Having done so, I hope that they will support the amendment that we press tonight.
    Mr. Paul Dean: I rise to support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). It is not often that she and I agree on pension matters. I do not think that I can recall an occasion when we have agreed before, but the time has now arrived.
    I shall be extremely brief because the right hon. Lady's arguments were wholly convincing. There is no need for me to repeat them. However, I wish to put to the Government two particular points that she made.
    First, I do not believe that if this amendment were accepted we should be providing privileges for ourselves which are not generally acceptable outside. I have argued before, and no doubt I shall argue again, that we are in a special position in the House of Commons. We decide our own pay and our own pensions and therefore we must be very careful that we do not provide ourselves with the sort of things that are not accepted as normal outside.
    The concept of a survivor's pension, which is written into the main State legislation, is becoming common practice in occupational pension schemes as well. Only this morning a pension scheme of which I am a trustee was considering whether the widower should be included on the same basis as the widow. I am sure that when we make a decision shortly we shall do just that. Therefore, if the Government accept this amendment, they will not be open to the criticism that we are providing privileges that are not generally provided outside.
    Secondly, the Minister emphasised on Second Reading—quite rightly—that it is very unsatisfactory to formulate our detailed pension arrangements through main legislation. That is probably one reason why we are in such a mess. The Minister said that he looked forward to the time when our pension arrangements were in rules. This is more flexible and it would mean that they could be altered as easily as trustees can alter a pension scheme outside.
    1304
    If we are to achieve this highly desirable objective we must have legislation which is as tidy as we can get it and which is not lagging behind in any respect before we translate the legislation into scheme rules. On these grounds I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If they feel disposed not to do so, and the right hon. Lady divides the Committee, I shall vote with her.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: I know from long experience that it is very often best to get one's words in before the Government spokesman has made the fatal commitment one way or the other.
    We all agree that in any ordinary justice the widower should be treated exactly like the widow. However, the whole structure of our society in the past has been inimical to that idea. It was always assumed that the man earned the income and looked after the woman, and therefore on his death she was the one in need. In the great majority of cases that was true then, but it is far less true now.
    Male members of the House must admit that there is a certain amount of male chauvinism in us all, but we do our best to control it. That male chauvinism leads us to think that there is something slightly disreputable in a widower claiming benefit. There is a feeling that it is all right for the widow to be looked after, because she is just the poor little woman, but for a man it is considered that it is not quite equal to his manhood.
    About 30 years ago, when I was Under-Secretary of State for War, I had to try to persuade the House to agree to certain financial provisions for both men and women in the Army, which contained a reference to widowers. Some of the remarks made at that time suggested that it was beneath the dignity of a man even to be thought of as a widower at all. But that was a generation ago. We have got rid of that sort of thinking now and we accept the idea that we should move towards complete equality in treatment of widows and widowers.
    As my right hon. Friend wisely pointed out, it would be no good trying to go the whole way at once. But the step that she has proposed tonight is very modest. Her provision has this advantage—it accepts the proposition that the widower,

    1305
    unlike the widow, must, for the time being, have a pension conditional on certain things, and not absolute. When one makes a pension conditional one should draw the conditions as precisely as possible and not saddle the trustees with a great many awkward decisions on difficult matters of opinion.
    My right hon. Friend's proposal removes from the trustees the tiresome and difficult business of asking whether a widower was wholly dependent on his wife in her lifetime. Also, on the question of age it replaces the necessity for the trustees to give an opinion whether the man was, by reason of age, incapable of earning a living with the definite fact of the actual age that he had reached. These are the incidental advantages of my right hon. Friend's proposal.
    We all know what is worrying the Government. They are afraid that use could be made of this in arguments with public servants. Normally, one hesitates to advance the famous argument of the girl who had an illegitimate baby, and who said "But it is only a little one." But in this case the number of persons concerned and the sums of money involved is so small that it is relevant to the argument, especially as the concept of the widower's pension, and the approach to equality is already being accepted widely.
    We are not doing any great violence by introducing a totally new principle. Therefore the fact that we are doing it on so small a scale is relevant. The number of women Members of this House is small —I agree that it would be an advantage if it were larger—and we do not expect it to be very much larger for a considerable time. The number of women Members of this House who die leaving widowers will be even smaller. Therefore, the amount of money affected will be microscopic.
    1.30 p.m.
    It would be a grudging kind of person who said "No, you cannot have this until the provision of equality for widow and widower is accepted universally throughout the public service." The argument to the effect "We cannot do this because it might set a precedent" would be all very well if legislation about our pensions and legislation affecting the pensions of the public service generally proceeded simul-
    1306
    taneously or hand in hand, but they do not. It will be a considerable time before there is another Bill on this subject before the House.
    What will happen? Arrangements will be made in the public service giving more generous treatment for widowers than that proposed in the amendment, or that which is already in the Bill. Therefore, we shall have to wait to catch up with them until it happens to be convenient to have another Bill on this subject. That is another reason why we cannot argue that everything that we do in respect of Members' pensions, even so tiny a matter as this, could always be infallibly and decisively quoted in an argument about public service pensions.
    I ask the Committee to consider what is involved. What is envisaged is that at some future date there will be an argument with public servants. They will put forward a proposal and the question will be whether they are to base their argument on the incredibly modest amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I am not at all sure that the next time this matter comes to be argued on the public service generally they might regard my right hon. Friend's amendment as a great deal less than they would be prepared to consider as justice.
    We are not opening a door to a great cascade of claims. We are recognising that since we cannot go the whole way required by natural justice, it would be a mistake to throw away the opportunity of this Bill to take one modest step nearer to natural justice. That is what I am asking the Minister to consider.
    Mr. McCrindle: I shall detain the Committee for only a few minutes. I wish to lend my weight to the arguments which have been advanced from both sides of the Committee in favour of the amendment.
    The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), with whom I have been in combat on pension matters since I came to this House and with whom I have not always seen eye to eye, is at least consistent. Whatever one might say against her—and there are those of us who have said quite a lot against her—I must emphasise that the right hon. Lady is consistent to the extent that when she was. Secretary of State for Social Services, she took a major stride towards sex

    1307
    equality in one direction, and today she has come to the House with an extremely modest stride towards sex equality in the opposite direction. I find myself instinctively urged to support her amendment.
    Members of the Committee may know that in the past I have had a fairly close association with occupational pensions schemes. On many occasions I have contrasted the provision of good occupational schemes with, on the one hand, the State scheme and, on the other hand, public service schemes—and yet again with the scheme adopted for Members of this House. Nearly always the comparison has been extremely favourable towards the practice of good occupational pensions schemes.
    The developing practice in occupational pensions is to accept that, in a period of increasing equality, the number of married women who might well become senior executives in a company is growing. There is a tendency for provision for widowers to be made in occupational pensions schemes.
    Once again, I am forced to contrast what is done in occupational pensions schemes with what is done in schemes provided for hon. Members. I hope that the Minister will not adopt the line adopted by his predecessors—that he has to be careful not to set a precedent. It has also been said by his predecessors that we should not seek to lead in our own interests. If I thought that there was the slightest chance of leading in any respect in the pension provision for hon. Members, I would be pleased, but there is no chance of that happening. Yet here is a tiny opportunity to begin in that direction.
    It is not as though the right hon. Lady is advancing an unreasonable proposition. There are those who think that, if anything, the proposition is too modest. But this is perhaps a first opportunity for us to show the way in the practice of a pension scheme for Members of this House. This may blaze a trail for the occupational pensions schemes to which I have referred and for the public service pensions, which I feel sure will be brought into account by the Minister if he feels that he must resist this amendment.
    This is all a question of comparing what is proposed by the right hon. Lady with what already exists in occupational
    1308
    pensions schemes, within the State scheme and within other public service schemes. If the comparison is with occupational pensions schemes, there is no reason whatever for the Government to resist this amendment. If the comparison is with the State scheme, I believe that the whole ethos of that scheme in respect of sex equality gives the Minister no opportunity to resist it on that account. Therefore, he will have to fall back on the comparison with other public service schemes.
    Earlier in the debate I underlined my feeling that the scheme for Members of Parliament is unique, but on that occasion the Minister was unable to accept that argument. Let us assume for the moment that it is not unique in quite the sense that he may have interpreted the word. It is certainly unique in not being an over-generous scheme. I believe that the Minister and the Government tonight have an opportunity, at very small cost, to accept this modest amendment without in any way undermining the continuing advantages of many public service schemes as opposed to the scheme that exists for hon. Members. Whether the comparison is with occupational schemes, with the State scheme or with other pub-lice service schemes, I believe that the Minister's ability to resist must be small. I hope that within his brief he has the flexibility to allow that opposition to disappear completely because if he does not do so I shall feel inclined to join the right hon. Lady in the Division Lobby, if she chooses to divide the Committee on this amendment.
    Mr. Frank Hooley: I should like to support the amendment, largely on the grounds of financial fairness.
    To the best of my knowledge, the emoluments of Members of this House have always been identical for male and female Members. That being so, I believe that the consequential matters relating to pensions and other entitlements should be strictly on a fair financial basis as well. It is intolerable that a woman Member should be expected to contribute for 10, 25 or 30 years the figure of 5 or 6 per cent to the pension fund and yet her husband should not enjoy under the conditions set out in the Bill a pension comparable with or identical to that which would be enjoyed by

    1309
    the widow of a male Member. On the ground of financial fairness alone, the amendment should be supported and should be accepted by the Government. If there is a Division, I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
    I deny that there can be any question of precedent. Hon. Members are in a unique position. We are not in an occupation which is comparable with professions outside. The manner, terms and mode of our work are special and different from those of other occupations. I would resist any argument by the Government that if this modest proposition is accepted it will be quoted all over the place as a precedent for other groups. Other groups are perfectly able to argue their own cases in their own way. The proposition contained in the amendment should be accepted on its merits. I strongly support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and others.
    Mr. John Smith: I have listened with much interest and sympathy to the arguments put forward with a great deal of eloquence and logic by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and other hon. Members. I take into account the fact that all hon. Members who have spoken have supported the amendment. Important issues of principle are raised by the amendment and I am sure that it is right for them to be debated in the House, particularly since the implications of our decision will inevitably be widely discussed.
    The Government have much sympathy with the general objectives of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. As she aptly reminded us, we are the Government who introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, and more strides have been taken under this Government to break down the traditional barriers of sex discrimination than in any other period, even including the period in which universal suffrage was implemented. There is still a long way to go, but I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government's commitment to the abolition of sex discrimination is genuine. My right hon. Friend has played a notable part in achieving the objectives that have already been reached.
    1310
    The provisions in the parliamentary scheme, which confer benefits on all widows but only on dependent widowers, are the traditional provisions which carried over in the 1972 Act from the 1965 Act. However undesirable they may be, those provisions are still common form in occupational pension schemes in the public and private sectors. My right hon. Friend said that there were widowers' benefits in the best private pension schemes, and that view was supported by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) who has great experience in these matters. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) went still further.
    However, in many of the public and private sector pension schemes, widowers have an entitlement to pensions only on a dependency basis. It would require an analysis of all public sector schemes to find out how many other cases exist, but many of the public and the private sector schemes have benefits for widowers only on a dependency basis.
    Abolishing the dependency test entirely, which is not what my right hon. Friend is urging, would create negligible additional costs for the parliamentary scheme. However, that is not the only question that has to be considered. We have to ask whether the parliamentary scheme should take the lead in such a matter—hon. Members have said "Yes"—and if so, should the same provision be made available to the rest of the community". If so, does this alter the hitherto accepted role of occupational pensions schemes? Does it add to them an element of life insurance, as well as a provision for those who are left without support when their spouse dies? These are important matters.
    It is interesting to note that the Occupational Pensions Board considered the whole question of equal treatment for men and women in its 1976 report. It concluded that while it would be desirable to move to a position where treatment was entirely equal, progress should be made only as resources permitted. Though an obviously sensible approach, this left a major problem still to be considered. Should schemes where the financial implications of granting equal treatment are small—such as the parliamentary scheme—improve matters for

    1311
    their widowers before or at the same time as improvements were made by larger schemes? This is a particularly difficult problem in the public service where the objective has been to try to keep schemes broadly in line. I recognise that it is not always achieved, and certainly the relationship between the parliamentary scheme and other public sector schemes sometimes gets a little adrift to the disadvantage of those in the parliamentary scheme.
    The Government's conclusion hitherto has been that it would not be right for small schemes to introduce such changes on an ad hoc basis since to do so would be inequitable to those in larger organisations where the cost implications would be substantial.
    7.45 p.m.
    It is estimated that to abolish the test of dependency completely for future pensions in the public sector only would give rise to an extra cost of £15 million per annum for future service and of double that for all service. To abolish the test throughout the public and private sectors—and it must be remembered that improvements for public service employees quickly lead to pressure for the same treatment in the private sector—would cost £25 million for future service and the cost would be doubled to about £50 million for all service. I recognise that this is not what the amendment proposes, but it is useful for the House to have these figures.
    Mrs. Castle: There is not much point in giving the House those figures without giving the figures that are appropriate to our proposal. What would be the repercussive effect of that proposal?
    Mr. Smith: I am coming to that, but we have to consider that if adopting this change led to a full dependants' benefit, the costs to which I have referred would be incurred.
    Since my right hon. Friend put down her amendment last night, I have tried to establish what would be the cost of limiting the proposal to the age of 65, but I have not yet been able to do so. That is why I shall be making a suggestion later in my speech. My right hon. Friend made a specific request that I should try to get the figures. In the short time available—time that was
    1312
    shortened still further by the fact that the Bill came on fairly smartly today—it has not been possible to obtain the information which she requested and which I agree is a relevant consideration.
    Hon. Members have made short speeches and I do not want to go into a long argument about whether this change would lead us towards a change in the underlying philosophy of pension schemes. It may be that there would be implied an underlying philosophical change pushing schemes towards life insurance rather than just providing for people left without support. Some people would argue that there was an element of that involved in the proposition, but I shall leave it to one side.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn wishes to level the provision upwards at increased cost to public expenditure generally and to individual contributors. She accepts that if the scheme were introduced in the public sector employees would have to pay more. That does not apply in our scheme. The cost here would be negligible because the number of widowers who would qualify is very small, but in other public sector schemes the same consideration does not apply. There are large numbers of women employed in the public sector and a much bigger cost might be involved.
    The other queston is whether, even if the broad principle is conceded—and I fully understand the logic of my right hon. Friend's position—this is the best way to achieve what she wants. If we dealt with this matter on the basis of accepting the logic that there should be no sex discrimination, the logical thing to do would be to make all widows' benefits available to all widowers, as my right hon. Friend said. However, she recognised that we must go one step at a time, having regard to public expenditure.
    There is another way in which we could go. We could change the provisions for widowers to make them acquire rights in the scheme provided that they satisfy the dependant test. That would achieve sex equality, but I do not propose that. I doubt whether the Committee or any public body would want to move in that direction. It would not be to the advantage of most widowers.
    Between the two opposite ends of the logical spectrum we could make a lower level of benefits available to both widows

    1313
    and widowers if we wanted to achieve equality. However, in all other schemes apart from the parliamentary scheme—if we live in the real world we must realise that there is bound to be a drift between the parliamentary scheme and others—there would be a consequence for the rates of contribution. It may be that men would have to pay a little more. I believe that that happens in some private schemes. That would be necessary to provide acceptable benefits for widowers.
    I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we are dealing with far-reaching and fundamental matters. I must ask the Committee's forbearance in allowing me to develop the arguments at some length. I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's amendments as they stand. There are some technical deficiencies. I make nothing of that, as we could sort out the drafting in another place, if nowhere else. However, the issues that they raise are issues that I wish to consider further in consultation with colleagues in other Departments who have an interest.
    I have attempted to have some consideration made of these matters since my right hon. Friend tabled her amendments last night. That was the first time that the proposition that they contained was put forward, limiting benefits to men who have reached the age of 65 years. I regret that in the short time available it has not been possible for the Government to consider that issue carefully, or even to assemble the information that would tell us how many people would be involved and the cost of such a scheme as opposed to the cost of conceding across the board. If my right hon. Friend had tabled an amendment to the effect that widowers were to be put in exactly the same position as widows, I should have been forced to resist such an amendment. There has to be phasing for repercussive and public expenditure reasons.
    I can assure my right hon. Friend that as it has not been possible for us to consider all these issues in the time scale available, which necessarily has constricted her and us, and we are moving at some pace with the Bill, we shall reconsider the matter carefully and sympathetically with an open mind to ascertain whether any changes can be made which would not be unacceptably costly or repercussive.
    1314
    I indicate to my right hon. Friend that we are prepared to consider whether restricting the benefits to widowers over 65 years is the best way of giving justice to widowers. It may be that it is not. I throw this out of the top of my head without having considered it with care—we might give consideration to a reduced rate for widowers of all ages, a rate not restricted to those who are 65 years. There are a number of possibilities which we would like to consider as a Government and which we have not been able to consider in the time scale to which we have had to work.
    I cannot promise that the Government will, in the light of their further examination, table amendments that will satisfy my right hon. Friend. However, I can assure her that we shall re-examine the matter thoroughly. What is more, we shall come forward with our decisions before the Bill is considered in Committee in another place, so that the Government will be able to reveal their decisions before another place makes its decisions in Committee. Therefore, the opportunity to table amendments will not be denied to those who support my right hon. Friend. No doubt she will find support in another place as she has found it in this place.
    As I am not guaranteeing to meet my right hon. Friend, I find it difficult to ask her to withdraw the amendment. I cannot ask her to do so in the light of a Government assurance. However, I have been putting my cards frankly on the table. We shall give consideration to these matters to ascertain whether something can be done. My right hon. Friend must make up her own mind whether she wants to press the amendment to a Division.
    Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the promise of consideration. I believe that he is a man of his word. I do not believe that he would say that the Government will give the matter their consideration merely to get the Government off the hook. It is a solemn pledge and he and the Government will be bound in honour to take his promise seriously. May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that there will be another parliamentary opportunity to effect the decision?
    Mr. Smith: I have thought about that myself. Of course, there is another parliamentary opportunity in another place. I have tried to secure the rights of those who will support the amendment in another place. As for there being another opportunity in this place, that rather depends on the amendments that another place returns to this place. We hope to finish the whole of the Bill tonight. The only way in which we shall have an opportunity further to consider the matter will be if a suitable amendment comes back from another place, which could occasion further consideration. I cannot predict that that will happen. I am doing my best to preserve the right to criticise whatever the Government propose.
    I am not asking my right hon. Friend to surrender completely and to throw herself into the Government's lap without having the opportunity of recalling us. Whatever decision we reach will be made known before the matter is debated in another place. I give that absolute and categorical undertaking to my right hon. Friend. That is probably the best that I can do to preserve the rights that she might have.
    As my right hon. Friend said, a matter of honour is involved. We shall do our best to reconsider the issues fairly. As she will understand, it is a matter for collective Government consideration. I and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are not in total control of the situation. However, we shall look again at all the issues. I hope that what I have said will assist my right hon. Friend to make up her mind and assist other hon. Members in reaching a conclusion if she chooses to put the matter to the test in a Division.
    Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the spirit in which he has replied. There are no two governmental laps into which I should be more willing to throw myself than those of my right hon. Friend the Lord President and his Minister of State. I have faith in their honour, in their good intentions and in their influence on their colleagues in Government. Therefore, in the confident belief that we shall have something before us at a later stage when the Bill is returned to us from another place that
    1316
    will give us another chance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in Clause 7, page 10, line 8, leave out from 'above' to end of line 10.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following: New Clause 7—Children's pensions—and Amendment No. 11, in Schedule 2, page 20, line 6 column 3, at end insert—
    'In section 15, in subsection (2), the words "the next following subsection and to", subsection (3) and, in subsection (4), the words from "and if" to the end of the subsection.'.
    Mr. Smith: On Second Reading the Trustees of the Parliamentary Pensions Fund, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher), argued persuasively for further improvements in the pensions for dependent children of deceased Members and office holders. The Trustees first submitted these proposals as part of their evidence to the Top Salaries Review Body. That body did not accept the proposals on children's pensions saying that with the improvements in widow's pensions that they recommended the parliamentary scheme would provide a satisfactory level of pension for widows and dependent children. In view of the Trustee's comments, the support that they received in the House in the debate and the fact that the provisions for children that they have proposed are fairly modest, the Government have decided that they should be included in the Bill.
    The amendments, in effect, implement the Trustees' proposals. They provide that the pensions of children of deceased Members should be based on quarters rather than eighths of an hon. Member's pension entitlement, up to a maximum of two rather than four. They also provide that they should be paid automatically up to the age of 17 years. The increase to the age of 17 years will bring the parliamentary scheme into line with other public service schemes and will not affect children who continue in full-time education beyond 17 years. Although it will affect only very few children, the basing of children's pensions on quarters will

    1317
    represent a significant improvement for the children and their guardians.
    The further improvements go beyond the recommendations of the Review Body. The number of such pensions paid under the parliamentary scheme is very small and the cost will be negligible. I hope that the House will give them its full support.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    8 p.m.

  Clause 10

    RECKONABLE SERVICE
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: I draw the attention of the Committee and of the Government to the plight of one of our colleagues who has written to me about reckonable service. Clause 10 is probably the clause in which our colleague's position is most easily discussed. I am sure that he will not mind if I mention his name. He is Brigadier Clarke, who was a Member of the House for 16 years, from 1950 to 1966. I can do no better than to make his case in his own words. He starts by saying that he badly needs our help and that time is not on his side. He continues:
    "This Bill is very unfair to me and a number of my ex-colleagues who left the House of Commons about the same time or after."
    He then mentions that he had 16 years' service. He points out:
    "In 1965 Members got their pensions backdated 10 years by the 1965 Act and this was most acceptable to those serving in the House of Commons in 1965. It is of course very unfair to some who retired or were thrown out before 1965."
    He then gives examples of two colleagues whom I am sure he would not wish me to name. He goes on:
    "The 1978 Act allows Members still serving today to claim 15 years back service instead of the 10 years formerly allowed…sly those who left in 1966 with a pension based on £3,000 odd are more in need of the extra five years' pension than those now serving and
    1318
    accumulating a pension based on £8,000 when they are not even receiving £8,000."
    He concludes:
    "There seems no logic in existing MPs being allowed an extra five years when their retired colleagues, who are more in need"
    —I do not think that anyone would dispute that—
    "are barred from the claim."
    He hopes that the House will see the logic of his argument and do what it can to help. His case can be summarised briefly as follows: those who were allowed 10 years' back-dating in 1964 should now get the same extra four years as serving Members.
    Brigadier Clarke ends with the question:
    "Why should those who have 'served on' under better pay and conditions and qualified for better pensions deny the extra four years to those retired and now hard up?"
    I know that the Minister of State has declared himself contrary to the principle of retrospective benefit. We understand how difficult that question is. But this is a plea from the heart from a former colleague, and evidently quite a number of our retired colleagues are in a similar position. I hope that the Minister of State will feel able to comment as generously as he can on the case which I have put forward on Brigadier Clarke's behalf.
    Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) for putting his case so succinctly. I am sure that our former colleague will be grateful to him for having argued his case.
    As the hon. Gentleman anticipated, the difficulty of conferring this benefit upon those of our colleagues who leave before the legislation comes into operation is that it involves an element of retrospection. For the reasons which I outlined in reply to the debate on the Question, That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, the Government find it difficult to depart from that principle.
    The changes proposed in Clause 10 add five years for Members who served before 1964 who qualify under the clause. It is an extra five years at public expense. It is a reasonable proposition for those who qualify. I understand that the hon. Gentleman makes no criticism of the

    1319
    clause as it stands. The Boyle Committee considered it carefully and made this recommendation.
    We are reluctant to depart from the recommendations made by the independent review body. I appreciate that a few minutes ago I moved an amendment which departed slightly from those recommendations and allowed more generous provision for children. However, we took into account the small amount involved and the fact that the Trustees of the parliamentary scheme specifically asked for it in the debate here as well as in evidence to the Boyle Committee.
    I have a great deal of sympathy for our former colleagues, particularly those who find themselves in difficult financial circumstances. I can easily understand their plight, given the levels of remuneration which many of them received after many years of devoted service to the public. Obviously, they feel that it is a little unfair that some who survived a little longer—either because they chose to stay longer or because the electorate was kinder to them—should benefit from the provisions which we are about to introduce. It is a fact that every time we make an improvement there will be those who die before they can benefit from it and those who retire before they are eligible for it.
    We have looked carefully at all these points. If we depart from the principle of no retrospection we shall be on a very slippery slope. It is for that reason only, not for any lack of sympathy for the predicament of our former colleague to whom the hon. Gentleman referred and of other former colleagues who may be in a similar position, that we cannot do anything about the matter.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause No. 7

    CHILDREN'S PENSIONS
    '.—(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, section 15 of the Act of 1972 (amount and payment of children's pension) shall be amended as follows:
    (2) In subsection (2) (children's pension to be sum equal to one-eighth of deceased's pension
    1320
    for each child not exceeding four) the words "to the next following subsection and" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "one-eighth" and "four" there shall be substituted the words "one-quarter" and "two" respectively.
    (3) Subsection (3) (children's pension where no widow or widower to be one-quarter of deceased's pension if only one child, or one-half of that pension in the case of two or more children) and, in subsection (4), the words from "and if" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.
    (4) In subsection (6)(a) (age at which child not in full time education or dependent on deceased ceases to be a relevant child) for the word "sixteen" there shall be substituted the word "seventeen".
    (5) Subsections (2) to (4) above and the repeals in section 15 provided for in Schedule 2 to this Act shall not apply for the determination of the annual amount of a children's pension payable for the benefit of a relevant child or children (within the meaning of section 15 of the 1972 Act) of a person who has not been a Member of the House of Commons or the holder of a qualifying office since the passing of the Act.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause No. 2

    PENSIONS OF MEMBERS
    '(1) With effect from the dissolution of the present Parliament, a Member's pensionable salary means the salary paid to him pursuant to a resolution of the House of Commons whether or not provision shall have been made in such resolution for a Member's salary to be regarded for pension purposes as being at a higher rate.
    (2) Sections 1 and 2 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976 are hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. Paul Dean.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Paul Dean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the clause is to base pensions on actual salary, not on the much higher notional salary which now obtains. I argued this matter on Second Reading and, indeed, the last time that we discussed pensions in 1976, so I shall be brief in putting my arguments again today.
    I submit that, with the present arrangements, we are giving ourselves pensions privileges which are denied to the rest of the community. This is indefensible, particularly as we are in a special position. Unlike almost anyone else, we fix our own salaries and pensions. In consequence, we are under a special obligation to

    1321
    ensure that we do not act in ways which appear unfair to others.
    There is already much criticism of a number of aspects of public service pension schemes, notably about inflation-proofing. I do not share many of those criticisms, because I look forward to the day when it will be possible for all pensions to be inflation-proofed—at least, up to a certain level. But the fact is that this criticism, which exists strongly outside, also applies to parliamentary pensions. We are included in this valuable provision.
    Mr. Michael McGuire: Is not the fact of the matter that Members of Parliament—certainly Back Benchers—forwent about £2,500 for reasons which everyone understands? There was a bit of parliamentary arm-twisting, national psychology on wage policy, and so on. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is putting the wrong gloss on this matter. I may be wrong, but I understand that, together with many of my Back-Bench colleagues, I forwent about £2,500. I do not think that the Government are doing me any great favour at all.
    Mr. Dean: But many other people are in exactly the same position. Many people outside have also been disappointed in their expectations about increases in pay. The pay of many people was frozen absolutely during one of the pay policy phases. As a result of that they suffered in terms of their pension rights. If they retired during that period they suffered in terms of their pension rights permanently.
    What I am saying is that we are creating for ourselves a privilege which is denied to other people. It is the distinction between what we are doing here and what is generally available outside which is the cause of criticism. I am not saying—perhaps this helps the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire)—that our pension scheme is over-generous. Far from it: only recently have we begun to introduce pensions which are adequate by modern standards or which are in any way comparable with those attached to other jobs. Our pension scheme dates only from 1964. By most modern standards of pension schemes that is very recent.
    1322
    Yesterday I was supplied with some figures by the Lord President. One has only to look at those figures to see that as a result of the recent introduction of our pension arrangements a large number of our former colleagues are excluded already. According to the information that I was given, at least 272 of our former colleagues are not eligible for a parliamentary pension because the scheme was introduced so recently. At least 31 of our former colleagues are aged 80 and over and receive no pension at all. There will be an even larger number of widows, because women tend to live longer than men.
    Those figures clearly illustrate that only recently have we begun to introduce pensions for ourselves which are at all comparable with those attached to outside jobs. I do not criticise that aspect of the matter.
    But we put ourselves in a false position when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, having funked Boyle on pay, we then try, through an artificial device, to provide pensions for ourselves based on a notional rather than an actual salary. No one would deny that we are in an anomalous position. In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said that this was an anomaly. The Boyle Report said the same. The Government stay that they are carrying out the Boyle recommendations.
    Paragraph 4, on page 2 of the Boyle Report, states that
    "We are also perturbed by the establishment of two different levels of salary for pension purposes and other purposes. We can sympathise with the reasoning which lay behind this decision, but we nevertheless regard it as anomalous."
    The authoritative Boyle Report says that this is an anomalous position. The anomaly was started in the 1976 Act and we are continuing it in this Bill. My fear is that it is now in danger of becoming a permanent anomaly in our pension arrangements.
    Since we are in this unfortunate and, in my view, indefensible position, we must consider the special position of those of our colleagues who will be retiring shortly. To try to meet their special position, which they are in through no

    1323
    fault of their own, the new clause provides that the present notional salary arrangements for pension purposes should apply to Members who retire at or before the dissolution of the present Parliament. It provides that their pensions should continue to be based on the Boyle salary. Without that provision, through no fault of their own, they would find that for the whole of their pension lives they would be penalised because of the sacrifice that the House made, rightly or wrongly, in not accepting the Boyle recommendation.
    I suggest that there are special reasons why we should continue this artificial arrangement for those who are to retire shortly, but to go on perpetuating that arrangement permanently for those who will continue to serve is indefensible and, in comparison with practice outside, it puts us in a position that we cannot sustain effectively.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. McCrindle: I shall take only a few minutes to endorse the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). The whole question of a notional salary is not only an extremely dangerous basis on which to proceed when dealing with parliamentary pensions; it is a dangerous and emotive concept. The Committee has a responsibility to consider whether we should allow the possibility of this concept continuing after the Bill becomes law.
    I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who said that he did not feel that the Government had done him any favours by taking a substantial amount in salary and, in return, allowing his pension to be based on a notional figure.
    On the one hand we are buying ourselves a pension privilege and, on the other, we are continuing to have a disadvantage in salaries. One cannot separate pensions from salaries and conditions. If the truth were told—although this is not widely believed or welcomed by the public—we have for far too long been prepared to find a reason why our salaries, conditions and pensions should never be brought up to the levels that would prevail if we were to receive a reward comparable to that received by those who fulfil similar functions in other spheres of activity.
    1324
    I appreciate the difficulty of finding a true comparison, but we shall go on having these problems as long as Governments of both politcal complexions dodge the basic issue. The issue is that at some time Members' conditions, salaries and pensions must be looked at in a more rational and dispassionate light than they have been so far. What we are discussing is part of an age-old problem. Members of Parliament have never quite caught up.
    I understand the Government's feeling. They wish to be decent and understanding to those who are looking forward to retirement at the dissolution of this Parliament. The Government find in the basis of a notional salary an escape exit through which they are only too pleased to walk. I am not here to criticise the Government for having taken that opening. I question, however, whether it is right to perpetuate, almost to institutionalise the concept of a notional salary for Members of Parliament when the concept of a notional salary does not appear to prevail in many other pension schemes. If the Minister takes that on board he must accept the clause.
    If the Committee is serious it will tell the Government tonight that it understands why they felt that the concept had to be introduced in the first place, that it understands that they had no wish to be other than decent and understanding to our colleagues who will retire at the dissolution of this Parliament, but enough is enough, and if they go on perpetuating and institutionalising the concept of the notional salary they will simply be postponing the day when they are forced to look at the whole question of pensions, salaries and conditions for Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), I believe unwittingly, in trying to show why his clause was a good one indicated to the public at large that we had conferred upon ourselves by the notional salary arrangements considerable benefits. Subsequently he tried to explain that he did not think that our pension schemes were unduly generous.
    I was one of those who took part in the to-ing and fro-ing by Back Benchers when we introduced the notional salary arrangement for pension purposes. Members were told that they would not get

    1325
    the Boyle Report recommendations, but that they would get some kind of increase. The notional salary was introduced partly to help our colleagues who had retired and to give death-in-service benefits to widows who needed them. The arrangement was agreed to out of a concern for Members who cannot help themselves—a concern that the hon. Member for Somerset, North has always shown. That was why we accepted a cut of about £2,500 an why the notional salary arrangements were introduced.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Does the hon. Member agree that the motion that the House passed as that a proper salary for a Member of Parliament was £8,000 a year? The notional salary surely is the one that is being paid. We might all be in favour of that being abolished, but let us not use the words "notional salary" in the wrong context. The notional salary is the one that does not accord with the resolution.
    Mr. McGuire: I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but he must understand that I am simply trying to put the record straight.
    It is worth considering what the public think of Members of Parliament. When Members' salaries are increased substantially or modestly the issue is usually a nine days' wonder in the eyes of the public. The public already believes that we are being paid a lot more than we are. It does not believe that we are being paid as badly as we make out. We are told to prepare for a backlash when we give ourselves reasonable salaries which, at any rate, are in no sense generous when compared with those paid in New Zealand, Australia, France, or Germany. In terms of pay and pensions we are not in the same league. The public generally thinks that we are much more generously paid than we are and that we have far better conditions than we have.
    I believe that there would be no backlash. I believe that the man in the street believes that those who will not fight for themselves will not fight for anybody else. I have been a life-long trade unionist, and trade unionism provides a good example of what I am saying. Trade unionists protect the interests of themselves and their families. Like Members of Parliament, most of them move into executive posi-
    1326
    tions at a late age for pension purposes—usually at the age of 40 or 45. I have never seen any virtue in doing a job on the cheap. Trade unionists do not want anyone to do that.
    I wish to echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). We have taken out of our hands what some regard—I do not share the view—as an onerous and difficult task. We put the responsibility for determining our terms and conditions of salary and pension on to a committee. That is favourite practice in the House of Commons—if there is anything difficult, give it to a committee. Yet on three successive occasions we have ignored the fundamental findings and reasoning of that committee. We have picked out little bits as a palliative or sweetener, but have ignored the main recommendation. To use my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words, Lord Boyle is saying "Back us or sack us." There is no point in having a committee which does a lot of hard work and research and recommends a certain course of action if we are then to say that its recommendations would not be popular.
    We had better get this matter straight once and for all. If we do, and if we secure the pension and salary conditions that we deserve, my right hon. Friend the Minister will find that the issue is not even a nine days' wonder. The British public will say that they thought that we were getting that much all along. That is what we should aim for as speedily as possible, and that is why I do not support the clause.
    Mr. Gerry Fowler: I shall be brief. I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). If I have a weakness while at home it is listening to the radio—not the television—and anyway I rarely listen to it. I was listening recently to a quiz programme that my wife had turned on. One of the questions was "What is a Member of Parliament's salary?" The first answer given was £10,000, and that is exactly what one would expect to hear from most people on the basis of one's knowledge of one's constituents. I listened a few weeks earlier to a programme in which Sir Richard Marsh, who should know better, suggested that by adopting the notional salary arrangements we were somehow

    1327
    benefiting ourselves and cheating. We all know that what we did in 1975 was to cheat, if anybody, ourselves by depriving ourselves of a substantial part of the proper salary arrived at by the Review Body on Top Salaries. I share my hon. Friend's view that we cannot go on doing that. It is a pointless exercise in any event. If we thought in 1975 that we were setting an example to the rest of the country I can only conclude that nobody noticed.
    It is not that I am suggesting that there has not been a substantial measure of restraint by the trade union movement in recent years; indeed, there has, thank heavens, and we are all duly grateful to it. But nobody noticed, in my experience. All that happened was that the newspapers carried the usual headline—"MPs vote themselves another rise."
    In my view, it does not make the blindest bit of difference whether that increase be £200, £2,000 or £4,000 to get the proper level of salary for the job. We shall get exactly the same outcry for exactly the same period of time. Then everybody will forget it, both for good and for ill. They will forget it in the pejorative sense of blaming us for treating ourselves too well, and they will forget it, too, if we do not vote ourselves what we should be paid, in the sense of not following the example that we have set.
    I hope that immediately after the next election we can dispense with all the nonsense that is causing us so much trouble on this Bill and pay ourselves a proper salary and, therefore, not have to have a notional salary for pension purposes. I urge both Front Benches to agree on that before a General Election campaign, so that we can take the acrimony and the political advantage out of the proposal of any party to pay a salary increase after a General Election.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pym: The new clause, characteristically and ingeniously designed by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) is, in fact, an attack upon the concept of the notional salary. My hon. Friend was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). The two Labour Members who have spoken on the new clause said that they could not support it, but nevertheless, they were
    1328
    making precisely the same point—that it is wrong to have one salary which is the amount that we receive and a notional salary which is the basis of our pension.
    That was referred to in the report of the Review Body on Top Salaries. Paragraph 29 says that the salary that the Review Body recommended in the year before—that was 1975—
    "of £8,000 for Members of Parliament…was accepted by Parliament as the appropriate rate for the job but was not fully implemented it was decided…that it would be used as a notional salary for pension purposes."
    The report goes on to say:
    "We point this out as one more manifestation of the disadvantages of not paying the proper level of salary for the job."
    It is not only my hon. Friend and those of us on the Opposition Benches who do not like the idea of a notional salary. I do not think that it has any friends on the other side of the Committee. This arose on the Second Reading. I am quite certain that it ought to be ended. I interpret my hon. Friend's new clause as being one of bringing the notional salary to an end, but it is not the only means, as he himself would be the first to acknowledge. The most obvious way of doing it is to adjust the salaries of hon. Members one way or another. That would be one way of doing it, and it could be ended more or less at once.
    I think the whole procedure here is wrong, as I said the other night. The delay in implementing this report has simply made the discrepancy worse than it otherwise would be. But in this brief intervention from this Box, I want to ask how the Government propose to end the anomaly of the notional salary. I dare say that it is a question that the Minister would prefer to answer when he, or his right hon. Friend, presents to the House of Commons the Government's conclusions about how Members' salaries are to be adjusted, which I think is due in a week or two's time. I think that that point would be the very latest moment when it would be appropriate for the Government to say that the notional salary should be ended, because I think that it ought to ended as being a completely unsatisfactory and unacceptable way to proceed.
    The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) said that by agreement this ought

    1329
    to be done immediately after the General Election. As a matter of fact, that is how it happened in 1970. I do not see any reason why it should not be done before the General Election. I am not sure that it is not better to do it in the dying days of one Parliament rather than the opening days of another Parliament. There is quite a good case for saying that.
    After all, the Home Secretary has introduced a Bill to the House today to say that the election expenses are to be increased. That is normally done, as a matter of fact, in the dying days of a Parliament, and it seems to me quite appropriate. I think that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee would agree that it would be just as appropriate, and in many ways more appropriate, to do it in the dying days of a Parliament rather than in the early days of a fresh Parliament. But that is an opinion, of course, about which hon. Members may differ. Perhaps it goes a bit wide of the new clause.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: It will not happen.
    Mr. Pym: It would happen, of course, if enough hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's side wanted it to happen. That is my comment on that.
    Anyhow, one way or another, the notional salary must be ended, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how the Government intend to end that anomaly. If he is not able to do so tonight, will he be prepared to tell when he introduces a motion about Members' salaries next week or the week after? Will he then say how the Government intend to adjust this matter?
    Mr. John Smith: I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) will have not been surprised at the wry grins on the faces of some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, and, no doubt, behind me, as he uttered certain sentiments towards the end of his speech. I note that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, is in favour of substantial increases in Members' pay before the end of this Parliament, and I am sure that that will be taken into account by my hon. Friends when they consider the matter. At least,
    1330
    that is how I interpret him, and I think that that is the only way one can interpret what he said.
    As for the question put to me about the difference between notional pay and actual pay, I think that I must decline to answer that tonight because I do not think that it arises strictly within the context of the Bill, although it was raised on the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). It is a matter to which the House will inevitably return, as has been signalled by many hon. Members in their speeches on the Bill, in the debate which we shall have on Members' pay at a date, I hope, not too long from now.
    In introducing the new clause, the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, as he did on Second Reading, that he was concerned about the arrangement whereby Members' pensions are based on notional salaries for pension purposes because he felt that it was criticised outside the House. I think that he may be exaggerating that criticism a little, but I have no doubt that there is a feeling outside the House that it is perhaps a somewhat unfortunate way of going about these matters. If it comes to that, there is a fairly widespread feeling within the House also that it is an unfortunate way of going about things.
    I suggest that the hon Gentleman ought to bear in mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) reminded him, that the purpose of introducing the notional salary was to protect Members in their retirement against the background that Members of the House as a whole had decided in the national interest to forgo some of the promulgated salary. In a sense, if they had lost in their pension, it would have been a double penalty. That was the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), was anxious to put on the record.
    In my view, it was praiseworthy that Members of Parliament decided in the national interest to forgo an increase which had been recommended for them by an independent body. I believe that it was felt at the time—I certainly remember sharing that view—that it would be too much to penalise Members in their pension arrangements as well.

    1331
    That, I suggest, is the background to this matter.
    The new clause raises major issues of pay policy as well as of pension policy. I believe that the hon. Member for Somerset, North will acknowledge that. These matters received a thorough airing last week on Second Reading, and I think that that was entirely legitimate since one cannot discuss pensions without at the same time discussing pay. We come back to that again and again in our discussions on the Bill. I think, however, that we shall have a discussion on that matter shortly, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make his point then, just as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire will return to his theme.
    There is one point which I must take up with the hon. Member for Somerset, North because he suggested—and his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) rather more carefully suggested—that similar arrangements should be available to other occupational groups or that other groups did not have this notional salary arrangement. The short answer is that many groups do, and such arrangements for having a different notional salary now cover many other employees. Perhaps I should mention them so that not only the Committee but the general public may know about them: Armed Forces personnel, doctors and dentists, the judiciary and the higher Civil Service.
    These are groups of employees who have not been paid the full salary rates recommended for them after independent review although those rates have been accepted by the Government as the proper rates for the job. It therefore seemed entirely right that prospective pensioners within these groups should be protected in the same way. I would argue, therefore, that where there is like and like, Members of Parliament will be treated no differently from, or be treated no better than, other groups are treated in relation to recommendations for their salary levels which have come forward
    The alternative to having a notional salary was either to penalise Members of Parliament in a double sense, by penalising them in their pensions, or else to give pay increases well outside the Government's guidelines. Perhaps that is what the Opposition would have done, I do not know.
    1332
    The fact is that this notional salary legislation has been on the statute book for almost two years now. I think that it would be a great mistake to change it in the way proposed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there are two ways of dealing with it—to pull down the pension or to jack up the salary. We are not dealing with the salary at the moment and that is a matter which the House will have an opportunity to consider.
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to safeguard the position of hon. Members who retire at the next General Election. That is fully appreciated. The effect of carrying this new clause, however, would be to reduce for the future the level of parliamentary pensions, which would be a retrograde step and therefore I hope that the Committee will not agree to adopt the new clause.
    Question put and negatived.

  New Clause No. 4

    FUTURE CHANGES IN BASIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND PAYMENTS OUT OF THE FUND
    (1) For subsection (7) of section 3 of the Act of 1972 (which was inserted by section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
    "(7) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members shall be construed as a reference to an effective resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members and, where there are two or more such resolutions in force, as a reference to those resolutions taken together."
    (2) In section 35(1) (interpretation) of the Act of 1972 the following shall be inserted after the definition of "contribution"—
    "'effective resolution' means a resolution which is not framed as an expression of opinion".
    (3) This section shall not affect the operation under the Act of 1972 of any resolution passed by the House of Commons before the commencement of this Act.'—[Mr. John Smith.]
    Brought up, and read the First time
    Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. George Cunningham) put down this new clause. I understand that it is impossible for him to be here this evening and the Government have undertaken to move it on his

    1333
    behalf because it has the full support of Government. The whole question of abstract motions is a rather arcane subject and perhaps I could briefly indicate to the House the reason why this new clause is put forward by my hon. Friend and why it is supported by the Government.
    Its effect is to ensure that Members will have full freedom to discuss their own salaries and proposed increases without regard to what may be Government policy. They have done so ever since parliamentary salaries were introduced in 1911 by the device of abstract motions, that is to say, motions framed as expressions of opinion which do not require the Queen's recommendation and are not governed by the Standing Orders and practice of the House which reserve the initiative in financial matters to the Crown. The reasons that abstract motions were sufficient to justify the payment of increased salaries was that the Government, having moved or agree to them, could be relied upon to present in due course Estimates sufficient to cover the increases.
    Due to an oversight the freedom enjoyed by Members to move or amend such motions was lost by the enactment of the Ministerial Salaries and Members Pensions Act 1965, the predecessor of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972. Under those Acts the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund is maintained partly by contributions in the form of deductions from Members' salaries and partly by Exchequer contributions out of voted money. Every increase in Members salaries automatically leads not only to an increase in the sums deducted from the salaries but also to an increase in the Exchequer contributions. Accordingly any motion leading to such an increase ought to have the Queen's recommendation and no amendment would be in order unless it was covered by the Queen's recommendation.
    This effect of the Acts was overlooked on all occasions when motions about Members' salaries were before the House until it was discovered last July, after the Government had tabled its motion and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had tabled his amendment. If the Acts remained as
    1334
    they are without this amendment it would in future be impossible for motions about Members' salaries, however framed, to be treated as abstract motions. The clause would restore the character of abstract motions to motions framed as an expression of opinion. It would thus restore to Members their freedom of expression and their freedom to move amendments.
    The operation of the Acts would then be dependent on effective resolutions, that is to say, resolutions not framed as expressions of opinion. Such resolutions will, of course, require the Queen's recommendation and it will not be open to Members to move amendments not covered by the Queen's recommendation. In the normal case an effective resolution would be moved immediately after the corresponding abstract motion or even, if no amendment was put down to the abstract motion, instead of it.
    One possible effect of the clause, however, might be some delay, in certain circumstances, in the payment of increased salaries, even to the level proposed by the Government. This could happen if an abstract motion proposing an increase were amended against the wishes of the Government so as to advocate a greater increase. The Government might not then be able to proceed at once with their effective motion and until they did so there would be no basis for making greater deductions from Members' salaries. Salaries would then have to continue to be paid at the existing rates. However, I very much doubt whether that situation would be likely to last for any length of time.
    8.45 p.m.
    I believe that my hon. Friend has done the Committee a service by pursuing the matter and tabling the clause. Although the restoration of this freedom to hon. Members to discuss their salaries in terms of an abstract motion does not mean that they will be able effectively to vote themselves an increase, in that an abstract motion will still require to be backed by an effective resolution carrying the Queen's recommendation, it is still an important matter to restore to hon. Members the freedom that many of them thought they enjoyed. They have been deprived of it only by reason of a legislative accident. It is to cure the results

    1335
    of that accident that I am happy to move the motion.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause No. 5

    PENSIONS OF MEMBERS (No. 2)
    (1) Section 7 of the Act of 1972 shall be further amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (3) for "one-sixtieth" in paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "one forty-fifth".'—[Mr. Ronald Bell.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I wish the Government were moving the motion on my behalf, but unfortunately I have to move it myself.
    I very much regret that through the years we have these invidious debates about our own remuneration and emoluments. It is time the matter was sorted out and we had an automatic system.
    I have been in the House for rather a long time, and I know that this procedure has gone on and on. I have heard many colleagues on both sides of the Chamber saying how embarrassing and undesirable it is that we should spend time debating our emoluments when we are sent here to attend to the affairs of the country. However, we have always avoided dealing with these subjects. We have adopted temporary expedients, and we are still in that position, as recent speeches have indicated.
    The purpose of the clause is the replacement of the period of 40 years in the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act by a period of 30 years. At present, for an hon. Member to obtain a full pension—by which I mean a pension of two-thirds of the relevant salary—he must serve for 40 years. In practical terms that means that he would need to be elected first to this House at the age of 25 and never thereafter for 40 years lose his seat. That means in practice that no hon. Member will ever have a full pension unless he be someone so remarkable as Winston Churchill, Earl Winterton or Robin Turton, as he was. It is something that happens about once in a generation.
    I cannot believe that it makes sense that we should base our pensions on
    1336
    sixtieths rather than forty-fifths. Some may regard my proposal as unduly moderate, in that 30 years is a very long time, bearing in mind the average age at which people may be elected Members. I suppose that the average is somewhere in the 40s, so even 30 years is a long time.
    The present strange and totally inappropriate period was chosen by analogy with the public service. We have heard a great deal about that. We heard the other night on Second Reading about the compelling analogy with the public service. There is no compelling analogy. The public service is not a unitary thing. It is a very varied category, and inside it there are different periods.
    Who, for instance, would be so foolish as to imagine that High Court judges should have to serve for 40 years to acquire a full pension? They could never do so. They are appointed at age 50, 55 or even 60. They would be 100 before they received a full pension. They are expected to serve for 15 years to receive that full pension. That is the public service. The reason for that provision is obvious. Without such a provision a judge would never receive a full pension.
    Who imagines that normally people are elected to the House of Commons at the age of 25 or that it is in any sense normal for a person to retain his seat, through all the vicissitudes of politics, for 40 unbroken years? That is fairyland. It does not make sense. We could look around the world for comparisons, as we can with pay. I have had rather an "Australian day" today. I have been entertaining some of our Australian visitors from the Canberra Parliament. I asked them about this subject as a matter of interest and one said "Good gracious. We are expected to serve 20 years for a full pension." I said "May I quote you this evening in Committee?" He said "Of course you may." This was the Speaker of the Australian Parliament. In the Dutch Parliament there is a rather more complicated system, under which Members serve from six to 10 years for a full pension. But in Britain it is 40 years.
    The whole system is based on the analogy of the public service, by which I greatly suspect is meant the Civil Service. People enter the Civil Service at the age

    1337
    of, perhaps, 16, 18 or 20 and have a lifetime career in it. They retire after 40 years' service at age 60 which is very nice. In addition, the pension is non-contributory. I know that I shall be told that Civil Service Pay Research Unit is supposed to take this into account in assessing rates of pay. Personally, I prefer Hans Andersen and Grimm. I see the point, however. When I look at the remuneration of Members of Parliament I think that someone must have taken that factor wrongly into account in our case.
    There is no substantial argument against what I am proposing, except the argument, which I suppose will be put forward, that someone agreed to this. It will be said that there was awful pressure to get a Bill presented and the 1922 Committee and the corresponding body on the Labour side of the Committee had to join forces in an unfamiliar coalition, a sort of Lib-Con pact—
    Mr. English: Lab-Con.
    Mr. Bell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who is keenly perceptive of these things and who will, I know, support me. It will be said that this pact had to exert pressure on the Leader of the House and that that was the only way we could get the Bill. It will be pointed out that it was agreed that we would ask only for improvements which were already embodied in the Civil Service scheme. For that reason it is suggested that we should feel debarred from doing something which every right hon. and hon. Member present knows to be absolutely reasonable and common sense.
    There is no right hon. or hon. Members present who thinks that it makes sense for Members of Parliament to have to serve from the age of 25 to the age of 65 in unbroken membership to secure a full pension of two-thirds of the exiguous salary. Some career argument can be put up. I sympathise with the Minister of State. He is put up to do this job. He does not have the authority to agree to my new clause. It does not matter what I say, he cannot agree to it. He would have to go somewhere else, presumably to the Treasury. That is always the difficulty in these cases.
    Mr. John Smith: If there is to be a very sharp increase in Members' contri-
    1338
    butions, it might be decent to ask Members as well.
    Mr. Bell: I was not thinking of that in the least—certainly not. We have a contributory pension. I do not know why. If there is this compelling analogy with the public service, I point out that the public service has a non-contributory pension.
    Mr. English: The hon. and learned Gentleman might care to ask the Minister why the police, the firemen and Members of Parliament should be the only three groups in the 7 million employees affected by public service pension schemes who are in the same position as ourselves of paying contributions to a fund which does not exist.
    Mr. Bell: Inasmuch as the fund does not exist, there is no need really to bother about its state. These pensions are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom—it is no good pretending to the contrary—and the provisions for a 5½ per cent. or a 6 per cent. contribution, or whatever it is, are purely put in as a matter, I suppose, of statutory procedure. I do not quite know what expression to use. There is no actual fund. It is not like the railway pensions fund, which owns pictures, candlesticks and all kinds of things. It is not that sort of fund. It is not the sort of fund which one might find any day at Mentmore. It is an actuarial fund. It is a nonsense and it does not pay for itself. The Treasury contributes two or three times as much as hon. Members, so what sort of fund is that?
    When we look at the levels of emolument that we are talking about, I suggest that there is absolutely no reason why we should not make this obvious change, without any change in the contribution which hon. Members make. I simply put it forward in the clearest terms that a period of 40 years is nonsense.
    This is a miserable little Bill. A tremendous lot of fuss has been made about it. It is quite long. It has a lot of clauses and endless provisions. Taking all the provisions together, the extra years and the much publicised advantages for children and widows, the whole thing, for a House of 635 people, is costing the Treasury £60,000 a year. I am surprised that the Minister dares to present it to

    1339
    the House. The only thing that can be said for the Bill is that, but for the activities of the Back Benchers on each side of the House, we should not have had a Bill at all, therefore we ought to be grateful for this one.
    I challenge the Minister to offer any good and sensible reason why the new clause should not be accepted. I shall take it to a Division. I always take things to a Division as a matter of principle. If I can get another hon. Member to act as Teller with me, I shall divide the Committee. I do not believe in moving motions and then withdrawing them.
    I challenge the Minister to give any single sensible reason why Members of the House of Commons should have to be Members for 40 years before they get a full pension. If we do not get this provision tonight we shall get it sooner or later. The Minister knows that. We are the only Parliament in the world with this ridiculous rule, or with anything remotely approaching this ridiculous rule. This provision will have to come. If hon. Members will have a little bit of courage—it is a free vote on each side—it could come tonight, and I hope that it will.
    Mr. McGuire: I want to tell the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that I support his views. He rightly said that there are some people who think that the period should be reduced even to 30 years. I also support that. But he must not conclude that because I will not act as Teller with him tonight, I lack courage. I do not believe in engaging in fruitless exercises and having my colleagues dash from all parts of the building, knowing full well that there will be nothing in it at the end of the day. I do not consider that to be a demonstration of courage or anything else. I think it is a bit of nonsense. But I want to share the hon. and learned Gentleman's thoughts, and to fire a shot across the bows from this side of the House, because I think that he is absolutely right.
    9.0 p.m.
    I, too, have discussed pension arrangements with our Australian colleagues. I came here not as a young man, although I was younger than average. In spite of that, I would have to be 78 before I became entitled to a full pension which, I am told, is based on some kind of pub-
    1340
    lic service. I do not need to repeat the arguments against the new clause, because the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield demolished them very well. My Australian colleagues did not believe me when I told them the facts.
    I said that I came into the House at a reasonably young age. I am glad to see present some of my colleagues who came in at the same time. Some of them came in a bit younger, but 38 is not a bad age at which to become a Member of Parliament. When I told our Australian colleagues that I would be 78 before I became entitled to the full pension, they did not believe me. They also did not believe me when I told them what our pitiful salary was. Quite frankly, they thought that we were mad.
    The trouble is that the public at large has a quite different impression with regard to the salaries and pension arrangements of Members of Parliament. The level of salaries and pensions is pitched much higher in the public mind. The sooner we change that attitude and have a pension scheme which is related to reality, the better. The reality is that we have so many good examples. Judges are one. Judges are appointed to the Bench at a later age than Members of Parliament, because account must be taken of their experience, knowledge and distinguished career before they are appointed. In my opinion, 15 years is a reasonable time in respect of judges.
    However, I believe that Members of Parliament should have something better than the present pension arrangements. When I retire I should like to think that it will be on a better pension. I believe that the present requirement of 40 years for full pension entitlement must be reduced. I think that 30 years would be an improvement. It would mean that a Member of Parliament who served for 15 years would be entitled to half pension, and the sooner we do that the better. I do not believe that the public would condemn us for doing so, especially if they want Members of Parliament to be drawn from all walks of life.
    My own experience is no different from that of some of my colleagues who have worked all of their lives and become active in the trade union and Labour movement. Indeed, within the Labour Party one generally has to go through a kind of unofficial apprenticeship, and if

    1341
    he can get into this House before he is 40 I think it can be said that that person has done reasonably well. On average I think that Tory Members—this might even apply to Liberal Members—come into this House when they are a few years younger than Labour Members. That was my experieince in 1964 when I first came into the House.
    In the past Back-Bench Members of Parliament have demonstrated that they can exercise power collectively and impose their will, or at least get a large part of their way. I believe that we must demonstrate this will—perhaps not tonight but at some later stage—on the matter of salaries which we must get right, and on pensions. Back Benchers must assert their authority and get what they are entitled to.
    The public will not give two figs about it. They think that we have always enjoyed these benefits. Anyway, Harry Truman once said,
    "If you can't stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen."
    I think that we should be able to take the criticism. We are educated politically enough to stand in our corner. Standing in our corner does not mean apologising for our miserable salaries and our miserable pensions.
    I support the hon. and learned Member. I want to fire a shot across the bows of my own party, which is in Government. I would do the same if the Conservatives were in power. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Conservatives had implemented the Boyle Report for Back Benchers in 1972. He is absolutely right; they did. I hope that some day my Government will have the courage to implement provisions for Back Benchers, but tonight we are discussing pensions. I support the principle advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman although I think that his terms were a bit too harsh. I hope to see the day when we achieve the 30-year category for Members of Parliament.
    Mr. English: I support the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in principle also. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) I do not see the point in having a Division at this late hour—late by the standards of this subject—especially
    1342
    when, unlike the previous Bill, there are no major whipping arrangements by either of the major parties.
    This debate has shown the extraordinary weakness of the Bill and of the whole system that applies to pensions in the House. I believe that when this Bill was being considered the trustees of the House consulted the Treasury. That is a very unlikely set-up. I was taught years ago in the trade union movement that if you were arguing with the employer you should consult your own independent advisers, not the employer's advisers.
    At the beginning of the discussion on this Bill we had the most appalling statement—which has never been contradicted—that there are still 12 children of hon. Members who retired before 1964 without pensions. This Bill does not cover them, no other Bill covers them, nothing covers them. That is the paltriness of the exercise. I do not think that the pensions of 12 children would break the Treasury. Nor do I think that the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield would break anybody.
    The Expenditure Committee said that there were 7 million people—one-third of the working population—who were affected by public sector pension schemes. These schemes are a mess. They are an absolute, complete and total mess. We described them as "a hotch-potch", using slightly more polite terms. Nobody in Government has ever bothered to look at them and see why these 7 million people should all be on different provisions.
    There are contributions and no funds. There are funds and no contributions, strangely enough. There are notional funds, and the Civil Service itself arranges that it does not pay any contributions with the exception of about 1½ per cent. towards widows' pensions. Quite clearly there should be some order brought into this, not only for Members of Parliament but for those most immediately akin to us—the police and the firemen—and for all the other people on public sector pensions.
    But for the weakness of successive Governments in arguing the matter against institutions such as insurance companies, we would have had a system of transferability of pensions throughout the land for everybody in employment.

    1343
    This Labour Government like other Governments, have, I regret to say, been too weak to bother about the situation. I believe that such a proposal would benefit the economy.
    The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield wishes to bring us into line with other people. He said that Members of Parliament often came to this place late in their lives. But that is also the case with other jobs. There is transferability in some schemes, especially in the public sector, but that is not the case in this House.
    I am sure that if I were to continue on that line of argument the Chair would rule me out of order, but economically I believe that it would benefit the country as well as every individual if there were transferability between all pension schemes. There is certainly no reason for such a mishmash, except that which can be laid at the door of inefficiency on the part of Government. There certainly is inefficiency. The Government's reply to the report of the Expenditure Committee on this subject was purely negative. The Government could not be bothered to try to sort out the mess which they themselves had created. We are now in a position where one part of the mess involves ourselves.
    I strongly suggest that, although we must pass this Bill in this Parliament, the next Parliament leaves us only one course. We cannot propose what should be done, for we are not allowed to do so by the rules of procedure of this House. We may not propose an increase in expenditure. There is a lot to be said for that rule but what we can do is to propose reductions of expenditure. If the present position continues, whenever a Treasury Estimate comes before the House relating to every public sector employment, we shall have to propose in the next Parliament that that Estimate be reduced to the same level as that relating to Members of Parliament. Then at last it may be true that the taxpayer will save some money and it will be apparent that this House is perhaps a little under-paid, a little under-pensioned and, above all, that its widows and children are under-pensioned by comparison with legislatures abroad.
    Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West (Mr.
    1344
    English), and Ince (Mr. McGuire), and the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who moved the amendment, referred to pensions and to the practice in other legislatures. I have no doubt that they were right in saying that this Parliament, in comparison with other occupations and other legislatures, does not particularly well provide by way of pensions for Members and dependants.
    There is one small point in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West which I must take up. He referred to the case of the 12 children. The number refers to children to whom pensions are now being paid. This matter was referred to on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). That is a matter on which we have taken action, because I managed to persuade the Committee earlier this evening to adopt an improvement in the scheme in that respect. Therefore, we have dealt with the 12 children.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman put the argument for a faster accrual rate and suggested that the scheme should be based on one-forty-fifth rather than one-sixtieth. He was right to say that on average Members of Parliament serve for considerably less than a full career in the House of Commons. In making comparisons with some other public service pension schemes, I should point out that the norm is one-eightieth rather than one-sixtieth. I understand that if a person worked for 40 years in the home Civil Service, he would receive a half-pension on retirement. So perhaps the parallel in respect of Parliament should be 30 years, because that would give one-half.
    Mr. English: What contribution?
    Mr. Smith: That raises another matter. I know that my hon. Friend expressed scepticism about the way in which Civil Service pensions are dealt with. The defence to that argument is that as part of the pay research process the full amount of the contribution paid by outside employers is typically about 5 per cent. and it is deducted in the course of deliberations. Civil servants also pay a direct contribution of 1½ per cent. of pensionable salary for widows and family benefits.
    Mr. English: But we are not even paid the arbitrators' award.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Smith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer one question before he asks another.
    A further deduction of 1¾ per cent., calculated by the Government Actuary, is made to reflect the difference in pension benefits, including inflation proofing, between the Civil Service scheme and outside schemes. I say that so that all the information is put on the record.
    I do not seek to argue that there are parallels with other schemes, or to go into a complicated analysis of the question whether our scheme is better or worse than others. Many schemes stand on their own, and one can get parallels and non-parallels within the public sector.
    My main point is that this matter was considered carefully by the Boyle Committee. It considered the question of a faster rate of accrual and took on board the fact that it is rare for an hon. Member to serve the 40 years necessary to qualify for a full pension entitlement. The Committee said that it had been told that the average length of service of an hon. Member was 17 to 20 years.
    It reminded us that certain other points had to be taken into account, including the fact that Parliament was not unique in being a late-entry career and that the 40 year accrual period was standard elsewhere in the public services, with one or two exceptions mainly related to particularly hazardous and demanding jobs, for example the police and the fire service—though I dare say that it could be argued that there are hazards in being an hon. Member, particularly in terms of security of employment, and it is certainly a physically demanding job. The Committee also noted that the judiciary had a special arrangement whereby judges served for only 15 years, taking into account the fact that they were not normally appointed under the age of 50.
    One of the principles that the Government have adopted, for good or ill, is that we should not depart too far—in fact, we have departed in only one minor respect—from the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. The Body received a number of representations on this point from hon. Members who were asked to submit their views. There is an interesting appendix to the report in which the suggestions of hon. Members are analysed.
    1346
    The Committee also pointed out that some hon. Members will probably bring in a pension entitlement from other occupations. This is probably more true of hon. Members who are coming in now than of Members who came in some time ago. I have done a little checking among hon. Members who have been elected recently and I find that some, though by no means all, have a pension entitlement from another occupation. Of course, there is not the full transferability pension rights which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West rightly said was a desirable factor.
    We must also consider the cost. It would cost nothing if we put the whole burden on to the Exchequer, but I do not know whether the House would approve of our doing that. The result of adopting the proposal in the new clause and providing that hon. Members should meet only half the cost would be an extra 4 per cent. on Members' contributions, increasing them from 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. If hon. Members wanted to improve the scheme on the basis of their paying half the cost, they would have to face the prospect of an extra 4 per cent. on their contributions, and I believe that a number of hon. Members would wish to consider the matter carefully before going that far, because 10 per cent. is a pretty hefty contribution towards a pension.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much judges pay?
    Mr. Smith: I am not aware of the details. Offhand, I am not aware that they pay a percentage of their salary at all. There may be a notional deduction. I am not sure.
    Of course, we could say that we should be like judges, firemen, policemen or civil servants, but we are dealing with fairly minor amendments to the scheme. No one has pretended that the Bill is a major innovation of our pension scheme. It is a modest Bill making a number of minor improvements. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said that this was not much of a Bill because it did not make massive improvements. I plead guilty to that charge, I have never claimed that it was any more than a modest Bill.
    To accept the amendment would be to make a radical departure in pension

    1347
    arrangements. It may be a desirable departure. I am sure that we should all like better pension provisions and we are all aware that people sometimes do not take due account of the particularly demanding circumstances of being an hon. Member and of the acute lack of security of employment for many of us which is intrinsic in the democratic process. We are often misunderstood outside.
    I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield will get anyone to tell for him. I rather agree with the criticisms of his attitude outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince who said that it is not a lack of courage so much as a matter of discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West backed those comments.
    It is not through any lack of sympathy to try to improve Members' pensions that I argue that the Committee should not accept the new clause. It is out of character on a Bill which seeks to make minor improvements to seek to make a major change which would have consequences, in terms of contributions, which Members would have to consider very carefully before adopting.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I should feel much happier with that reply if the Minister had implied a little more explicitly that we might expect another Bill making major changes. He was right in his description of the Bill. It could not be more minor than it is. It is a minimus Bill. To that extent, I realise that the new clause is somewhat out of harmony with it.
    It would be my intention to divide the House if there were anyone to divide the House with me. As we have a catering strike this evening, which has driven virtually the whole of the membership of the House away, except for the few Members who are present, and since those who are here lack the same aggressive approach which I entertain—
    Mr. English: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will make the point that such industrial action as may be occurring upon the premises and may be
    1348
    about to end is solely because our restaurant and catering staff do not have similar conditions to restaurant and catering staff in the Civil Service.
    The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may make the point, but we do not want to become involved in an industrial dispute, whether real or imaginary.
    Mr. Bell: I think that I have quite enough on my plate—if I may use that expression—without taking on the Catering Department. In looking for a Member to support me in calling a Division, I was not really thinking of the catering staff.
    I shall not ask leave to withdraw the motion and new clause, because that would be against my principles. I shall allow it to be negatived, in the feeling, perhaps, that that increases the probability of a further Bill in the coming Session in which a rather more reasonable approach will be taken, and when there will not be a strike by the catering staff to deprive me of the support which I may reasonably expect.
    Question put and negatived.
    Schedule 1 agreed to.

  Schedule 2

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 11, in page 20, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
    'In section 15, in subsection (2), the words "the next following subsection and to", subsection (3) and, in subsection (4), the words from "and if" to the end of the subsection.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]
    Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATIONAL GUIDANCE SERVICE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
9.25 p.m.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: I rise rather earlier than I expected. That being so, it may be that we can take the debate in a slightly more leisurely fashion.
My interest in the subject of the educational guidance service for adults in Northern Ireland is, I should explain, an educational interest. It is a service that has occasioned much international interest. It has done more, internationally, for the image of the Province than most of the events that have taken place there in the past decade.
The service was established under a different name—the adult vocational guidance service—in 1967. It was financed originally by a trust, and was administered from the outset by the Northern Ireland Council for Social Service, with an advisory committee to help it.
Initially there was some doubt whether it might have as its original name implied, a vocational bias. However, it was established that its orientation would be towards education problems.
In December 1969 the Council's advisory committee sent a deputation to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Education to discuss the future of the service and its financial situation, as the aid from the Wilson Trust was coming to an end. At that stage the Ministry agreed to grant aid to the service. In consequence of that the change of name occurred, and in 1970 it became the educational guidance service for adults.
In September 1973—I go quickly over the history—the Ministry of Education received another deputation from the advisory committee. The advisory committee wanted a new look taken at the future of the service. At that meeting the permanent secretary of the Ministry asked the committee to suggest various ways in which the service might be reorganised and expanded. Four possible schemes were formulated, with a centrally
1350
organised but independent service being favoured. I stress "independent".
In 1974 the Department of Education, as it had by then become, set up a working party. In that year the Minister of Education announced to the then Northern Ireland Assembly that there would be created a council for continuing education. In the course of the statement he referred again to the educational guidance service for adults. The following year a special panel of the new council, after investigating the work of the service, recommended that it should be continued
"based on one of the education and library boards with arrangements for suitable financial contributions from other boards. It should continue to be known as the Educational Guidance Service for Adults. Existing staff should be transferred with the Service".
I stress the words "based on", which in normal English do not mean "run by". I stress that the service should continue to be known as the educational guidance service for adults.
The year after that—we now come to modern times, 1976—the Department wrote to the five boards asking them to indicate how they intended to make provision for a service taking into account the experience of the educational guidance service. At that stage there was no suggestion that one of the boards should run the service on behalf of all five.
The Northern Ireland Council for Social Service asked the boards how the EGSA might be incorporated into their own plans. What emerged from that is what we now have. The Belfast education and library board has established a service. It is not known as a guidance service for adults. It has run from April last year with the name of the further education guidance service. None of the other boards has so far established a service, though all were expected to do so at about the same time. There is some notion that the Belfast board may act on behalf of the others, but that does not seem to be happening to any great effect. In the meantime, the Department has ceased to grant-aid EGSA through the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service.
In the recitation of the history I stopped at one or two points to stress the words "independent" and "based upon one of the boards". I did that because

1351
there has been some confusion, not least within the Department of Education, about what is meant by integrating the service provide by EGSA in the past with statutory provision.
I have received letters from the Minister of State, Lord Melchett, in which he argues that a statement by the director of the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services supports his view and his action in ceasing to fund the board. The director says:
"It was always the Council's intention that ways should be sought of having the service, once its usefulness to the community had been proven, integrated into the statutory education service of the province."
That is right. No one is contesting that. But the word "integrated", any more than the words "based upon", does not mean "run by" the board as part of the normal service. Why is that? What is the point of having a separate or independent service even if it is integrated in statutory provision in the sense that it is funded by and linked to some common services?
Current thinking in the adult education world, not only here but interntationally, favours the provision of at least some counselling services separately from the providers. So many agencies are involved in the provision of education for adults that it is impossible for any one of them to run an efficient, cost-effective service without any bias in the advice that is given to clients.
In the Northern Ireland context, we are not talking simply about further or adult education as it is provided by the education and library boards; we are talking about the Open University, the two local universities, the Ulster Polytechnic, the Workers' Educational Association and a host of other bodies. Few in the adult education world believe that guidance services can be provided adequately by one of the providing bodies separately from the others, unless that guidance is provided through an independent or semi-independent agency.
There is another reason why a measure of independence is essential. It is that counsellors have to be seen by their clients to be independent and impartial. They have to be able to act as advocates for their clients to the providing bodies
1352
without being under undue pressure from their employers.
Nobody suggests that consumer advice centres should be run by manufacturers. Nobody suggests that citizens advice bureaux, although funded by grants from central and local government, should be staffed by civil servants and local government officers. Heaven forfend such a system. And yet it is suggested that one of the providing bodies, the Belfast education and library board, should, in effect, run what is not in the strict sense a guidance service for adults but a further education advisory service.
I turn to another aspect of the EGSA's work in the past. The EGSA collected and kept up to date information on a wide range of further education and training courses and on careers. It produced its own leaflets on courses and career opportunities for adults. It dealt with a host of inquiries and drew upon a bank of information that had been built up over 10 years. It became the main centre in Northern Ireland for information on all spects of adult education.
In this island, we now have an advisory council on adult and continuing education which has established a committee. The task of that committee, which is chaired by Peter Clyne, of the Inner London Education Authority, is to investigate the possibility of establishing information collection centres as well as guidance services. Why is that? It is because information collection is relevant not only to guidance in the face-to-face sense but to a host of other developments which are likely to take place in adult education. One of the most obvious is the establishment of the credit transfer system.
There is a publicly funded research project on the establishment of information banks as a basis for running a credit transfer system. We had one in Northern Ireland but it has been wound up. It has been argued repeatedly to me, in correspondence, by the Minister of State, that the educational guidance service for adults was established on an experimental basis. It is extraordinary that an experiment should run for 10 years, but it is more extraordinary still that if the EGSA was run on an experimental basis no one from the Department made the slightest effort to monitor that experiment,

1353
to collect the evidence of its success or failure, though the Department freely admits in letter after letter that it was a success, and then to build upon that success. What one does not do with expriments after 10 years is to say, without any evidence or monitoring, that an experiment has been a success and that therefore it must be wound up, closed down and started again somewhere else.
That is a most extraordinary way to proceed. The experience and expertise built up within the EGSA, not least the experience and expertise of Dr. Eagleson, who was primarily responsible for running it, has been wasted. Over that 10-year period the service had over 4,000 clients. A large number of them are still using it in spite of its official demise. Although it no longer has funding except from voluntary sources, it still manages to carry on, and it is carrying on, I am glad to say, under the aegis, not in a financial sense but in order to give it a protective mantle, of the Association for Recurrent Education, of which I am happy to be the president.
At least 1,000 of the 4,000 clients who have been to the service could still be described as being on its books. Though it has never advertised, it has guaranteed complete confidentiality and has avoided being identified with any particular body or institution. In that way it has attracted clients who have expressed—some have expressed it to me—the most extreme trust in the quality and confidentiality of the advice that they have received. They could not do that with a board office any more than it could be done with a local education authority in some parts of this country.
If one neglects the Belfast scene and looks to the rest of Northern Ireland, one sees that many of those entering board offices fear that they will be recognised, and that means particularly those who have learning difficulties, mental problems, and so on—and many of those have come the way of the EGSA. Nor could employees of the board itself easily use that service. I am not making a point specific to Northern Ireland. I would not want to see that happen in this country either, where at least the LEAs are democratically elected. It is even more disturbing when there is no demo-
1354
cratically elected organ of Government responsible for the education service.
The Northern Ireland Council of Social Service has consistently told the Department that it is happy to continue some involvement with the service provided that it is continued with public funding and with independent or semi-independent status. I am not sure that that point has always been fully understood by the Department or by the Minister of State.
I turn now to some other aspects of the work of the EGSA. What I have not yet said is that by the provision of an educational psychologist—always available to the service; indeed, employed by the service in latter years—it has been able to offer substantial help to many people who would otherwise not have come within the ambit of the traditional adult education sevice at all.
These are people who, perhaps because of the peculiar conditions of the Province, perhaps because of their own personal difficulties, would not normally—and certainly would not in this island, I suspect—have thought of seeking to improve their prospects in life through adult education courses. By coming into the EGSA, by sometimes undergoing testing—and psychological testing has been used, basically simply to discover aptitudes and abilities, with some 30 per cent. of the clients—and by receiving the expert counselling which the staff were able to offer, many of these people have developed new interests and ultimately have undertaken new careers.
The international reputation of the EGSA is not in question. I have with today a document from a UNESCO conference held in California last year, in which there are words of praise for the EGSA, and in which it is also concluded that
"It is desirable to establish a comprehensive information, guidance and counselling centre as an independent information and counselling service for adults, maintaining close contact and co-operation with all adult educational agencies but administratively autonomous."
At this year's conference of the National Institute for Adult Education in Cardiff, which I attended and which the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science attended—he made representations, I believe, to the Northern Ireland Office after that conference—there was almost unanimous support for the

1355
continuation of the EGSA and expressions of great regret at the decision of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to cease funding the service
On other occasions there have been letters in Northern Ireland papers, and even in the educational papers in this country, praising the EGSA and suggesting that funding to it should continue.
Perhaps I may quote Paul Bertelsen, the head of the adult education section of UNESCO. He said earlier this year of Dr. Eagleson, who has been running the EGSA:
"Dr. Dorothy Eagleton is highly thought of internationally. She has made a very constructive contribution to knowledge in this area. If you give her functions to someone without her experience and qualifications, you might just as well put a pile of directories in a room and call that an advice centre. People who run these services must be skilled in psychology, in human relationships, be very understanding and have a very wide knowledge of education."
In December of last year the educational magazine Education—I pause on that point to stress that that is a proper name—contained a lengthy article describing the new growth of advisory and counselling services in Great Britain. It said:
"Ironically, the most fully-fledged guidance service in the British Isles is threatened with extinction. It is the one in Northern Ireland run by Dr. Dorothy Eagleson."
It went on to describe some of the total of about 40 schemes which are now in process of developing in Great Britain. Not one of them, to my knowledge, is run purely by a local education authority. Most of them are run by a combination of providing bodies and are funded by a combination of providing bodies, and they are run in independence from any single providing body, some of them with Open University involvement. There is an excellent example of that in the South Wales area.
I quote again from a gentleman who has been attempting to set up a similar unit to the EGSA in Merseyside. He said:
"Dorothy is the key figure in developments of this kind. Between 30 and 40 educational guidance projects on the mainland are legitimate offspring of the EGSA."
I could go on with an endless series of quotations in praise of what the EGSA has done. What amazes me is that the Department of Education has not
1356
only cut off the EGSA, as it were, and tried to create a new service elsewhere—I commented on that earlier—but it has acted in such a way that the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service has had to give notice to Dorothy Eagleson, much against its own will, after 11 years of devoted service. That does not seem to me a sensible way of a Government Department to behave. I say that with great regret to my hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest respect. It seems to me to be bad industrial relations, at the least. It seems also to be bad administrative practice to scrap what exists and is successful and to replace it with yet another experiment.
I shall end by quoting from a letter published in the Press in Northern Ireland about a year ago, written by a man who signed himself simply as "Second Chance" and who was one of the clients of the educational guidance service for adults. At the end of his letter he said:
"There is surely something wrong with a Government that cannot find a way to underwrite a far-sighted, creative and community-oriented education service which is the envy of counsellors in other parts of the United Kingdom."
I endorse those words.
9.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) brings to this subject considerable experience, including ministerial experience, and, as he pointed out, he has had lengthy discussions with my noble Friend, whose departmental responsibility this is in Northern Ireland. It is not my responsibility, but in his place I answer for my noble Friend's actions and responsibilities.
I have, however, carefully studied the background to the correspondence and the administrative changes which have been made, which have raised the ire and criticism of my hon. Friend. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's general position in his concern for the whole field of guidance in further education. It is a subject which I know something about, having participated in it.
Before I venture forth upon the departmental brief, I wish to say to my hon. Friend—I have convinced myself of this—that the changes which my noble Friend

1357
has sanctioned have been precisely in pursuit of the aim which my hon. Friend would urge him to adopt, that is, the improvement of the guidance service. It is not disputed, I understand, that Dr. Eagleson offered a first-class service, but when the "experiment"—I put that word in inverted commas—was examined, it was felt—indeed, at the end of the day it was recommended—that a more broadly based service should be offered, for the obvious reason that all adult education and further education should be backed up by a complete and wide-ranging advisory service.
What we have so far in Northern Ireland by way of a State service is in itself a beginning, and one hopes that it will improve. As my hon. Friend said, the Belfast area has the only service so far with a fully fledged system, and that is looking after the needs of the whole of the Province. As I shall be able to point out as I go through the brief, we hope to extend and improve the scope of the service.
My hon. Friend has spoken strongly in support of the Northern Ireland educational guidance service for adults, and I say at the outset that the Government fully accept that a need exists in Northern Ireland for an effective service to assist and guide adults to take advantage of the opportunities available to them in further and higher education. We are committed to a policy of developing such opportunities within the Province under the general umbrella of continuing education.
We recognise that an effective guidance service for adults is an indispensable requirement if the best possible use is to be made of the facilities and the courses which already exist and which are being planned. We believe, however, that adult educational guidance must be made available on as wide a basis and to as many people as possible and must be backed up by a structure able to furnish the necessary administrative and other resources which such development demands.
After careful consideration of the courses open to them, the Government came to the conclusion that the most effective way in which these essential requirements could be met was by asking the education and library boards to take on responsibility for providing a
1358
guidance service, applying where practicable, the lessons gained from the work of the EGSA.
A considerable time has elapsed since this decision and during this period the Government have had no cause to change their view that an expanded service to cater for the whole of Northern Ireland can best be established through the education and library boards, which have statutory responsibility for the provision of educational facilities of all kinds.
In addition to providing a base for a comprehensive service, this arrangement means that support will be available from the organisational structures and expertise which exist within the boards. In considering the matter there has never been any question whatsoever of abandoning the basic principles so successfully established by the EGSA; rather, the intention has been to make provision for development along the most rational lines. In this respect a promising start has already been made by the Belfast education and library board and I propose to give hon. Members an outline of what has been achieved by the board during a relatively short period of operation.
Before doing so, however, it might be useful if I were to review briefly the history of EGSA. The service was first established in 1967 when the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services considered that there was a need to look at the problems associated with guiding and counselling adults on their educational needs. The Council as a consequence established the EGSA on an experimental basis. In the first instance, finance was provided by the Clement Wilson Foundation. But in 1970 the Foundation withdrew its support, apparently being satisfied at that time that the immediate objectives of the experiment had been met.
Financial assistance was then sought for a further period from the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, to enable the future of the service to be considered. From 1970 to 1973 the service was financed partly by the Department and partly by the Gulbenkian Foundation, but since 1973, when that Foundation's involvement came to an end, the service has been wholly dependent on grant-aid from the Department.

1359
The point has been made from time to time that there is particular merit in having an "independent" guidance service but although the project has never been under the direct control of a statutory body, in recent years it has been entirely dependent for its continued existence upon public funds.
In outlining the general background, the other point which I should like to underline is that, in spite of its long period of operation, the EGSA was, as I have already stated, conceived as an experimental unit, set up to explore the field of adult educational guidance and not as a body on which the provision of a service for the whole of Northern Ireland might be based. Indeed the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services in a Press statement has said,
"it was always the Council's intention that ways should be sought of having the Service, once its usefulness to the community had been proven, integrated into the statutory education service for the Province. Such a development is part and parcel of the philosophy of a Council of Social Services and there is ample precedent for it".
It is a measure of the success of the experimental unit that in 1976 my right hon. Friend, the then Minister, considered that the nature and extent of the need for adult educational guidance had been fully established and felt justified in moving forward to the next logical stage, initiating a service to provide for the whole of Northern Ireland. In this respect, I should like to stress the Government's appreciation of the fine pioneering work undertaken by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services, which cleared the way for this important step, and to say how impressed I am with the general recognition this work has so rightly been given by those who have the general interests of education at heart.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: The Minister has read a statement by Lord Meldrum which I had quoted. Would he accept that when Lord Meldrum, the director of the Northern Ireland Council, spoke of the EGSA being integrated into the statutory provision he did not mean that it should be wound up and its functions transferred somewhere else? That is not quite the same thing.
Mr. Carter: I bow to my hon. Friend's departmental experience and knowledge,
1360
but I cannot conceive of a situation in which one would wind up a voluntary body and yet at the same time keep it in existence within the statutory framework. I do not understand how that could happen. I know of no precedent for it.
I think that we are in a situation of some conflict here, where the voluntary body is obviously carrying out an educational function which is recognised by the State. However, the State thinks that it could do the job rather better within its own functional and departmental responsibilities. I believe that my noble Friend in Northern Ireland felt that the conflict could best be resolved by the winding up of one body and the complete transfer of its responsibilities to his Department.
The EGSA was located in Belfast, though it provided guidance for clients from outside the city area if called upon to do so. It had a total specialist staff of one full-time organiser and one part-time psychologist. In the circumstances it was felt that it could not possibly provide a suitable base for the establishment of a comprehensive service extending over the whole Province, a view which was consistent with that subsequently expressed by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services. On the other hand, the boards, which are financed 100 per cent. by the Department and which are statutorily responsible for educational services in Northern Ireland, were seen as being ready-made for the purpose.
At the time there appeared to be a general agreement that this was the best way to proceed. Following discussions between the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services, the Department of Education and the Belfast education and library board, it was agreed that the Belfast education and library board should establish a further education guidance service to commence on 1st April 1977. On this date the EGSA was to cease its active counselling function, but in effecting this transfer the Department of Education was most anxious to ensure that the experience gained in the experimental venture should not be lost to the Boards and that some way should be found to enable the EGSA's organiser to contribute to the development of the extended service. It was clear that this role would have to be distinct from the bulk of the

1361
counselling work, which would be undertaken by the service established within the Belfast board.
It was considered that the organiser, Dr. Dorothy Eagleson, could best assist the boards in setting up the new service by becoming associated with a study of development and training requirements, and by pursuing research into areas in which the need for guidance and counselling had not been properly met. Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach agreement on the extent and nature of a continuing role for Dr. Eagleson.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that one of the suggestions made in that context to the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services for Dr. Eagleson's activities was that she should not only investigate the possibility of setting up a guidance service for the other boards but should examine the possibility of establishing an advisory service for female school-leavers who might have become teachers had it not been for the cut-back in teacher education and who no longer had that opportunity before them.
As to the establishment of the further education guidance service, which looks to 16-year-olds to 19-year-olds as well as adults, there is clearly in the Department's mind some confusion about what educational guidance for adults specifically is.
Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend has raised a matter to which I am not privy. I shall take it up with my noble Friend. I am sure that my noble Friend would want me to say that in these early and formative stages of the education and library boards providing this service we must accept that there is a learning process involved, though, as I shall indicate later, we seem to have got off to a fairly good start in terms of the number of people approaching the new service. But I shall make known to my noble Friend the point that my hon. Friend has just made.
In the circumstances, the Government have been forced to the view that a continuation of the direct counselling role of the EGSA would only duplicate the service provided by the education and library boards. The Department of Education cannot use public funds to give
1362
100 per cent. grant-aid to separate organisations which would, in effect, be competing for clients.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
Mr. Carter: It is indicative of the Government's concern to arrive at a solution to this problem that, to give time in which to reach an agreement, grant aid was continued at 100 per cent. to meet the EGSA's staffing costs for one year beyond the original hand-over date of 1st April 1977. During this period there was extensive correspondence between the parties concerned and a number of meetings took place, but it was all to no avail. When the Department fixed 31st March 1978 as the date on which grant to the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services for the EGSA would finally cease, it was clear that no prospect existed of any agreement being reached on how Dr. Eaglesson might work with the Belfast education and library board's new service.
Turning to this new service, I am sure that the hon. Member will be pleased to hear that it has got off to a promising start since it began just over a year ago. At present the further education guidance service is providing a service for all areas of Northern Ireland, not just Belfast, pending the development of similar services by the other education and library boards.
The board deliberately called its new service the further education guidance service to avoid confusion in the minds of the public with the experimental service provided by the EGSA. This was necessary because there was an overlap period when both organisations were offering their services to the public. I would stress however that the term "further education guidance service" embraces all forms of continuing education and that the new service caters for all adult educational needs.
In its first year of operation the further education guidance service dealt with almost 600 cases. These covered a wide age range, but at least 80 per cent.

1363
of them related to people over the age of 20 and almost 50 per cent. were in the age range 22 to 40. Of the total number of cases, 316 related to the Belfast education and library board area, 110 to the South-Eastern board area, 74 to the North-Eastern board area, 19 to the Southern board area, and 28 to the Western board area. In addition there were 29 inquiries from outside Northern Ireland.
The new service has been widely advertised throughout Northern Ireland and there has been a steady stream of people looking for help and advice. Close liaison has been established with other statutory bodies and the Department of Health and Social Services. The service is also operating in close co-operation with the board's other specialist services including that provided by the educational psychologist.
In general it is fair to claim that the first year's experience of the scheme operating within the statutory education
1364
service is a story of success though, of course, much remains to be done.
Finally, I would not wish to close without remarking on the high regard in which the experimental education guidance service for adults was held and expressing the conviction that in its turn the statutory service will come to be universally regarded in a similar light. It was never intended that it should follow exactly the same pattern as the pioneer service, but the Belfast board has made an energetic and successful start and there has certainly been no decline in the number of people who have sought and been given assistance. We should like to feel that in Northern Ireland and we are still pioneering by working towards the translation of a most successful experiment into a full-fledged and equally successful service and thereby still maintaining our position as leaders in this field.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Fishery Protection Service
  Fishery Protection Service
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Inchterf Proof and Experimental Establishment
  Inchterf Proof and Experimental Establishment
  United Nations (Peacekeeping Operations)
  United Nations (Peacekeeping Operations)
  Police
  Police
  Jobcentres (Recruiting)
  Jobcentres (Recruiting)
  Dockyards (Wage Rates)
  Dockyards (Wage Rates)
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Africa
  Africa
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Hydrography (Home Waters)
  Hydrography (Home Waters)
  Polaris Bases
  Polaris Bases
  Canada
  Canada
  Loss of Leave (Special Payments)
  Loss of Leave (Special Payments)
  Commando and Parachute Forces
  Commando and Parachute Forces
  Rosyth Dockyard
  Rosyth Dockyard
  Service Pay and Conditions
  Service Pay and Conditions
  Exercise Whisky Galore
  Exercise Whisky Galore
  Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions
  Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions
  Merchant Shipping (Protection)
  Merchant Shipping (Protection)
  Chile (Aero Engines)
  Chile (Aero Engines)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Sentences (Report)
  Prison Sentences (Report)
  Armed Robberies
  Armed Robberies
  Exeter Prison (Pay Dispute)
  Exeter Prison (Pay Dispute)
  Immigration (Members' Representations)
  Immigration (Members' Representations)
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Prisons (Accommodation)
  Prisons (Accommodation)
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Police (Resignations)
  Police (Resignations)
TRANSPORT
  West Germany (Co-operation)
  West Germany (Co-operation)
  Traffic Controls
  Traffic Controls
  Guildford Bypass
  Guildford Bypass
  Laminated Windscreens
  Laminated Windscreens
  A117 (Traffic Flows)
  A117 (Traffic Flows)
  A406 (Traffic Flows)
  A406 (Traffic Flows)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Errors)
  Civil Servants (Errors)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Universities (Expenditure)
  Universities (Expenditure)
  School Milk Products
  School Milk Products
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  Teachers (Recruitment)
  Teachers (Recruitment)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Car Parks
  Car Parks
  Agricultural Vehicles (Thefts)
  Agricultural Vehicles (Thefts)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Price Indices
  Price Indices
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Food and Consumer Goods
  Food and Consumer Goods
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  LEYLAND
  LEYLAND
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (APPROXIMATION OF LAWS)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (APPROXIMATION OF LAWS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
TRADE
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
  St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Overseas Companies (Name Style)
  Overseas Companies (Name Style)
  British Petroleum
  British Petroleum
ENVIRONMENT
  Women's Vote (Fiftieth Anniversary)
  Women's Vote (Fiftieth Anniversary)
  Housing (Demolition Damage)
  Housing (Demolition Damage)
  Housing (Finance)
  Housing (Finance)
  Nuclear Waste Disposal (Test Drilling)
  Nuclear Waste Disposal (Test Drilling)
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  KC135 Tanker Aircraft (Base)
  KC135 Tanker Aircraft (Base)
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
ENERGY
  Private Mines
  Private Mines
  Coal (Output)
  Coal (Output)
  Joint European Torus Project
  Joint European Torus Project
SCOTLAND
  Singer Company
  Singer Company
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Further Education (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Assistance to Industry)
  Local Authorities (Assistance to Industry)
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Roads (Safety Barriers)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Children (Hearing Defects)
  Children (Hearing Defects)
  INFLATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INFLATION (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  AIR SERVICES (BERMUDA AGREEMENT)
  AIR SERVICES (BERMUDA AGREEMENT)
  FORDINGBRIDGE
  FORDINGBRIDGE
  TUC & CBI
  TUC & CBI
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishery Protection
  Fishery Protection
  Sperm Whale Products
  Sperm Whale Products
  Fanning Entrants
  Fanning Entrants
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Herbicide 2,4,5-T
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Whales
  Whales
  Fairford Airfield
  Fairford Airfield
  Fishing Regulations (Faroese Vessels)
  Fishing Regulations (Faroese Vessels)
INDUSTRY
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  EDUCATION
  EDUCATION
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER ACT 1967
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER ACT 1967
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  SUMMIT CONFERENCE
  BONN
  BONN
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  SPORT (TOBACCO FIRMS' SPONSORSHIP)
  SPORT (TOBACCO FIRMS' SPONSORSHIP)
  WILDBOARCLOUGH
  WILDBOARCLOUGH
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchequer Stock
  Exchequer Stock
  Income Tax (Travel Facilities)
  Income Tax (Travel Facilities)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Life Assurance
  Life Assurance
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  Tax Revenue
  Tax Revenue
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Government Debt
  Government Debt
EMPLOYMENT
  Public Bodies
  Public Bodies
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Household Expenditure (Wage Equivalents)
  Household Expenditure (Wage Equivalents)
  Youth Employment Subsidy Scheme
  Youth Employment Subsidy Scheme
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Small Firms Subsidy
  Small Firms Subsidy
  Homeworkers
  Homeworkers
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Young Persons (Lambeth)
  Young Persons (Lambeth)
  Employers' Returns
  Employers' Returns
  Wages Council Regulations (Infringements)
  Wages Council Regulations (Infringements)
WALES
  Water Supply
  Water Supply
  Arfon Borough Council (Estate Repairs)
  Arfon Borough Council (Estate Repairs)
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Work Experience Scheme (Agriculture)
  Work Experience Scheme (Agriculture)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Local Education Authorities (Language Policies)
  Local Education Authorities (Language Policies)
  Roads (Ceredigion)
  Roads (Ceredigion)
  Tan-yr-Unto Corner, Llanbedr, Clwyd
  Tan-yr-Unto Corner, Llanbedr, Clwyd
  Building Society Loans
  Building Society Loans
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Abermule Bypass
  Abermule Bypass
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
DEFENCE
  Military Aircraft (Financing)
  Military Aircraft (Financing)
  NATO (Booklet)
  NATO (Booklet)
  KC135 Tanker Aircraft (Base)
  KC135 Tanker Aircraft (Base)
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Jet Pilots
  Jet Pilots
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Majors (Pay)
  Majors (Pay)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Anguilla
  Anguilla
  Industrial Banking Corporation
  Industrial Banking Corporation
  European Community (Spanish Entry)
  European Community (Spanish Entry)
  Investment Protection Agreements
  Investment Protection Agreements
  Law of the Sea
  Law of the Sea
  Non-nuclear Weapon States
  Non-nuclear Weapon States
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Lassa Fever
  Lassa Fever
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Eraldin
  Eraldin
  Supplementary Benefit Heating Allowances
  Supplementary Benefit Heating Allowances
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
  Myolectric Hands
  Myolectric Hands
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Disabled Persons (Aids)
  Boarding-Out Allowance
  Boarding-Out Allowance
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
  Optone (Price)
  Optone (Price)
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Pharmaceutical Companies (Price Regulation)
  Pharmaceutical Companies (Price Regulation)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Elderly Persons (Discussion Document)
  Elderly Persons (Discussion Document)
  Hospitals (Industrial Action)
  Hospitals (Industrial Action)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Nottinghamshire)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Nottinghamshire)
  Abortions (West Midlands)
  Abortions (West Midlands)
  Wheelchairs (Cushions)
  Wheelchairs (Cushions)
  Inflation Forecasting
  Inflation Forecasting
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  National Health Service Staff
  National Health Service Staff
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Education)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Education)
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Tropical Diseases
  Tropical Diseases
  Fairford Airfield (Noise)
  Fairford Airfield (Noise)
WALES
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Midwifery Service
  Midwifery Service

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

ELECTRICITY: OFF-PEAK RATES
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department of Energy will, as a matter of urgency, tackle the problem of high off-peak electricity tariffs in respect of domestic space heating and, further, whether they will use the substantial profit on the sale of gas to reduce off-peak electricity rates at least in areas where gas is not available to consumers.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, off-peak tariffs are kept under review. Although they increased rapidly from 1974 following the energy crisis, in the last two years the rate of increase has been markedly slower and off-peak electricity prices are now about half the level of unrestricted prices. Government measures to alleviate the position of low income consumers have operated in the winters of 1976 and 1977. Any profits made by the British Gas Corporation will be transferred to reserve as required by the Gas Act 1972, and these would not be available for distribution to electricity consumers.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, rather a non-possumus reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there is a large body of opinion that, despite the fact that tariffs are kept under review, the whole tariff structure of the electricity industry should have a thorough overhaul, especially in regard to off-peak tariffs because 50 per cent. is really not low enough for an off-peak tariff, particularly in view of the profitability which has been published since this Question was put down? There is another question, if I
132
may ask it. Is the noble Lord aware of the number of new houses designed to be heated by electricity which are deteriorating because people cannot afford to pay the off-peak rates for heating?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, off-peak tariffs cover little more than the cost of the fuel used to generate electricity. Virtually none of the capital costs associated with generation, transmission and distribution fall on the night rates. However, Area Boards are aware that the sharp increase in energy prices in recent years has meant a difficult readjustment for many consumers, particularly those in all-electric accommodation, and have sought to ensure that tariff increases arc kept to the minimum possible; and in addition all tariffs are subject to continuous review. With regard to the question about housing, as the noble Lord is aware and your Lordships will be aware, the Government have introduced the Homes Insulation Bill as part of a £320 million energy conservation package. This has been passed by another place and is at present before your Lordships.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although he suggests that off-peak electricity is half the normal cost, even half the present-day cost is much higher than that which people were led to believe they would have to pay when they were put to the expense of installing their night storage heaters? The effect of that is to undermine the confidence of people in following any Government suggestions for conserving. For example, if improvements to prevent heat from escaping will entail the rates on a property going up, as so often happens, then the whole confidence in following Government directions has been undermined.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not abuse his position. I know he is in many ways a very fine Parliamentarian, but I think he should really live up to his name.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my question took half the time the noble Lord took in answering the original Question?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, following the 1973 energy crisis fuel costs did rise rapidly and electricity prices increased by more than the rate of inflation. The rate of price increases has since slowed down, and the industry hope to be able to contain future price increases to around the general rate of inflation in the next few years.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the laws of the nationalised industries it would be illegal to transfer gas profits to the electricity industry, or coal profits to the electricity industry? Will he inform the noble Lord opposite that he is absolutely wrong in law in the Question he put down on the Order Paper?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. His interpretation of the Gas Act is perfectly correct. I hope noble Lords opposite will take note of it.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has considered that, if every industry takes steps to keep level with the rate of inflation, the rate of inflation will never go down?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that is a very interesting observation from a distinguished economist.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people engaged in agriculture occupy farmhouses, and if they are required to pay their own electricity bills they are charged at farm tariff rates? Would it not be fair if these people occupying farmhouses could be charged domestic tariff rates rather than farm tariff rates?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that is a very interesting point and I will transmit it to my right honourable friend.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, might I ask if this is an interesting point? Would the Minister be able to tell us this: when the Electricity Consumers' Council receives its new status as a statutory committee will it not be necessary for the electricity industry to refer to it questions raised by the noble Lord opposite concerning these tariffs?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as far as I am concerned all the points made by my noble friend are interesting. With regard to this particular point I take note of it and I am sure that it will be possible, but I shall go into the matter and let my noble friend know.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the maintenance of a continuous even temperature during the bitterly cold winter months is by far the most effective way of avoiding hypothermia in old people? Could not the Government engage on an active publicity campaign to promote the use of these off-peak electricity heaters?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, yes; that is in hand.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, as regards off-peak electricity heaters, there are many such heaters but people cannot afford to use them and that is the trouble. Would it not be fair, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has said, to approach this matter from the social angle as opposed to the intrinsically electric supply angle? Indeed, it might be worth while from the State's point of view to include the social angle with the intrinsically mechanical one.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the night rate is still only 50 per cent. of the day rate. As regards the social angle, as I said earlier, the Government have introduced the electricity discount scheme for lower income people. There is a code of practice which has been introduced for easy methods of payment and also advice about disconnections. Also, as I have said, we have introduced the Homes Insulation Bill.
2.46 p.m.

CHILE: ROLLS-ROYCE AERO ENGINES
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will adhere to the ruling of the Scottish courts and send back to

135
Chile her property—namely, the four Rolls-Royce aero engines stored at East Kilbride—and thereby clear themselves of possible allegations of theft.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the ruling of the Hamilton Sheriff Court is a matter between Rolls-Royce Limited and the Chilean Government.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I am not really sure whether I can thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, is he aware that the Chilean Government sent these engines to Britain for overhaul over four years ago? Is he further aware that it is not a very good advertisement for our export trade if we deny our customers their legal property presumably because their politics are not sufficiently Marxist to please the unions involved? Moreover, when are Her Majesty's Government going to realise that they are the Government of this whole country, and not just the lapdog of the unions?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I agree with the first two points made by the noble Viscount. However, as regards the third point, the Government have, in fact, no role in implementing the ruling of the sheriff court. Their responsibility lies under the granting of a licence for the export of aero-engines, under the Export of Goods Control Order 1970. The granting of such a licence is under consideration.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, should not Her Majesty's Government hurry up in granting the licences?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes, for commercial reasons that is obviously desirable.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the issue of the export licence the only matter that now prevents the export of these engines? When and if the licence is issued, will the Government ensure that there is no further delay in the return of these engines?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that the Government would not issue a licence without permitting the engines to leave the country.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, at present is it not the case that the engines are being prevented from leaving the country by the action of the trade unions at Rolls-Royce? Are the Government in no position to use their influence with those unions to see that the engines are returned to their rightful owners?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, the Government are using their influence.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this transaction is doing real damage to our reputation as a trading nation and that, if it is a question of bureaucratic delay, that could be rectified at once if the Government wished to do so?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes, the point which the noble Baroness has made is correct: this cannot do our trade relations any good.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that this is doing very great damage to our export effort and that it brings British industry into real disrepute with our customers abroad? Do the Government think that people will continue to buy British engines if they cannot be sure of getting them reconditioned in this country? Why has this gone on for so long anyhow? Do the Government not want this sort of contract to continue? Would it not improve British employment and British reputation abroad if we were to settle the matter soon?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thought that I had already answered that question.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House how long it will take for the export licence to be discussed and why it has taken so long? It seems fairly straightforward.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if it were straightforward it would not have taken so long. However, it is, I understand, under very active consideration—that is not in the usual formula of words.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, notwithstanding the pleas for the Chilean Government, the actions of the Chilean Government and their attitude towards political prisoners brings them into disrepute with people who believe in democracy?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if we mishandled political prisoners there would be very few countries with whom we could trade.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if this dispute continues much longer after the passing of the Scotland Bill, will this matter he the responsibility of the Assembly as a devolved matter referring to industry, or will it be a reserved matter referring to foreign affairs?
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, will the noble Lord amplify the answer he gave to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and say why it is not straightforward?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, because this is a very sensitive subject about which large groups of people have strong views. But the consideration is being given and the strong views of this House today will, I hope, accelerate the decision.

SCHOOL HOLIDAYS: HALF-TERM DATES
2.50 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: 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 education authorities can be asked to arrange half-term dates so that, as far as possible, those for various schools coincide, thus reducing inconvenience to families, especially where there are working mothers.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, it would not be correct for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a
138
request of this kind to local authorities. The 1944 Education Act provides for school holidays to be under the control of local education authorities, except where the rules of management or articles of government provide otherwise; such holidays being subject to the provisions of the Schools Regulations 1959. I am sure that education authorities and, where it is their responsibility, the managers and governors of schools, are aware of the inconvenience that may be caused to parents who have children at different schools with overlapping half-term holidays; but there are, of course, other matters which need to be taken into account.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether it is a fact that half the young mothers with school children in this country go out to work, and that, because of the non-coincidence of these half-term dates, sometimes they have to be away from work in respect of one child and then away again in respect of another child? Does my noble friend not think that it would be sensible for these half-term dates to coincide? Could my noble friend not arrange for the Minister to send a memorandum to the local education authorities urging that this be considered?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, although I appreciate the inconvenience to which my noble friend refers, I do not think that to send round a circular would make any difference. I am satisfied that local education authorities take pains to meet the wishes of parents in the arrangements that they make for these school holidays. Many have established committees to advise on school calendars and to consider representations made to them by interested bodies and individuals. All consult widely before deciding on holiday dates, taking account of the wishes of parents and teachers, the needs of pupils—particularly those in the period of run-up to the CSE and GCE examinations—and the impact of national and local trade and business holidays. Unfortunately, the problem produces conflict in that one date may be more convenient than another date for one family as opposed to another family. To send out a circular would not, I think, enable local authorities, which are

139
making an effort, to please more people; although I admit the difficulty.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, although I accept the existence of the difficulties to which the noble Lord has alluded, is it not the case that difficulties arise between adjacent urban authorities? Perhaps some mild circular—not one of those that we have grown to dread, graven on tablets of stone, but something on scented paper perhaps—showing a common date, would be welcome in certain circumstances.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, my right honourable friend will certainly read our exchange and take note of it. Her view at the moment is that to send out to local authorities circulars of an exhortative kind, telling them to do things they are already trying to do, can do more harm than good. However, my right honourable friend will certainly note what has been said.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NOTICE
2.54 p.m.
Lord BANKS: 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 the Boundary Commission for England in their notice dated 21st May 1978 concerning the European Assembly Elections Act failed to state that the requirement that the electorate in a European Assembly constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practical is nevertheless governed by the need to have regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the form of the notice given by the Boundary Commission for England in their provisional recommendations for European Assembly constituencies is a matter for the Commission to decide, within the statutory requirements.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he not agree that it was very misleading to publish the requirement about the size of the electorate without, at the same time, publishing the very important qualification on that requirement imposed by Parliament? Will he not also agree that the public were not given full enough information in the notice about the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission to enable them to determine whether they have proper grounds for objection?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, no; I do not think that I would agree with those criticisms of the Boundary Commission. This is a difficult matter. I think that the Commission have taken quite a number of steps to publicise their recommendations. I must point out that the recommendations are only provisional. As I have already indicated, I think that the Commission have taken quite significant steps to publicise them, and I do not think they are in any way blameworthy.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the administrative county of North Yorkshire has been abstracted and taken into Durham, whereas the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—Easington—has been taken away from Durham, kidnapped and put into the constituency of North Yorkshire and Cleveland? Surely, the Boundary Commission—whose recommendations are merely provisional—could, by a slight exchange, assuage the grievances of both the noble Lord and myself.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, no doubt that point will be made to the Commission by the noble Lord.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us where we find the principle set out under which mathematics are to be preferred to geography, and vice versa?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is a rather broad question which I approach with some caution. As far as the Act is concerned, the Commission had a responsibility for making up constituencies in England which took account of the existing Parliamentary

141
constituencies. This is a difficult matter. I think that the Commission have gone about their job with considerable dispatch, for which I think we have all been grateful. Certainly if people are dissatisfied, they must make representations to the Commission, as is provided for in the Act.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.57 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before we move into Committee on the Bill, I wonder whether the Government can assure us that the Bill as received from another place is correctly printed? It has come to my attention that in another place on 17th May certain Amendments on the Bill were moved on Report. The reference is columns 695 onwards. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give us the assurance that the errors lie in Hansard and not in the Bill?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice that he had found what he thought were defects in the Bill as we have it before us this afternoon. I would not go so far as to say that the defects are in Hansard. I think that the trouble perhaps lies in the way in which they report their proceedings in the Commons. In Hansard of 17th May, to which the noble Lord referred, the two points arise in columns 695 and 700. If we take those in conjunction with their Votes and Proceedings, their Order Paper and their Minutes of their meeting, we find later on that the first Amendment referred to was Amendment No. 18 which, on the advice of the Deputy Speaker, they took with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. When we come to the Votes and Proceedings: 17th–18th May 1978 we find that Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 were made to the Bill, there being no reference to Amendment No. 18.
The Commons then went on to deal with Amendment No. 27, and again the
142
Deputy Speaker advised that this might also be taken in conjunction with other Amendments. When we come to the Votes and Proceedings we find that Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 were made to the Bill and they then moved on to Amendment No. 29. So the other Amendments were not made to the Bill; they were only considered at the same time as certain other groups of Amendments. I am categorically assured that as it stands before us this afternoon the Bill is in order.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for assuring us that that is so. Perhaps we shall have to read our Minutes more carefully.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will efforts be made to make the Official Report really reflect whit is in the Bill, or will it be left in this rather ambiguous condition, which I he noble Baroness has just described?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Bill before us this afternoon is correct. Any ambiguity that has crept into it is in the reporting of the Commons proceedings on Report, when they were advised by the Deputy Speaker to group certain Amendments. The two Amendments at issue are those which were grouped and which were not, in fact, passed by the House of Commons. Therefore, they are not part of the Bill, are not included in it and the Bill as it is before us this afternoon is correct.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this. Is the Bill at variance with the Minutes, as the Official Report is?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with respect, the Bill is not at variance with the Minutes. The Minutes make it plain that the two Amendments that were being questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, were not passed by the Commons. Therefore, the Bill is correct.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Passenger transport policies in county areas]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.1 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: As a kick-off to the Committee's consideration of the Bill, there is a small but important matter that I hope the noble Baroness will be able to help me with. Where you have a case where a county council has, by its plans, imposed extra costs on a bus operator other than a district council, that operator should, like the district council, have a right to be compensated. This might arise because a new service has been introduced at their instigation which abstracts passengers from an existing service. The operator of that service should therefore be compensated for this, but he has no rights in the matter.
Another example which goes wider than the county public transport plan would be the establishment by a county of a pedestrian precinct resulting in considerable detours for existing bus services and loss of passengers, because the bus no longer went close enough to the shops. In these circumstances it seems only fair that, as with the district council undertaking, any other bus operators should be entitled to compensation. These matters are not easily resolved, and provisions similar to those in subsection (7) could, with advantage, be applied. The appointment of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy as arbitrator would ensure fair play for both sides. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give thought to this matter before the next stage.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question. He is arguing that financial protections which are given to the district councils who incur losses in operating public passenger transport services in accordance with the counties' policies, ought to be extended to other operators. District councils who operate public transport services have a duty to operate them in accordance with the county council policy —Clause 1(1)(b). Their protection is that if in doing so they incur extra expenditure or get less revenue, then they can require the county council to reimburse them—
144
Clause 1(6). There is provision for arbitration if the two councils cannot agree the amount under Clause 1(7).
Subsections (1)(b), (6) and (7) in the Bill are re-enactments with only minor changes of the corresponding provisions in the Local Government Act 1972: Section 203, subsections (1)(b), (3) and (4).
The justification for the financial protection in subsections (6) and (7) stems from the duty imposed in (1)(b). The extension of this protection to other operators could not be justified unless the duty were similarly extended. A commercial operator who could not obtain satisfactory financial terms from the county council has the simple remedy of refusing to provide the service concerned. But to require undertakings (other than district councils) to operate in accordance with county council policies could only lead to confusion of aims and responsibilities. The duty and its corollary, the reimbursement of losses or expenditure in fulfilling it, makes sense in relation to local authorities working within similar financial frameworks and public duties but would run counter to a commercial operator operating with the purpose of making a profit. This applies to the National Bus Company, who have to operate on a commercial basis, except to the extent to which county councils are prepared to finance loss-making services. There would be practical confusion as well because any one NBC subsidiary normally operates in several counties, and therefore would have different responsibilities placed on it by different counties.
The essence of the proposal for public transport plans is that all public transport operators with their varying financial circumstances and disciplines should contribute under county leadership to the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient county passenger transport system giving the best possible services with the resources—both public and private—available. But this needs to be in co-operation within a broad statutory framework and not a straitjacket of detailed legal checks and balances. If the bus companies cooperate, if they are willing to work in with the county policies, then there are also checks and balances right through so that the policy is an effective one.
Lord TEVIOT: I thank the noble Baroness for that considerate reply. I shall read every word that she said. The alternatives to the operator who refuses to operate the service at all seem a bit drastic. Nevertheless, I shall read what the noble Baroness has said and probably have a word about it again.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [County public transport plans]:
3.7 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("31st March 1979") and insert ("31st July 1979").
The noble Lord said: We now move into Clause 2, which concerns county public transport plans. I shall be referring to the affairs and debates which took place in Standing Committee B in another place. I do so because in their discussions another place felt that the nomenclature of the system—that is, the public transport plan—was so closely akin to something that exists already, which is transport policies and programmes, that it was liable to confusion.
One of the principal aims of Clause 2 is to ensure publication of the public transport plan. This gives rise to a great deal of difficulty. I was glad to read in the proceedings of another place the explanations given by the noble Baroness's honourable friends because this is a matter of considerable public concern. The first problem we come up against is the nomenclature, to which I have referred. The second problem is the question of dates, to which the Amendment specifically refers.
It is clear from what has been discussed already that to work at all the system must give local authorities sufficient time to prepare their public transport plans. At the present moment under the existing system the transport policies and programmes are prepared for submission in July and, as we understand it—and I hope, if necessary, the noble Baroness will correct me here—one sector within that transport policies and programmes, which is the new public transport plan, is to be prepared, according to the Bill, not later than 31st March 1979. Every year it is to be up-dated at 12-monthly intervals.
Let us first consider what county councils are being asked to do. Let us assume that this Bill reaches Royal Assent perhaps in the early part of August this year. Between now and August we may reach a different conclusion. However, let us assume that; and let us further assume that there will be approximately seven months in which to conclude the public transport plan. In addition to that, the Bill ensures the publication of that plan, and the words read:
"not later than 31st March 1979, prepare and publish a public passenger transport plan for the succeeding period of 5 years; and"—
A further difficulty arises here because, as the Committee will be aware, the existing transport policies and programmes are submitted for three years, and so the new one, or the new sector, will be for a longer period, five years. and will overlap the existing one. Here we are in real difficulty; we are in difficulty on dates, on nomenclature and on what I termed on Second Reading a duo system, though I have been assured it is not a duo system.
I was, therefore, glad to read that the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Horam, said in another place on 14th February last that the Government would remain willing and able to alter the procedure to take account of the practical reality. I am glad the Minister was prepared to say that, because the practical reality is basically this: the Association of County Councils—all their members are acutely aware of the timing factor—know of the great burden which this new proposal will make on their limited resources. At present it is difficult to work within the context of what is termed the TSG, or transport supplementary grant, for the simple reason that it is available for only 12 months, and of course the new public transport plan is to run for five years. There is, therefore, no guarantee whatever that the proposals which are being put forward will see the light of day, nor is there any guarantee that the Government will accept them when they are put forward. I hope that at this stage the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us further.
3.12 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, these two Amendments—the one before the Committee and the one following—hang

147
together, and the noble Lord has shown the concern which he expressed on Second Reading about the relationship between the public transport plans and the existing transport policies and programmes. I assume he accepts that both the TPPs and the public transport plan could cover the same five-year period from 1st April following, respectively, the submission and the publication of them. I am with him on that. Our intention is that there should be no conflict between the preparation of these two documents, but that they should be different aspects of the same process. On that basis his Amendments would have two effects. First, they would defer for a whole year the operation of public transport plans from 1979–80 to 1980–81. Second, they would mean that the public transport plan had to he published at least nine months before the year to which it relates, at the same time as the TPP is submitted to the Secretary of State, and not, as the Bill provides, at any time up to that year.
On the first of those, we would view with very great concern any delay in the introduction of public transport plans. I do not think anyone has seriously argued against them in principle. Indeed, some have criticised them for being no advance on what many counties are doing already. I appreciate that roughly nine months from now may seem a short time in which to consult on and produce a public transport plan, but it has been emphasised in another place that we do not expect the first public transport plan to be a perfect and finished document. TPP needed a running-in period and public transport plans need the same sort of period.
But, given that all counties will include a section on public transport in their TPPs, and that they will already have been in consultation with their main operators and with their district councils on the TPP, it does not seem too much to expect that over the next nine months they can develop what they have said there on public transport into an embryonic public transport plan such as we are asking for in the Bill, and I emphasise again that we expect the first plan to he no more than that. Given the serious position in which public transport stands at the
148
moment and the urgency of improved planning, I am sure that is a far better approach than to defer the system for a whole year in the hope that the first plan will then he a little nearer the ideal.
I am similarly concerned about the second effect of the Amendments, and perhaps I may explain the timetable for the preparation of TPPs and public transport plans as we see it. TPPs, which cover the range of transport, including public transport, deal with a five-year period beginning 1st April; that is, based on the normal central and local government financial year. Because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State needs to consider the proposals contained in TPPs as a basis for his decisions on the transport supplementary grant, they must be submitted to him by 31st July in the year before the first year to which they apply. He is then able to give his decisions on the transport supplementary grant, based on the TPPs, by December.
The corresponding public transport plan will cover the same five-year period, beginning 1st April, but it will he a more detailed document describing public transport needs and requirements and dealing with the ways in which a county's public transport policies set out in the TPP will be implemented, including particulars of the agreements made to secure that necessary but perhaps uneconomic services are provided. It may well need to contain more up-to-date information than the TPP and to take account of the Secretary of State's decisions on the transport supplementary grants, which will be made in December. In the changing circumstances of public transport and in view of the importance of the TSG and RSG settlements for counties' revenue support, it must surely be right to allow them to revise their public transport plans after they know the details of the settlement.
A public transport plan which took on its final form by 31st July in the year before that to which it related might be looking distinctly out of date by the following April, the beginning of the year to which it applied; or, alternatively, it might be couched so tentatively as to be of little value to operators and users. For this reason we wish to allow counties maximum flexibility in publishing their plans, and we do not seek to require

149
them to be published until immediately before the period to which they will apply. But we do not wish to prevent a county from publishing its plan at an earlier date if it wants to do this, and then perhaps to supplement it after the TSG settlement. We want to give counties the opportunity to decide for themselves how to carry out the requirements of this Bill.
Therefore, although I see that the noble Lord's Amendments were intended to be helpful, I must ask the Committee to resist them on the grounds that they would delay the operation of the system of public transport plans, that they would be liable to result in plans which could be out of date and were more generalised than the provisions of the Bill would permit, and that they would reduce the flexibility available to counties to decide as and when to publish their plans.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for enlightening the Committee and particularly myself on the question of timing. I think we had been under some misapprehension hitherto that the transport policies and programmes were for a three-year period, but she has confirmed that they are for a five-year period, so the two coincide. I wish to quote from what her right honourable friend Mr. Rodgers, Secretary of State for Transport, said in another place, because it was particularly relevant both to this and to other Amendments. He said:
"It came as a surprise to me that operators have to plan services in advance before county councils have determined their TPPs and decided how much to allocate. Operators are planning in the dark. It is even more of a surprise to me that operators, having planned in the dark and having then received assurances on the basis of a TPP that sums of money were to be made available, found that the money was not paid over".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14th February 1978, col. 246.]
I think it is significant that here is the Secretary of State acknowledging the problem of financing a TPP system.
I take particular note of what the noble Baroness said in regard to this Amendment. She will be glad to know that I intend to withdraw it at this stage. But I believe that we are up against a very real problem here over the matter of the introduction of this particular clause, because, if I may be permitted to say so once more, it would be much easier if the
150
Government had a running-in period which, although backed by Statute, was not written into the clause with dates, as proposed now.
It would be perfectly possible, of course, to bring in an Amendment on Report which would permit the Secretary of State to introduce this particular measure—that is, the publication of the public passenger transport plans at a date suitable—and run the initial period by agreement with the county councils. Therefore, I take this opportunity of assuring the noble Baroness that. I shall return to this Amendment on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.22 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) It shall he the duty of every district council, before engaging in the consultations referred to in subsection (3) above, to ascertain from each pariah council (or in Wales community council) within its area what are the special needs of that parish (or community) and to represent these to the County Council in the course of those discussions.").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment will, I think, be clear to your Lordships. I have put it down in an endeavour to provide some machinery by which the parish councils can be closely associated with the preparation of these plans. As I said on Second Reading, the inadequacy of public transport probably hits small and isolated parishes more than anyone else. It seems to me essential that they should have an opportunity of discussing their problems with somebody before the plans start to be put into some shape.
Under the Bill as it stands at present, as your Lordships are aware, the county council has a statutory duty to consult district councils. The parish and community councils in Wales come in later and are merely given the opportunity of commenting on a draft of the plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said of the previous Amendment, there will obviously be a time factor somewhere in this. The discussions must be pushed through with considerable urgency in order to keep to the dates which the

151
Government are proposing. I have a nasty feeling that the parish councils will find that by the time they are asked to comment the matter will have gone too far for their comment to be in any way effective.
The noble Baroness was good enough to write to me about this matter. I am grateful for her letter. I appreciate the real, practical difficulty in county councils having a duty to consult all the parish councils within their area. Thinking about this matter, and consulting one or two friends of mine who have acted as secretaries of parish councils, I thought that the best way to meet this would he to lay the duty upon the district councils to find out the particular troubles of their various parishes before they entered into consultation with the county council under this clause. That, quite simply, is the purpose of this Amendment. I think it more than probable that the noble Baroness, if she sets her mind to it—and I know that she is sympathetic to this idea—could think of a better way of doing it. That is why I have put this down, in some sense, as a probing Amendment: to allow the Government to tell us whether they can accept in principle that there should be better provision for the parish councils to be consulted. If between now and Report they can think out a better way of doing it than I, in my very inexperienced way, have suggested, I shall be very pleased. I beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: I should like, on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, to support the spirit of this Amendment. Before I do so I should like to thank the noble Baroness for updating her Notes on Clauses, so that the latest edition arrived this morning. I am most grateful for it.
The object which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, seeks to achieve by Amendment No. 3 is not one that clashes with the main objective of the Bill. It does not seek in any way to alter the main thrust of the preparation of county transport plans, nor their execution. It is a complementary proposal for ensuring that at district council level those involved in parish council work have a chance of expressing their views and the views of those whose locality they represent.
152
Since one of the main targets of the Bill now before the Committee is to give a greater devolution of control over transport to authorities in the localities in which the transport actually runs, I would hope that the noble Baroness would feel able to accept the spirit in which this Amendment is moved. It may be that there are technical difficulties about the precise phraseology, but then Departments can always find difficulties about phraseology if they put their minds to it. I think that this is a worthy objective—not a major shift in the emphasis of the Bill that the Committee is now examining—and a worthwhile improvement in the various levels of consultations in which the counties will have to engage before the preparation of their plans. On behalf of my noble friends, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give a favourable answer to the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.
Lord CLITHEROE: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the mover of this Amendment, to include parish meetings as well as parish councils? In small parishes there is no parish council but there is a parish meeting. The smaller parishes are very much affected in this matter.
Viscount SIMON: I cannot, of course, alter the Amendment that is now before the Committee, but I take the point, as I said earlier, that the small parishes are very likely to be affected. Perhaps if the noble Baroness is going to give further consideration to the matter, she will take that point on board.
3.28 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his faith in the fact that I can perhaps find ways round problems. However, I really think that he has this afternoon opened up a problem which is not so much a difficulty of phraseology as a difficulty of sheer practical working. The noble Viscount drew attention to the need for the views of the parish and community councils, and indeed those of the parish meetings, to be taken into account when we are preparing these public transport plans. As he said, I have already written to him following his

153
comments on Second Reading. I have a good deal of personal sympathy with his point, but I still think that the somewhat heavyweight approach which is envisaged in the Amendment is perhaps not the right way to try to tackle the problem.
Clause 2(3) requires the counties, when preparing or revising their plans, to consult with the public passenger transport operators, the district councils, and certain other bodies if they are affected. This is clearly right because the plans must obviously take account not only of the views of the operators who have to provide the services but also those of the district councils, who are the local planning authorities, and are sometimes themselves the operators of the municipal bus services. However, in addition to these consultations, at Clause 2(4) the Bill also requires county councils to give parish and community councils and certain other bodies an opportunity to comment on the draft of the plan.
The noble Viscount has suggested that by that it might be difficult to get the plan altered and that there should be some way in which the parish or community councils or parish meetings might have influence in the framing of the plan. This would be quite impracticable if we required the councils to consult each individual parish and community council and each parish meeting in their area (there are often several hundreds in each county), and the proposed Amendment would be very nearly as cumbersome as its effect. Each individual parish or community council would have to be approached, and there are sometimes as many as 30 or so in any one district. The district council would then be obliged to represent their views to the county council irrespective of whether or not they agreed with them. Noble Lords will observe that the Bill already requires in Clause 2(2)(a) that county councils shall review the needs of individual communities, and it would be quite wrong to usurp their functions by prescribing the way in which this should be done.
Surely it is better to leave this to local initiative and the good sense of the authorities concerned. As I suggested in my letter to the noble Viscount, if a parish or community council feels it has a special interest in the public transport plan or
154
perhaps is able to make a practical contribution to local needs by organising a community bus or social car scheme, there is no reason why it should not put its views to the county council at the formative stage of plan preparation, either directly or through the district council. In this way, the task can be kept to manageable proportions.
There is one further aspect of public transport plans which we should not overlook in this context. Unlike other types of plan, such as a structure plan, which, once approved, is designed to re pain valid for some years, the public transport plan is to be subject to regular review and modification, where necessary each year. Their preparation will be an on-going and progressive process. So a parish which may have been missed out, or felt that it was missed out, in one year, for whatever reason, will be able to make the necessary representation and need not feel that its point has been irretrievably lost.
If we give this flexible approach to public transport planning, which is so important when the travelling habits of communities are ever changing, I am sure that no parish or community council need feel deprived of the opportunity to make its contribution. I appreciate the sentiments underlying the proposed Amendment, and I hope there will be the maximum consultation and that parish councils which feel really concerned about special points of public transport will have no hesitation in making these known to their county or their districts before the plan is formulated. I invite the noble Viscount to reconsider his Amendments and perhaps to agree that they are unnecessary and would be a little cumbersome to operate.
Viscount SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation she has given. I cannot say that I am completely satisfied. It seems to me that the difficulty here is that parish councils, and still more parish meetings, are in many cases very small affairs. The noble Baroness speaks as though they will know that they have certain rights to make these representations, but I have a strong suspicion that unless somebody asks them they will not know. As I said, parish councils are not very large bodies and the clerk is often a hard-working housewife or whatever. I do not know that she will

155
be able to advise them that they can make representations to the county council about this or that in every case. That is why I thought it was right for the parish councils to receive some sort of a prod, and a prod from the district council seemed to me the best way to do it. There is the added point—and I think I made this briefly on Second Reading—that because district councils are so large, and because in many cases they include one or two quite large towns, there is the danger that the district council, sitting as such, does not fully reflect the rural nature of that large part of the district that is a rural area.
For these reasons, I thought it would be better that there should be some positive approach, and I do not feel that this is putting a very great burden on the district councils. The noble Baroness said—and I appreciate this—that, as the Amendment is drafted, they would have to put the views of the districts before the county council, whether or not they agreed with them. I see that there is a difficulty there. I had perhaps imagined that they would distil the views to some extent and perhaps match up suggestions that came from adjacent parishes. I certainly am not going to press this Amendment today and perhaps it will be possible between now and Report to have some further thought and discussion on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.37 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("(8) In exercising their statutory functions in regard to public passenger transport services the traffic commisioners shall give precedence to the transport policies and plans of the local authorities formulated in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We move on to an Amendment which is concerned with the consultation process. Here we are concerned with a body which is known as the traffic commissioners which came to life in 1930 under the Road Traffic Act of that year. This particular Amendment seeks to ensure that the traffic commissioners will have regard to the views of the county and all those who have
156
taken part in the discussion as a matter of precedence.
The placing of this Amendment in the Bill earlier on is done for a particular reason. Your Lordships will be aware that the traffic commissioners appear in Schedule 2 and are referred to at length in that Schedule, but we felt that in order to give precedence to this particular issue we ought to introduce it much earlier in the Bill to ensure that the counties, in bringing in their proposals, could feel some assurance that those proposals would have a satisfactory conclusion with the traffic commissioners. The traffic commissioners have long experience of the matter of routes. I referred to the fact that they came to life in 1930 at a time when the railways were being subjected to an increasing amount of penetration of their markets by road transport. The scene today is so entirely different, both through the growth in numbers of private cars and every form of road transport, that it is quite unrecognisable.
Nevertheless, the rôle of traffic commissioners in the field in which they are working—the field of safety and the allocation and determination of routes—is still very important. I think it should be a matter of particular public concern that their rô;le should be more accurately defined in regard to the counties. We believe that in proposing this Amendment we should take note of the fact that the traffic commissioners are still a very significant body, and we hope the Government will look upon this Amendment in the light of what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord TEVIOT: I am rather unhappy about this Amendment. It seems to me that it disregards the proposal in Schedule 2 to the Bill to amend Section 135 of the Road Traffic Act 1950, which is far more realistic in its approach to this matter. To go beyond the provisions of Section 135 will be to undermine the whole system of the traffic commissioners and road traffic licensing. In view of what I have already said on Second Reading, and what I shall say on the next Amendment regarding appeals to the Secretary of State, your Lordships will understand my hesitation regarding the way that some counties might exercise their power, and for this reason I believe that nothing should undermine the independence and the impartiality of the traffic commissioners.
3.40 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: There must be something to be said for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandys. He has emphasised the importance of the traffic commissioners, but I do not think that he has emphasised sufficiently that they have a dual rôle; they are also the licensing authority. It is in the exercise of this dual rôle that some confusion may exist, or might exist in the future; I am not suggesting that it necessarily exists now. Nevertheless, the joint responsibilities of that one body are sufficiently important for it to carry greater weight than is given in the Bill, and on balance I am in favour of my noble friend's Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: With this Amendment we return to a theme which was debated at much length at all stages of the proceedings in another place. The noble Lord has said that, although the Bill lays much stress on the new planning role which the Government expect the shire counties to fulfil, power in terms of licensing bus services still lies with the traffic commissioners, and that therefore there is a basic conflict of functions which remains unresolved. I think that he has misunderstood the essentially different roles of the county and the traffic commissioners. The county's duty is to plan the most effective public transport system which can be devised for its area, with the co-operation of the transport operators and the district councils, and in full consultation with all concerned, as the Bill provides. The traffic commissioners' role is quite distinct. It is a judicial function which requires the commissioners to consider the licence applications that come before them fully and impartially, taking due account of the evidence and of the often conflicting views of local authorities, operators, and local consumer groups.
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 we make it clear that the county's public transport plans and policies will be a significant element in the commissioners' deliberations, by specifying them as a factor which they must take into account. But they are not the only factor of which they must take account. Nor would it be right, as the noble Lord's Amendment would do, to say that this one factor should have precedence above all others, including the
158
public interest, the needs of the disabled, the suitability of the routes, and the transport requirements of the areas as a whole. This would make a complete nonsense of the traffic commissioners' judicial function, because in effect they would be bound to accede to the county's wishes regardless of all other considerations.
There is also an important practical consideration which militates against the Amendment. Buses are no respecters of county boundaries, and the network of bus services as a whole in any area is often such a complex inter-relationship of one service with another that what happens to one particular route can have widespread ramifications many miles away. To put it crudely, a change in one bus service to meet a particular local need can mean the loss or curtailment of another service, so that one group of transport users benefits at the expense of many others. It would be foolish and unrealistic to suppose that all counties will have the same public transport policies. There will inevitably be differences, and only the traffic commissioners, with their regional areas of responsibility, are really competent to reconcile all these different policies.
Where a county's plans have been well prepared, and where there has been full consultation, and agreement has been reached with the districts, the operators, and local consumer groups, than there will be no issue in dispute before the commissioners, and therefore no conflict between the plan and the licensing system. However, there may be cases where conflict remains on the plan, and there will also be cases where an issue arises which was not dealt with in the plan itself, but on which the county, nevertheless, has a policy which is not accepted by either the operators or the districts. The traffic commissioners have earned over the years among those who come before them a reputation for experience, good sense, and, most of all, complete impartiality. It is notable that in pressing for greater control over bus licensing, the Association of County Councils has neither the support of the Association of District Councils nor the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport, which represents the operators. Nor have the various consumer bodies which have made representations to us pressed for any

159
greater powers to be given to the counties in the matter of licensing bus services.
We believe that the Bill as it stands strikes the right balance by recognising the planning role of the county as a vital factor which the commissioners must take into account in determining where the interest of the public lies—but it is not the only factor. The traffic commissioners must be able to retain their traditional judicial and impartial role. They cannot do this if the dice are already loaded in favour of the county, leaving any contrary views that might be expressed by the districts, the operators, or local consumer groups to be treated as purely secondary considerations. If a county is genuinely aggrieved by a decision of the traffic commissioners, then its remedy is simple. It can appeal to the Secretary of State. But in fact this right has so far been used only three times by counties since local government reorganisation. It was used once with regard to children's fares, by Lancashire; and once by Durham on the question of a terminal point for certain bus routes. Both appeals were dismissed. The third use was by Berkshire against a recent fares increase by London Country Buses, and this has yet to be determined. We do not think that the Amendment is necessary. We believe that the Bill is all right and that it will work as it stands.
Lord O'HAGAN: I enjoyed that explanation because it made explicit the view of Her Majesty's Government about the Amendment which we are discussing. It did so in a very coherent and clear way, which is what we would expect from the noble Baroness. However, I must stress to your Lordships that I feel that the logic contained in the Bill itself—and we heard about this inherent logic on Second Reading—was not fully observed by the noble Baroness in arguing the case she has just put before us. At Second Reading the noble Baroness said, as reported at column 1558 of the Official Report:
"The Bill seeks not to impose on counties a whole new range of duties and powers, but to clarify and extend the responsibilities which they already have".
In the Government's eyes the new structure for the evolution of county public transport plans, as contained in Clauses 1 to 4, puts this view into practice. A new structure is set up and, as we have heard
160
on previous Amendments, there is a continual process for the evolution and checking of transport plans which will suit a particular county. The county will take into consultation all those whose interests are likely to be affected, and who are listed in Clause 2(3)(a)(b) and (c).
There is an elaborate paraphernalia for the county to take full stock of the needs of the people within its boundaries and how these needs can best be met. The noble Baroness said earlier on Second Reading at column 1557, when discussing how travel patterns can be coped with while they are continually changing:
"This means not only proper planning; it means that someone somewhere has to take decisions. As the White Paper emphasised, this must be done locally, by people who are accountable locally, within a national framework of policy and allocation of resources".
Thus, on the one hand, the noble Baroness was stressing the development of the functions of the counties, while, on the other hand, she was saying that where decisions must be taken, they should be taken locally. I hope that that is not a misinterpretation of the thrust of her argument on Second Reading.
These two points, with which I feel considerable sympathy, lead to the Amendment that my noble friend and I have put before the Committee this afternoon, because we respect the work of the traffic commissioners. They have a long history, and they are expert at coping with difficulties that arise across county boundaries. Although my noble friend Lord Teviot may not agree with me in anything else I say this afternoon, I hope we can agree that the traffic commissioners look at and take account of the difference between bus route boundaries and county boundaries. They are there; but alongside them, in their traditional judicial role in this new paraphernalia of planning, are the counties. My noble friends and I are concerned that we have two parallel systems for the evolution of the planning of transport. On the one hand, we have the new county structure as encouraged, developed and extended by the Government in the first part of this Bill; on the other hand, we have the traffic commissioners acting in their traditional way.
If the noble Baroness had found, as Amendment No. 4 before the Committee today, words which said, "The traffic commissioners shall do everything the

161
local authorities tell them to do", then could have understood the speech that she made to the Committee; but our Amendment does not use the words that were used in another place, nor does it impose upon the traffic commissioners a total obligation to agree with everything the counties may say. What it does is something rather more modest and something (and the noble Baroness may be surprised by this) that, in a constructive spirit, is attempting to make the proposals of the Bill work. We believe that, if this Bill is to set up this structure, it must be made to work, and we believe that the Amendment that we have put down will help it to do so. I hope the Committee will insist that it goes into the Bill.
3.52 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I hope very much that, before taking the advice of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, your Lordships will look again at the logic behind what he is saying. On the one hand, you have the traffic commissioners fulfilling a statutory role. The extraordinary thing is that Lord O'Hagan wants to give these gentlemen, in the fulfilment of their statutory duty, orders as to what they should do. Because that is what the Amendment does: it orders them to give precedence to something which Lord O'Hagan wants to have precedence. It is true, I think, that Lord O'Hagan's muddle arises from the fact that he does not appreciate—and, listening to some of his speeches, I sometimes wonder whether he respects or recognises (perhaps that would be a fairer way to put it)—the difference between a statutory authority, on the one hand, and an elected authority, on the other.
The Secretary of State, for better or for worse, has chosen and has brought to Parliament proposals which require the elected bodies to prepare plans to deal with transport. In this connection, it was interesting that Lord O'Hagan supported the noble Viscount below the Gangway who wanted to go right down to the parish council, to the parish meeting, to consult. He wants—and this is the form of consultation and the form of planning that I welcome—to consult and to plan from the bottom up, through the elected bodies. I thought that the noble Baroness, in the course of her speech, recognised a fundamental defect
162
in that approach, because she said specifically that not every county authority would have the same sort of plans; so there will be County A doing this and County B doing that, and if County A does something it may well be at the expense of County B—and this is particularly unfortunate in the more remote areas. Somebody—and I am glad to see that Lord O'Hagan nods his head, because I am with him on this—has to do the sorting out. I should have thought that, ultimately—not necessarily at this stage but at the next—that sorting out must be done by the Secretary of State.
Later on, I am going to move an Amendment which tries to deal with this: so that, where I wish to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to take a decision, he must, as it were, respond to the needs of public opinion as expressed by those bodies, for the test is where the shoe rubs. I want to do that, because I believe in the common sense of my fellow countrymen, as expressed through a public inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will take me with him if he takes this Amendment back and, at Report sage, does what he wants to do but does it through the machinery of the public inquiry; by, as it were, forcing those who are engaged in the planning concept or its application to respond to the demands of public opinion through, I suggest, because I know of no better way, the public inquiry machinery. But I think the noble Lord shoots through his own goal (and I think he has done it more than once the score is probably 2-nil) when he wants to give a statutory body an order as to what they should do and, at the same time, to proclaim their independence. It seems to me that that cock will not fight. I think he is on to a good point, but, if I may say so, I think he needs to have a look at it again.
Lord O'HAGAN: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord and his kindly intervention. I am about to score 3-nil against myself, no doubt. I think the noble Lord will agree that all statutory bodies are set up by Parliament, and that, accordingly, if a statutory body is to be created, Parliament must create it. Therefore, as regards the fact that a statutory body may have its rules of procedure or its guidance varied from time to time, that can be done, can only be done and,

163
in my view, should only be done through Parliament. So I hope the noble Lord will not feel that there is anything too odd in Parliament expressing a view, as I hope it will, on the way in which the traffic commissioners should proceed.
The noble Lord made some play with the point that the counties, in preparing and putting forward their plans for transport within their own boundaries, might clash. I accept at once—and I did not say anything about it because I thought it was obvious—that they might, and will. It does not seem to me that it is beyond the traffic commissioners to cope with this sort of difficulty. They have always done so, and they will no doubt continue to do so. What my Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that when those who are in the locality and who evolve transport plans, as proposed by the Government in their own Bill—this is what they are driving at in the early part of the Bill, and the Committee will forgive me for repeating it—have made them, then they should be given due weight and attention by the traffic commissioners.
I do not feel at this stage in the proceedings that my attempt, and that of my noble friends, to tidy up the procedures as they have been developed and put forward in this Bill by linking what is prepared at county level more closely with the deliberations of the traffic commissioners, would be served by setting up a form of public inquiry, because I do not see how public inquiries such as those with which we are familiar under the Town and Country Planning Acts would really come into the sort of plan that has been set out in this Bill. I believe that the best way to get popular consent and popular approval for the type of plan which is most suitable to a locality, and to give the traffic commissioners the traditional authority and respect which they have now developed, is to put forward this Amendment and introduce it into the Bill. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will say that I have now scored 7-nil against myself, but that is still my view and I hope that your Lordships will be with me.
Lord WIGG: I am sure that the noble Lord has got into double figures. But he has put it well, the difference between
164
us. Of course, Parliament enacts; and those who are appointed to carry out what Parliament wills are performing a statutory duty. But it is one thing to lay down what the job is and then to go and sit down alongside them and do it for them. That is what the noble Lord does. If the noble Lord will go away and recast his Amendment so that he tells the traffic commissioners perhaps to alter their job, to widen their job, that is one thing; but it is quite another to turn round to the traffic commissioners and say that Parliament is going to sit alongside them (for that is what this does) and say, when some undefined subject comes up, that they shall give precedence. It is all in one vague phrase: they shall give precedence. I trespass upon your Lordships' kindness to refer to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, but he did the same thing. In his desire to stretch it, he used the words "special needs". He meant "needs". "Special" does not add to it; it detracts from it.
This is exactly what, in his own way, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has done. I think he is on to a very good point; but I am not sure, I do not have the technical knowledge to know, whether you can put the traffic commissioners as a watchdog over a planning concept which, as the Minister has explained, has been devised so that it can meet changing needs—and she stressed that the needs are changing all the time. And we know that: they are changing from month to month and certainly from year to year. I am reasonably certain that if this Amendment were accepted, it would not, as it were, give the traffic commissioners additional teeth but would probably draw some teeth that they already have.
Therefore I think—and this is a good Tory principle; in this I am a better Tory than he is—that if a thing is working then leave it alone unless you can be positive that you are putting in something better. I do not believe that this is better. With respect, I think that it needs a little more thought. I believe that between now and the Report stage noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite and their colleagues can probably do the trick. If they do that, I think it would add to the value of the Bill: but it must he in a form other than that which it is in now.
Lord SOMERS: Surely we all recognise the fact that there is a tendency for bureaucracy to ride roughshod over the public's wishes. It is a regrettable tendency, but it is there. So far as I can see, all that this Amendment does is to put a safeguard into the Bill to see that they do not. That being the case, I shall support it.
Lord HAWKE: I should be happier if this Amendment used the words "to take account of" instead of "give precedence to". I cannot see how these people are going to give precedence to any particular plan as against their ordinary duties. Suppose that the circumstances are that the county plan provides for a bus service between "A" and "B" but that somebody who has been running a similar bus service on a slightly different route comes along and says, "We have run this service for ten years and we want to go on doing so.". You are ordering the traffic commissioners to give precedence to the new "A" to "B" route against the people who have been doing this for so long. I should have thought that that was a bit hard. If you simply use "take account of", I should be prepared to vote for it, but I am not keen on the present wording.
Lord SANDYS: My noble friend Lord Hawke has made a real point. I think there is another which I wish to bring up in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. While recognising the value of the public inquiry, I think we should overload the situation here if we were to introduce, or suggest the introduction of, a public inquiry over a matter of this sort. Perhaps I can call in aid once more the noble Baroness's honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State. Mr. Horam said in another place (in the Official Report, col. 217, on February 14th):
"We do not want this to be an excessively bureaucratic procedure. We think that we have simplified the legislation as much as we can to achieve our objectives without placing unreasonable extra burdens on the county."
It is a matter of getting the balance right. I am under no misapprehension at all that there is a very real difficulty over ensuring that the traffic commissioners fulfil their role and that, at the same time, the county fulfil theirs. I think we should give this matter further consideration.
Viscount SIMON: I have listened with great interest to the discussions between the two Front Benches. There was a very interesting observation of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, which I do not want to enter into, for he has a much greater knowledge of constitutional matters than I have. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said something with which I fully agree. As a matter of fact, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in one of his interventions on this Amendment, used the phrase: "the traffic commissioners should give the county plan due weight and attention". If that is what he had said in his Amendment, it would have looked very different from saying that they should "give it precedence".
In any case, during the Second Reading debate we had some discussion about the position of the traffic commissioners and I thought there was—I do not say "general agreement" but quite wide agreement that perhaps it would be better to leave the traffic commissioners where they are until we see how this new system works; then, if we find in the light of experience that we want to vary the functions of the traffic commissioners, that is a butter time to do it. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment at this stage.
Lord WIGG: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, had it right. It is a question of balance between an elected body, on the one hand, which has its job to do and a statutory body, on the other. I intervene once again only because I do not at this stage advocate a public inquiry. I was mentioning a public inquiry as a way of doing it. I stand by what I have said earlier. I think there is a principle involved here which is important. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, took it one stage further when he said that it needs balance between the two. If the right balance can be struck I think that it would strengthen the Bill; and I hope that is what is going to happen.
Lord O'HAGAN: With that expression of warmth and friendship from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, what can I do but say that I am most grateful for the care and attention that has been given to this Amendment in its present form, slat I will give close study to everything that has been said by other Members of the Committee, for which I am most grateful;

167
and that I hope to return to the subject at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask that between now and Report stage he looks at Schedule 2 to the Bill where we lay down, and stress, that the traffic commissioners shall have regard to what are the plans of the county brought before them. I would ask whether it is right that we should ask for these plans to take precedence over all the other things that the traffic commissioners must consider, including the needs of the disabled, the routing, et cetera. It is this question of precedence which is bothering many of us. I am grateful that the noble Lord is about to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.9 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("(8) Any of those mentioned in subsection (3) above may, if aggrieved by the contents of the plan, appeal to the Secretary of State:
Provided that

(a) the appellant has made representations to the county council under the provisions of subsection (4) above; and

(b) the appeal is lodged with the Secretary of State at the principal office of the Department of Transport not later than 28 days after publication by the council of the plan or revision of it; and

(c) the appeal is in writing and sets out the grounds on which it is made.

(9) On an appeal under subsection (8) above to the extent that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the council have failed—

(a) in their duty under sub-paragraph (a)(i) of section 1(1) above, or

(b) to have proper regard to the availability of financial resources or to the policies of other councils of counties affected,

he may—

(i) without prejudice to his powers under paragraph (ii) below, require that council to submit for his approval a revision of the plan taking account of any grievance he has found to be justified, or

(ii) make such order as he thinks fit amending the plan and such order shall be binding on the county council.").

The noble Lord said: I appreciate that this might not commend itself in some quarters. However, the concept of public passenger transport plans accords with the Government view expressed in paragraph
168
42, and others, of the Transport Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 6836). This Bill seems not to take account of the opening words of that paragraph:
"A balanced transport policy must draw on the best elements in planning while rejecting impracticable and unacceptable features. The Government will use its powers to provide a rational and consistent framework of policy for planning and consumer choice. Within this framework there is a case for better and more coherent planning for transport at the local level as part of the wider planning for the areas concerned and under local democratic control. The Transport Act of 1968 laid the foundations for the better co-ordination of transport in the large cities outside London, but a further advance is now needed".
The Government cannot claim the power to provide a consistent framework of transport policy and then abdicate their responsibilities. The White Paper recognises that in planning locally councils may lose sight of the wider implications of their policy. They may fail to appreciate either the effects of differing local policies on cross-boundary services, or the strategic decisions which have been fundamental in the provision of transport supplementary grant by central Government (and that it is equally true whichever political Party forms the Government). Such oversights could create considerable operational difficulties, to the detriment of the travelling public.
In another place, the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Rodgers, resisted an Amendment of this nature because, as I understand it, he felt he did not have sufficient local knowledge to make decisions of this nature. As I said on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House, this is a misunderstanding of the appeals procedure. He will merely be asked to bring objective judgment to bear on the case presented by the appellant and the county, both of whom are fully aware of the local issues. The Minister's objectivity will be his greatest asset. I stress that the present Amendment is deliberately limited in its application to avoid fatuous and time-wasting appeals. It is therefore directed to the needs of the situation—indeed, it reflects the Government's policy declared in the White Paper. I beg to move.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: This concept is contrary to the idea of the local option

169
and to the spirit of partnership which the Bill's proposals are designed to encourage. It would undermine the will to reach agreement locally on what are local issues. It is not a requirement of the Bill that public transport plans will be submitted for the Secretary of State's approval. The issues likely to be involved cannot be judged by reference to some central general criteria; they have to be set in the context of local travel patterns and resources. The Secretary of State would be put in a difficult, if not impossible, situation in judging the merits of an appeal for the reasons which he gave and which were quoted by the noble Lord; he would not have sufficient knowledge of all the local considerations. He would have to set up some sort of public inquiry to establish the facts and opinions as grounds for his decision and we would then be involved in much more elaborate and time-consuming planning.
Moreover, the provision of a formal right of appeal to the Secretary of State would seriously prejudice his existing quasi-judicial function in determining appeals from decisions of traffic commissioners. Many of the potential causes of dispute could be the subject of references to traffic commissioners. Schedule 2 to the Bill requires them to have regard, inter alia, to county policies and plans, but they will not be bound by them and must also take other factors into account, including the interests of the public. But if the Amendment were implemented and an appeal were submitted to the Secretary of State, he would perforce have to take a view of the plan, irrespective of whether he allowed the appeal and directed an amendment to be made to the plan.
This would place the traffic commissioners in some difficulty on a subsequent reference to them citing the provisions in the plan. Although they would still not be bound by the plan, they would be conscious that in determining an earlier appeal on the plan, the Secretary of State had expressed a view on it and this would colour their consideration of the case before them. Moreover, the parties before the traffic commissioners would then feel there was little point in appealing to the Secretary of State against the traffic commissioner's decision if he had, by
170
an earlier decision, in effect either endorsed the plan or amended it.
There is a case for appeals machinery with a plan designed to remain substantially unchanged for several years ahead, but these plans will be revised each year to meet changing circumstances. There must be forward planning but flexibility is also essential if planning is to stay in touch with the real world and the real needs of the people living in it. Transport problems must be the subject of continuing local debate about needs and resources. This means that the processes for consulting about public transport plans must be informal and cannot embrace formal, time-consuming procedures.
This question of appeals was extensively aired in another place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was sympathetic to the idea that those aggrieved by the plan should leave some way of registering their disagreement, but not to the provision of formal machinery of this kind. Instead, the Bill now includes—in Clause 2(5)—a requirement that the plan must give particulars of the county councils' consultations with these mentioned in subsection (3) and of the consideration which has been given to the views expressed. This seems a much more sensible approach. It will effectively demonstrate the degree of local support the county has for its plan and the extent of any disagreement. Both the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils have accepted this as a compromise. I hope the Committee will also accept that this is more in. the spirit of public transport planning envisaged in the Bill than the Amendment.
4.17 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: I hope that it will not distress my noble friends if I say that I agree with the noble Baroness. If we are seeking to improve this Bill in Committee in order to make the Bill work rather than wreck it or waste time by discussing matters which really cannot improve it, then I think there is a danger in my noble friend's Amendment. We have been talking on previous Amendments about the exact balance of authority between the county councils, which are elected, and statutory bodies like the traffic commissioners, and now we have

171
the Secretary of State brought into the arena.
I am very interested in the whole subject of appeals and inquiries. They are an essential safeguard to the proper democratic scrutiny of executive decisions, particularly those taken in connection with new roads or motorways. I do not approach this subject in the spirit of one who wishes to tidy awkward matters out of the way so that the public cannot see what is going on—quite the reverse. I believe that we must continually seek to improve our methods of making those who take decisions accountable—and preferably accountable in public. But if we are going to set up the elaborate structure which this Bill puts forward for the evolution of plans for transport within counties with the safeguards that the noble Baroness has mentioned in Clause 2(5), we shall be introducing an alien element if this appeal to the Secretary of State is brought into the Bill. These plans are not like planning decisions, which are taken once and for ever, or a motorway, which is built or not built. This is something which is constantly developing.
My noble friend Lord Teviot has put his finger on a most important anxiety: there is an increasing necessity for members of the public to be reassured that there are real safeguards and appeals built into any new form of executive or administrative machinery. That is the trend of public thinking and there must be response to it in a common sense way.
I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that, although the intention behind this Amendment is extremely estimable, it would not work; it would put the Secretary of State in a difficult if not impossible position. It might place the traffic commissioners in an awkward situation. I hope that, if between now and Report stage he can devise a different method for pursuing this same line of anxiety—one that we have been discussing across the floor of the Committee—as to how people can be satisfied that plans are really explained and justified to them, we can look at the situation at that time. Meanwhile, I very much hope that he will see fit to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord TEVIOT: I certainly will bear in mind what my noble friend has said and
172
I will consider it before the next stage, but I should like to say that I thought this was a perfectly sensible and reasoned Amendment. When the noble Baroness says that the Minister in another place would not know and would not be able to give a judgment himself and would have to have public inquiries, all that was being required was just objective judgment. Also, this Amendment would be limited so as to avoid bringing up, as I said, fatuous or time-wasting matters in any way. However, I do not wish to take up any more time of the Committee now. Between now and the next stage I shall read very carefully what has been said and think again about what might be done. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Agreements with operators]:
4.21 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 7, at end insert ("to the extent so required").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this Amendment will achieve more agreement. Subsection (1) of Clause 3, as at present worded, seems to create a black and white situation. It provides for the county council to enter into an agreement with an operator or operators in so far as it relates to the retention and financing of a bus service which, apart from the arrangement, would not be available. I understand this to mean that without the finance the service would be wholly withdrawn; but that is not necessarily the case. A situation might arise where a service could continue at a reduced level without county support, or it could survive if it were truncated by cutting off a seldom patronised diversion to a village. So it could be that a service would be available without the agreement, even if the level of service was not what was required by the county. It is to remove any doubt on this point that I beg to move this Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord's Amendment seeks, as he says, to

173
strengthen Clause 3(1) by ensuring that the county is going to support particular bus services sufficiently to enable them to be operated at the quality that is required. We agree with his intention, but I hope he will accept it from me that the Amendment is entirely unnecessary. The situation described by the noble Lord is covered by the clause. It already requires agreements to be made for, and support to be given to, the services which would not otherwise be provided, as required by the plan. While I approve the intention of the noble Lord which lies behind it, the Amendment really is unnecessary, because it is covered by the clause as it stands.
Lord TEVIOT: I thank the noble Baroness very much for that reply, but might I ask her to confirm the second point that I raised in the Amendment; namely, that it is unnecessary where you have a service which can continue without a grant just by snipping off bits here and there? If she can assure me on that point, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: It allows for the agreements to be made for services such as are required or that the county and the locality think are required. Whether they want to alter the route, to cut a bit or to add a bit, is a matter for the county to make representations on and to decide at local level; but there are no problems at all about the agreements.
Lord TEVIOT: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord O'HAGAN: I wonder whether I might ask the noble Baroness one question. I understand there is some anxiety about the capital debt obligations on the subsidies that county councils pay, for example, to the National Bus Company's subsidiaries. What I should like to know from the noble Baroness—and it may be that she will wish to reply to this at a later stage—is: In a situation where you have a subsidiary of the National Bus Company, is there any machinery for ensuring that supporting finance is
174
provided to cover any contributions in respect of this sort of transaction, when taking into account the commencing capital debt?
What I am really asking is this: Arc the Government satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, takes fully into account the difficulties that might arise when the National Bus Company's capital debt obligations are transferred through subsidies to the county councils? Could she perhaps look into this point and give us her comments later?
Baroness STEDMAN: I will certainly look into it and let the noble Lord have some details about the matter; but any arrangements and agreements that are entered into by the county and submitted in their transport plans do then, if acceptable to the Secretary of State. become eligible for a transport supplementary grant, which covers the expenditure on that case. So far as any additional capital expenditure is concerned, I will certainly look into that and write to the noble Lord.
Lord O'HAGAN: It is the capital debt element that I am concerned about.
Baroness STEDMAN: I will check on that.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.28 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: May I ask the noble Baroness to give consideration to one point. I welcome very much this concessionary clause. We have at present the rather absurd situation where one county council grants concessionary fares and another one does not. Therefore an old-age pensioner, for example, can go half-way on a journey, say, from Birmingham to Ludlow, and then have to re-book to finish the journey to Ludlow, where no concessions are available.
My impression of this clause is that it involves rather a self-contained business for each council. Is there any method by which we can avoid these situations where there are through routes running from one major centre to another where different fares may apply? For instance,

175
perhaps we could ensure that if one council grants a concession, a little pressure could be brought to bear on the next council also to grant a concession. I am anxious to see that we do not have split fares on a straight run on a through bus route.
Baroness STEDMAN: The short answer is, No. We have given a lot of consideration to this and we have been under a lot of pressure to have a national scheme for concessionary fares—to have free travel, a percentage off, half fares and so on. We have eventually come firmly to the view that the question of concessionary fares is one for the individual counties to decide, having regard to their own resources and what they can afford. We are not at this stage prepared to accept or to advocate a national concessionary fares idea.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Am I not right in suggesting that a view quite contrary to that expressed by the noble Baroness was given in another place by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education only days ago, during the course of a debate in which she suggested that the Department would propose concessionary fares schemes for schoolchildren. I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that I speak very much from memory. There was some reference to this being within the area of the Department of Transport. However, the Department of Education are taking this up. If I am right in my recollection of what was said, then it runs quite contrary to what the noble Baroness has said about national concessionary schemes. Perhaps she will be kind enough, if she is able, to put me right.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should not dream of putting the noble Lord right. Concessionary fares for schoolchildren are a matter for local education authorities, and with public expenditure cuts many local education authorities have cut back on some of their concessionary fares for children, or have completely abolished them. This is a matter of what local education authorities can afford, in terms of their budgets. I am not passing the buck, or suggesting that one Department does not know what another Department is doing, but, as I said, concessionary fares for schoolchildren are a matter for
176
education authorities. How far she gets with concessionary fares for schoolchildren, is a question of what pressure the Secretary of State for Education can bring to bear on local education authorities. But at this point of time it is not part of the Bill.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I am absolutely appalled by what the noble Baroness said to me. This is a typical example of the rich urban areas being able to run concessionary transport, but in the areas where it is wanted, which are the agricultural areas that are widely scattered, they are told, "If you cannot afford it, you cannot have it". These are the people who need it, not the people who live in the rich towns and travel short distances. The people in the agricultural areas go long distances. I am astonished at the noble Baroness's reply, and I shall have to give some thought to the matter before the next stage.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed, but it is for local authorities to look at their own resources and see where they can spend money and where they cannot. I am rather surprised at noble Lords opposite half-hinting that we ought to have these national concessionary fares when in the same breath they are voting for us to cut public expenditure. The two do not go side by side.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: The noble Baroness completely misunderstands me. I am not asking for large expenditure on concessionary fares. What I am saying is that it is absolutely absurd that you should run halfway through with a concessionary fare, but cannot get one for the other half, which is the area where it is needed. There should be some method, at least on through routes, of co-ordinating these matters.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Community bus services]:
4.33 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT moved Amendment No 7:
Page 7, line 2, after ("available") insert ("or which could conveniently be adapted or extended").
The noble Lord said: This is merely a probing Amendment, which arises in

177
connection with permits under Section 30 of the 1968 Act, because that section is proposed to be amended to allow vehicles of any size, not only those adapted to carry up to 12 passengers, to be used under this system. I am not opposed to this extension, but I suggest that it calls for a greater degree of caution in issuing permits. The effect of this change could be far more serious for the conventional bus operators if a miscalculation were made. These remarks apply not only to community bus services but to any grant of a permit. In moving this Amendment, I ask the Government to consider this lest, unintentionally, the overall level of bus services available to the public should be adversely affected.
It seems to me that there should be a requirement for the adaptation of conventional services to be considered before a Section 30 permit is granted. It should also be ensured that existing operators are aware of the development and that applications for these permits should, in all cases, be published in Notices and Proceedings, as is already done in some traffic areas. Public hearings would not necessarily take place, but the traffic commissioners would be fully aware of the situation before making their decision. I therefore ask the noble Baroness whether she would give thought to this matter and come back with her own Amendment at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord has made some interesting points on this Amendment. I hope that he will not mind my starting off by telling him that his Amendment is technically defective, which is something that is often said in this House. The part of the subsection to which he has attached his Amendment is simply describing what is in subsection (2) of Section 30 of the 1968 Transport Act. Since the words in the noble Lord's Amendment were not in that subsection, I am advised that it is technically incorrect to add them here.
It is clear, however, from what the noble Lord has just said, that he intends to amend the wording of the 1968 Act to add a further condition upon which the traffic commissioners have to be satisfied before they can grant a Section 30 permit
178
to a community bus. We have a lot of sympathy with the view that it is not the business of community buses to compete with, or abstract from, existing stage services, and if the needs of the community can be met by ordinary commercial bus services, whether run by the National Bus Company or by independent operators, it is better for those needs to be met in that way.
I do not think that the present Section 30 needs strengthening to protect stage carriage operators from community buses. The permit system was introduced in 1968, and was never intended to be used where there is any competition. Its whole purpose is to provide a simplified and accelerated procedure where issues of competition do not arise. If there is the slightest shadow of doubt, the traffic area office always consult local operators, and if there appears to be any objection they refuse the Section 30 permit and invite the applicant to apply for a normal road service licence, which can of course be objected to in the ordinary way. The permit system has worked well since it was introduced—one example is the very extensive postbus service in Scotland—and there is no evidence that any of the services at present operating under permits are in any way detracting from the viability of other services.
If an existing operator felt that he could, to quote the Amendment, conveniently adapt or extend existing transport facilities to meet the reasonable needs of the proposed route, and drew this to the attention of the traffic commissioners, they would, under the present law, refuse le permit and require a road service licence application instead. In the light of what I have said, I hope that I have assuaged the noble Lord's fears and that he will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord TEVIOT: What the noble Baroness said was very clear and succinct, and I am happy with it. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Car-sharing for social and other purposes]:
4.38 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 43, after ("Act") insert (", in section 270 or 271 of and Schedule 5 to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is purely technical. Clause 6(3) is intended to ensure that vehicles freed by the provisions of the Bill from public service vehicle licensing do not thereby become subject to hire car legislation. It is now clear that, for the sake of completeness, there should therefore be a reference to the provisions which are used to control private hire vehicles. The Amendment is purely technical and drafting. I beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: I hope that I may take the opportunity of this technical Amendment to ask the noble Baroness whether she will be able, during the Committee stage, to bring us up to date with the current state of play about Amendments in the transport field as between the Wales Bill and this Bill. On Second Reading she said, at column 1621 of the Official Report of 9th June, that there were some Amendments which might have to be tabled to this Bill or the Wales Bill, or even the Scotland Bill. When I ask the noble Baroness whether she is sure that this Amendment should not be in the Scotland Bill. I am wondering whether she can tell us today what Amendments will be made in which Bill and when they will be ready, so that we can look at transport in a coherent and cohesive way.
Baroness STEDMAN: My understanding is that it will not be necessary to amend this Bill and that it will be possible to make the necessary amendments, which I understand are much fewer than we thought they would be in the first place, to the appropriate Bills as they go through the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.40 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I wonder whether I could press the noble Baroness to tell us a little more about the insurance arrangements that have
180
been entered into between the Government and the Motor Insurers' Bureau as a consequence of this clause. The noble Baroness will remember that both her noble friend Lord Davies of Leek and I raised this point at Second Reading. I understand that the bureau has given certain undertakings to the Government in relation to this matter. Indeed, I have—and no doubt the noble Baroness has it, too—a draft copy of these undertakings.
I am not very happy about this. As I said during Second Reading, insurance policies always worry me considerably; I have to look to see what I cannot understand, and then I fail to see that, also. There are three specific exclusions in the draft. First, the vehicle must not be constructed or adapted to carry more than seven passengers, excluding the driver. I feel that this could be very inhibiting, because designs change. Multi-use vehicles are very much more popular than they were a few years ago. It may well be that a man with a small vehicle, which he had licensed for carrying both goods and passengers, could very easily convert it from carrying goods to taking people to work in the morning by taking out, say, his concrete mixer and putting in seats. If undertakings like this are given and significant changes then take place, of course the insurance falls.
All of us can very easily understand the other exclusion: that passengers are not being carried in the course of a business of carrying passengers. However, when we come to the last exclusion, we find that the receipt of contributions will not be regarded as constituting the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, provided that:
"the total contributions received for the journey concerned do not involve an element of profit".
May I ask the noble Baroness just what is an element of profit? It is all very well to speak about petrol and about using the guides of the RAC, the AA or other reputable bodies. Indeed, the RAC include a note about this. However, when the claim is made and the assessors and the adjusters get down to it, it is a very different question.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure the Committee that the Government will take into account the

181
comments which were previously made, and that at the Report stage they will be able to indicate just what kind of arrangement appears to be satisfactory to the Government. Indeed, I hope that the Government will be able to do so before Report because, in the event of my not receiving at least part of what I should like to receive, I shall have to consider what can be done by way of Amendment at Report.
Lord O'HAGAN: I hope that I may be allowed to add a word during the consideration of this matter by the Committee. The subject of insurance when car sharing is involved is extremely difficult and complex; it is one that needs to be thoroughly considered before the Bill becomes an Act. If the Bill becomes an Act and the public at large are under the impression that it is now safe to "ply for hire"—I use that phrase in inverted commas and not in a technical sense—and they carry people about for money without any insurance difficulties having been ironed out beforehand, then we shall be heading for serious trouble.
I should like to echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but in this way. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said that she hoped to come back to the subject and to make a much more detailed statement by the time we reached the Committee stage. As I understand it, there has been a series of discussions in her Department between the different aspects of the insurance industry and other interested bodies. I have received a certain amount of information from a variety of quarters, and returned from a swift visit to Lloyd's only this morning. Movement is obviously occurring; the subject has not died. There is a desire to settle the question by the time the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
However, could the noble Baroness give to us a progress report? Since the Minister took up the subject originally with the insurance world, may I ask her what has been achieved? Is there anything clear which people already feel can be used, either statutorily or otherwise, as a system for ensuring that those who are encouraged to indulge in this new, now legal activity, as laid down by the Bill, will be safe when they do so and that
182
their passengers will also be safe? Following on from the questions which were asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, perhaps the noble Baroness could bring us up to date about the current state of play and about what remains to be done and will tell the Committee when it is hoped that a conclusion to this very difficult problem will be reached.
Baroness STEDMAN: As noble Lords have said, I expressed the hope at Second Reading that by the time we reached the Committee stage we should have something to tell your Lordships. I should like to take this opportunity formally to acquaint your Lordships with the outcome of the further consultations among the insurers to which I referred Lt Second Reading.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, I—and, I am sure, other noble Lords as well—have seen the note from the Motor Insurer!,' Bureau on this subject, so what I have to say will not necessarily come as any wry great news to them. However, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Transport was given, a day or two age, by the Motor Insurers' Bureau, the draft of an undertaking that it will be prepared to provide when the Bill becomes law. I should like to go through it in detail, because I think that it is important. The draft undertaking states:
"The receipt of contributions as part of a car sharing arrangement for social or other similar purposes in respect of the carriage of passengers on a journey in a vehicle insured under a private car policy will not be regarded as constituting the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, or the use of the vehicle for hiring, provided that:

(a) the vehicle is not constructed or adapted to carry more than seven passengers, excluding the driver;

(b) that the passengers are not being carried in the course of a business of carrying passengers; and

(c) that the total contributions received for the journey concerned do not involve an element of profit".

A note is appended, which states:
"If in any doubt whether a car sharing arrangement is or is not covered by the terms of a private car policy, the policyholders concerned should make an inquiry of their motor insurers".
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a very satisfactory outcome of the consultations that have taken place.

183
I should like to add that the insurers have also agreed that in addition to the undertaking, which would be given publicity at the appropriate time, they will also tell policyholders of the undertaking when their policies come up for renewal or when new policies are taken out. These two things, taken together—the proposed undertaking and the notification to individual policyholders—meet fully, as we see it, all the points which were made in the debates on the issue in another place.
I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that the insurers have responded with sympathy and understanding to the urgings of Ministers and others to clarify the position of the private motorist. For their part, the Government are grateful to the insurers for the constructive way in which they have approached the matter, and I hope that the news will bring good tidings to your Lordships.
Viscount SIMON: I am sure that we shall all want to read what the noble Baroness has said about this. However, one phrase caught my ear, end I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me about it. She spoke about the use of car sharing for social or similar purposes. May I ask the noble Baroness whether taking people to work would be a similar purpose to "social"?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, it would.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am sorry that the noble Baroness said that she hoped we should find her reading of this note to be satisfactory. I indicated when I opened the subject that I did not, and that for two particular reasons. At this stage I am prepared to discard the first reason, but I do not think that I can leave the second reason behind. It is that "total contributions … do not involve an element of profit". What is an element of profit? On page 3 of the motor insurers' note they say that they do not think that writing fixed mileage costs into the undertaking would be a sensible approach, and furthermore that the costs of running a car can show substantial disparities, and so on. However, the mileage costs published by the AA and the RAC could be regarded by insurers as a guide when dealing with inquiries from policy holders.
184
One of the troubles is that the inquiry will not come before but after the accident for which the claim is made. Then, as I have suggested, the assessors, the adjustors—all those extremely clever people who make their living by cutting down claims from insured persons (it is their job; it is fair enough) come into their own. It really is necessary for the Government to seek from the motor insurers some further explanation of what they mean by "an element of profit". This phrase is far too ragged and far too open. When, as today, we get premiums coming into three figures, when we get claims which are increasing and personal claims (which is where the damage is likely to occur) involving huge sums of money, I think that the insured person has an absolute right to know exactly what he is buying in his policy; but I fear that this is not provided.
Lord O'HAGAN: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for the statement she has made, which is useful for putting on the record for everyone to see—the state that things have now reached. Is it the view of the Government that the matter is now concluded, or are there further steps which have to be taken before the Bill as it now is can become an Act and people can carry out the car-sharing provision with safety?
Baroness STEDMAN: We think that the motor insurers, with whom my colleague has been having consultations, have gone as far as or further than we had hoped when we set out on these consultations. I am not sure whether I can undertake to re-open negotiations with the motor insurers, but I will certainly take the point about what is "an element of profit" in order to see whether I can get some further clarification on its meaning, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be happy to accept that for the moment.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Lorries]:
4.55 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("56 to") and insert ("57,").
The noble Lord said: We now move into another and very distinct area of the Bill, that dealing with lorries. With the leave of the Committee, I think it will be more sensible if I discuss Amendment No. 29 with this Amendment No. 9, together with Amendments 10 and 31. Amendments 9 and 10 are really paving Amendments for Nos. 29 and 31 and both deal with very much the same problem. I think it would be convenient to the Minister and it might shorten our proceedings considerably, although it may well be that I shall wish to return to Amendment 31 separately later.
At Second Reading the noble Baroness said, in introducing this clause—and quote:
"Clause 7"—
that is now Clause 8—
"and Schedule 3 of the Bill are designed to widen and strengthen our present controls. They do so mainly by extending the catchment areas in which lorries can be diverted at the expense of their owners to testing stations and weighbridges",
I challenge the need for this provision. I think I can understand it, and perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I attempted to set the scene, as it were, for which this provision is required.
Currently, vehicles can be stopped and examined within a one-mile radius without any expense. Outside the one-mile radius expense may be incurred and compensation may be paid. In practice there are very few examinations outside the one-mile radius, because quite obviously the inspectorate do not wish to incur compensation claims. I ask the Committee to accept from me that I am as keen on road safety as any other noble Lord, but I think we have gone too far here. We are involved with a group of vehicles, about 650,000 of them, which have the lowest accident rate of all types of vehicles. In fact it is a falling rate, despite increased mileage. For example, goods vehicles over one-and-a-half tons in 1966 had 170 involvements in accidents per thousand million vehicle kilometres, and in 1976 only 89. To draw something of a parallel, in 1976 cars and taxis had 128 involvements. In fact, goods vehicles are at the bottom of the table, which includes cars, taxis, motor cycles, buses, coaches, and so on.
When we discussed this subject at Second Reading the noble Baroness,
186
on being challenged, said, "Well, there are very good reasons". She said that one in four vehicles that were stopped were found to be overweight. Of course I would argue exactly the other way: that three-quarters of the vehicles that were stopped were not overweight, which makes better reading from my point of view. In fact that one in four represents 6,000 vehicles—some 1 per cent. of the total vehicles that are involved in this matter. The noble Baroness said that one in five of 7,000 vehicles were diverted from roadside checks due to maintenance faults. That is 1,400, something like three per cent. of the total number of vehicles. We are speaking of a number of commercial vehicles that have an annual test failure rate of as low a figure as 21 per cent. That test involves some 72 items, and the vehicle can be failed outright for something as small as a cracked rear vision mirror, whereas motor-cars have a failure rate of something like 35 per cent., and their test does not include anywhere near as many items. So I think that when I described the measure as being a sledgehammer to crack a very small nut that was justified against the background.
During 1976–77 there were 88,000 roadside checks and of those 88,000 vehicle 95 per cent. were free of serious defect. I think when we talk about things like bad maintenance we should require the Government to set down quite clearly what is bad maintenance. Only a few years ago Bedford lorries were built with a fibre bush in the kingpin arrangement on the steering. Unhappily, these collapsed. It was well known to the inspectorate. When Bedfords of the particular class were called in they made a bee-line for this point, and the vehicle was automatically failed under bad maintenance. Subsequently that bush was replaced with a phosphor bronze bush and there were no problems. This is not strictly bad maintenance. I accept that the responsibility may still lie with the operator, but it is a misnomer to pop it into a bad maintenance category. Serious defects concern such things as tyres, brakes, steering and lighting—the same sort of serious defects that apply to motorcars. I think it is within that context that we should ask the Government to prove their case.
They say that one mile is insufficient to catch the "baddies." They say, in the notes which were provided, that the

187
sites for testing become too well known. Of course. And, believe me, in a five-mile radius the favourite spots will equally soon be known; there is no escaping that. If we are going to enlarge the catchment area, based on those figures, which I have given to the Committee, which are authenticated, we are going to catch an even greater number of people. We are going to send an even greater number to a weighbridge or testing station. The five miles, as I understand it, is five miles as the crow flies. That, I have been reliably informed by the transport industry, is more likely to be an effective 15 to 17 miles. At an operating cost of some 45 pence per mile, this can add £7 to £8 to a trip. The chances are, again based on the figures I have given, that the case will not be proven. So I cannot see why the industry should be put to that trouble.
I accept that standing in a roadway in inclement weather, in a lay-by perhaps, is not the best place for an inspector to be. Let me say here and now that I have heard nothing from the industry that indicates any displeasure or disagreement or dissatisfaction with the inspectorate. I accept that there are certain tests that cannot be undertaken in a lay-by and that it is necessary to send the vehicle to a testing station. There are only 70 testing stations in this country. So if we are going to get a greater number of vehicles going there we are going to increase the volume of traffic to those 70 points, and it may be with a defective vehicle or not. Again I can understand why it is the wish of the Department to use the testing stations. I believe I am right in saying that the cumulate deficit for testing stations is something like £5½ million. Certainly if they get more vehicles into them, for one reason or another—and we come later in this Bill to prescribe fees for the use of the testing station—that deficit could well be reduced.
What about weighbridges? There are insufficient weighbridges in the country to deal with this mass of work. Those that there are are more often than not open only during the hours from 8 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. There are very few weighbridges open at weekends, and very, very few public weighbridges open in unsocial hours. Haulage is a 24-hour business.
188
Lorries come off boats at very odd hours of the day and the night and proceed on their way. Factories now demand that deliveries are made within scheduled times, and these it is not always convenient to fit in with weighbridge facilities. Even so, there are cases where vehicles have been weighed at Dover with the Weighwrite machine, been passed, and then been found overweight some 30 or 40 miles up the road. This whole situation seems to me to be somewhat unfair.
I can understand the need to catch the "baddies"; everybody wants to catch them, including the hauliers, because it is the "baddies" who can cut the rate, and the "goodies" lose a certain amount of business. But we could provide roadside facilities to ensure a reasonable check—the portable devices, the dynamic weighing machines, the Weighwrite device; as long ago as 1975 the Department were discussing their use. Certainly one section of the industry do not like it. But, given that errors and tolerances could be agreed with the industry, the use of such devices would provide an adequate safeguard. The similarity is, of course, with the breathalyser—somebody is invited to blow into a bag and if it changes colour there is some reason to suppose something is wrong; the person goes to the police station and takes a full test. We could employ exactly the same method. The time element would be reduced considerably. The delay costs, the actual costs and the increased mileage costs to operators would also be reduced. Let us face it, any increase in cost of freight rates is in turn reflected in the cost of the goods or services being delivered. I believe that there are sufficient alternative methods that could be introduced without increasing this mileage clause.
I do not believe that is is necessary for me to prove anything to the Committee. I believe it is necessary for the Government to prove to the Committee that what they are proposing will do the job they say. I think they should explain exactly how they think it is going to do the job. They should explain to us exactly what cost is to be involved to the Government—the taxpayers—and to the industry in achieving their objectives. I do not believe that they proved this necessity at Second Reading, and it is for

189
this reason I put down the Amendment. I think I should say quite fairly to the noble Baroness that I am not at this moment considering withdrawing it. I really feel that I am entitled, and I think the industry is entitled, to a fairly in-depth explanation of the Government's thinking on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth as regards this Amendment and his other Amendments Nos. 29 and 31. I have a letter from an experienced transport operator which I received quite independently of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has told the Committee. Therefore, it is not collusion, but pure support.
The person who wrote to me made two points which are relevant to this particular Amendment. First, he said that when running to tight schedules on new hours and mileage the distance, and the time taken to travel one mile or five, can upset a complete operation. The fact is that the various new regulations make wasted time even more important than ever before. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an unsuitable moment to create what may be greater wasted time for transport operators, rather than the other way round.
Secondly, in a perfect world all regulations look as they should look. But it is a fact that we are all human and the operation of these regulations does not always turn out as the drafters of legislation intend. This point was touched on by my noble friend very briefly, but I should like to quote a particular story which has been provided to me and which will show your Lordships why the Bill, by extending the distance from one mile to five, could exacerbate the situation and cause even more waste of time.
Enclosed with the letter was Goods Vehicle Form 9, with which your Lordships may not be familiar. It is the form used when either the police or Ministry officials have a snap check on the road and find something wrong with a vehicle. This particular form was issued at I o'clock in the afternoon on a Tuesday. It relates to one tyre which did not have sufficient legal tread and some brakes which had been maladjusted. It so
190
happens that the trailer which was affected by this form was only five miles away from the nearest depot of the company concerned. So they took the trailer there and carried out repairs. They then presented it for clearance at the testing station, which was also nearby, at 4 p.m. They were informed that the station only cleared Goods Vehicle Form 9 on Tuesdays and Fridays. It was a Tuesday, but, as by the time they had told them that, it was after 4 o'clock, the station had finished for the day. As a result, they had a vehicle which they could not use for three days. That is ridiculous, but true. As the person who wrote this letter to me said,
"a great deal in any system is the people who operate it. You get awkward people in MOT examiners, the same as anywhere else. A GV9 can be issued for a lamp bulb unserviceable. Drivers carry spares and can repair in minutes to clear the vehicle there and then, but the examiner decides".
It is important that I should add my contribution to this debate to show that there are two matters which must be dealt with. The new regulations must be taken into account and the sort c f example which I have quoted—as the rest of the letter says, it is sadly one of many examples that could have been provided—must also be taken into account. Therefore, it seems to me that the Government must think very seriously about whether they want to put extra restraints on industry at a time when the country can ill-afford extra restraints at extra cost and time unprofitably spent.
As my noble friend said, 95 per cent. of the sort of vehicles about which we are talking are trouble-free. Therefore, we are dealing with the 5 per cent. or less rogue fringe. It would seem to me that this really is a case of legislating for the lunatic fringe and I beg the Government to take note of the Amendment of my noble friend and give a jolly good explanation to satisfy us both.
Lord O'HAGAN: My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has unveiled a most telling case for the prosecution of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on this particular matter and I do not wish to detain the Committee from listening to what she has to say in mitigation of the Government's offences under this Bill. However, this particular subject involves the phrase which she herself used several

191
times on Second Reading. She said that this or that was a matter of "fine judgment". There are matters of fine judgment involved here because any noble Lord—or even the noble Baroness—who stood up in this House and could be seen to be putting forward proposals which might reduce road safety and the chances of people travelling about their lawful purposes without being killed or injured, would run very great risks.
Of course, in supporting the general thrust of the inquiry of my noble friend, one is so doing. However, to be asking the Government to be sure that their proposals are practical, thorough and in the interests of commerce and industry and therefore in the interests of lower cost to the consumer, is not necessarily the same, as being in the position of apparently wanting to relax controls on safety. That is not what my noble friend Lord Lucas is trying to do, nor my noble friend Lord Mottistone, nor I.
All vehicles must be in a respectable state so that their drivers can drive them properly. That view is shared in all parts of the Committee. But are the powers which the Government are now seeking to grant themselves under Schedule 3 really necessary? Was there not an undertaking in another place from the noble Baroness's right honourable friend Mr. Horam that there would be certain undertakings, guidelines and so on? If these are satisfactory, cannot they be written into the Bill and this particular part of the Schedule omitted? I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the noble Baroness must explain to the Committee exactly how it is that these proposals are justified. I hope that she will now take the opportunity to do so, because we need to be reassured that this is not another example of overenthusiastic over-legislation.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful for the responsible way in which noble Lords are dealing with the particular problem that is before us this afternoon. I think that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth to say that he is using Amendment No. 9, as the paving Amendment for Amendment No. 29 and Amendment No. 10 for Amendment No. 31, but that he wants a discussion on Amendment No. 31 when we reach that stage of the proceedings.
192
The present one-mile limit on the distance over which a vehicle may be diverted severely restricts the number of checkpoints which can be set up. That impedes the enforcement because first, some routes lie outside the catchment area of testing stations, and secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says, the potential sites become well-known and tend to be avoided by drivers who have some doubts as to whether their vehicles may be defective. The extension to five miles of distance over which a vehicle may be diverted will help to overcome these difficulties. Greater flexibility in the choice of checkpoints will enable better use to be made of all our existing resources. The extension to a maximum of five miles is not likely to increase the time off the route by more than half an hour. While there will be additional costs for the haulage industry, these ought to be properly regarded by the industry as an element in its operations which is designed to help to ensure that they can be carried out with safety.
When would we use the powers? In rejecting an Amendment put down by the Opposition during the Third Reading in the Commons, which was designed to impose constraints on the circumstances in which an examiner could require the vehicle to be diverted by more than a mile and up to five miles, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said, my honourable friend Mr. Horam gave an assurance—which I am happy to repeat—first, that guidance would be given to examiners on the circumstances in which they should exercise the power of the extended diversions; secondly, that this guidance would incorporate the principle of diverting vehicles more than a mile only if it were justified by the nature of the examination needed or the conditions of weather or visibility; thirdly, that if it should ever be proposed to depart from this principle, the House would be the first to be told. I repeat those assurances to your Lordships this afternoon. There is a need for better use of our existing resources in enforcing control.
Lord O'HAGAN: If I may interrupt the noble Baroness, does that mean that she will be bringing forward an Amendment so that a Statutory Instrument will have to be laid to incorporate these regulations, so that both Houses of Parliament will be informed when the regulations are to be altered?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, it will be notes of guidance to the examiners, and when we propose to alter the notes of guidance we have given the undertaking to inform the House how we propose to alter such notes of guidance. It will not be by means of a Statutory Instrument.
So far as the roadside spot checks are concerned, we need a better use of the resources than we have at the moment in order to enforce the controls over those lorries which are badly maintained. The whole object here is concerned with road safety, not with getting at the hauliers or at how they are loading their lorries. It is a question of road safety.
The annual inspection of vehicles at the testing stations has led to an improvement in the situation. When the scheme was first introduced 33 per cent. of the total number of vehicles examined were found to be unfit. In 1976–77 that percentage had dropped to 21 per cent. out of an annual total of 875,911 lorries. But annual inspections of themselves are not enough. They need to be supplemented by spot checks at the roadside, at operators' premises or at the testing station. By 1976–77, there were 63,366 spot checks carried out at the roadside and, as a result of these, 12,111 or 19.1 per cent. of the vehicles were found to be unfit and their use on the road was prohibitied. In 1976–77, 53,374 spot checks were carried out by appointments at the operators' premises, and as a result 3,306 vehicles, or 6.2 per cent., were again found to be unfit and their use was prohibited.
In 1976–77, 7,326 checks were made and 10.3 per cent. of the vehicles stopped at the roadside were tested at testing stations following a diversion of the vehicles from their routes. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, as a result 1,400 vehicles or 19.1 per cent. of those stopped were found to be unfit and their use was prohibited. In short, one in every five lorries diverted was unfit for service and was unfit to be on the road.
The power to direct a percentage of vehicles to testing stations, which amounts to only about 1 per cent. of the total fleet each year, is necessary because conditions of weather or visibility make an effective roadside check impracticable, or the facilities to undertake some tests—for example, those on headlamps and
194
brakes—are only readily available at the testing stations. Such stations are organised so as to deal with vehicles in numbers with the minimum of delay. I was somewhat concerned to hear the information that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, gave to the Committee, because the information that I had this morning was that there is no undue delay when one has to go back for rechecks; that one takes one's place in the queue of that day and does not need to make an appointment. If the noble Lord would let me have particulars of some of those cases, I shall certainly take them up and check them for my satisfaction, if not for his.
Lord WIGG: If I may interrupt my noble friend, when a point of this kind is made, which has a tremendous impact outside the Committee, will my noble friend be good enough to make sure that the results of the inquiries she makes in response to allegations are made known to the Committee?
Baroness STEDMAN: I shall certainly be willing to take that opportunity at the next stage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the accident involvement rate for heavy goods vehicles. It is less than that for cars. However, what we must accept is that the rate of accidents involving fatalities is higher with heavy goods vehicles than it is with cars. While they have fewer accidents, when heavy goods vehicles are so involved the accidents tend to be much worse. Of course, we catch only a very small proportion of the vehicles because we can inspect only a small proportion of them when they are travelling overnight as well as during the daytime. The vehicles are not prohibited just for bad maintenance, but because in the opinion of the inspector who has tested them they are dangerous and are unfit to be allowed on the road.
Under the existing law we can divert more than one mile to a weighbridge, but we are then liable for compensation; but we cannot divert more than one mile to a testing station. At this point of time we cannot even divert a lorry more than a mile to a testing station. So we have problems there. I accept that the noble Lord has a real concern about road safety; he has a real concern about the sort of limits that we are putting on the

195
heavy goods vehicles that are carrying, as it were, a lifeline around the roads of Britain. But we think that the checks that have been carried out up to date show that there is a need for this means of diversion of up to five miles in order to enable proper testing to take place. I hope that the noble Lord will not at this point press his Amendment. I should be very happy between now and the Report stage to have some further consultations with him. If I can produce any further evidence which might convince him more than I appear to have done at the moment, I should be happy to do so. I hope that he will not press his Amendment at this time.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: knew that I should be grateful to the noble Baroness because she puts her argument in such a nice way. But she did not convince me. She read out a string of figures which I shall look at tomorrow, and I shall produce the other side of the coin. Of course, we go on in this way; it depends which way we like to deal with the matter.
The noble Baroness made one or two points on which I should like to comment. She said that this increased opportunity is likely to involve the haulier in a delay of no more than half an hour. In January 1980 that will be one-sixteenth of the entire time that a driver can drive during any one period, because drivers' hours, currently 10 hours a day, under regulations, to which everybody has agreed, will then be reduced to eight hours. That is an enormous amount of time to be taken out of a driver's schedule. Based on the figures that I have given, that of the number of vehicles that are currently diverted, consequently, the increased number that will be diverted and found to be not overweight will add up to an enormous number of hours wasted at a great deal of expense.
The noble Baroness spoke about the assurances that her honourable friend gave in the Commons during the Third Reading of the Bill. I am surprised, in view of the vehemence with which the assurances have again been given, that something cannot be written into the Bill. Guidance to examiners is all very well. The industry is not unhappy about
196
them—it has a great deal of sympathy—but on a cold, wet November afternoon in the fog at 4.30 in the afternoon guidance can go out of the window. That is human nature.
There were some other aspects that the noble Baroness raised with regard to safety. I can only repeat that the industry has shown a remarkable example in terms of road safety. Of course I accept that when 32 tons is involved in an accident the effects are catastrophic, but it does not happen so often as with other forms of transport. I say categorically that, in the main, heavy goods drivers prevent more accidents than they get involved in. I am not happy with what the noble Baroness has been able to tell me. I feel, therefore, that I must ask the Committee to decide whether they prefer my arguments to those put forward by the noble Baroness. I therefore wish to press Amendment No. 9 at this stage.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: May I make one point? The noble Lord has come back on the question of drivers' hours and EEC regulations, and how much time will be taken up in diverting. My right honourable friend also had this point raised with him in another place and at that time—I repeat what he said—he said that he accepted that the time involved, both the driving time and the duty time, in the diversion of vehicles to weighbridges or testing stations by enforcement authorities, could cause difficulties to drivers whose vehicles were found not to be in default, if they are subsequently unable to reach their planned destination within the prescribed limits on drivers' hours or duty time. However, while this situation is not dealt with in terms in either the EEC regulation on drivers' hours or the provisions in the Transport Act 1968 on duty time limits, we think both could be construed as allowing the driver to exceed the limits in circumstances of this kind.
In fact, I understand that enforcement authorities agree in practice that such circumstances should be taken into account when considering whether a driver has infringed hours rules. At present, drivers who have been diverted will often, if they are likely to run out of time before

197
they reach their planned destination, ask the enforcement officer to annotate their logbook to the effect that they have been diverted in circumstances beyond their control and to give the time involved.
If the driver is subsequently stopped then the time taken by the diversion will normally be taken into account in the calculation of his driving time and his duty time. The police may of course make inquiries to ensure the logbook annotation is genuine, but there is no reason why this practice should change when the proposed new rules on permissible distance for diversions came into force. This may not alter the noble Lord's thinking, but it may allay some of his fears on the question of drivers' hours.
Lord WIGG: The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that the noble Baroness was in the dock, and he was interested to see how she would make out in the case against her. She is not in the dock this afternoon, and the Government are not in the dock this afternoon. If anyone is in the dock this afternoon it is the forces behind the case which has been ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is an issue which affects every man, woman and child in these Islands. Any one of us, whether we drive a vehicle ourselves or walk in the streets, can become the victim—and as the noble Baroness said, when a lorry gets involved in an accident there is often more than one victim—of a badly maintained vehicle.
The Government would be failing in their duty if they did not ask this House
and another place to approve those measures which, in their judgment, they think are necessary in the public interest. The cost to the industry is ultimately not borne by the industry. It conies out of what firms earn from the public. If they do not earn enough and do not make a profit they do not stay in the business. So that cock does not fight. This is an issue of fundamental—
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: May I intervene for a moment?
Lord WIGG: No, I will give way in a moment. I am not going to give way in the middle of a sentence. I repeat that the question of the cost to the industry is not a valid argument because the cost ultimately comes out of the pockets of the consumer. It must. If in fact the cost is such that it turns a profit-making organisation into a loss-making organisation, that organisation ceases to function. It would be the community that would suffer or benefit, and it is the community that should be safeguarded. That fact should be spelled out. I congratulate the Government. I hope they will stand fast on this issue and continue to introduce other measures if they think they are necessary to safeguard the public against badly maintained vehicles.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 76.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Exeter, M.

Newall, L.

Allerton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Northchurch, B.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Bolton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bradford, E.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brentford, V.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Hereford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Cockfield, L.

Howe, E.

Soames, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Spens, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Swansea, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas, L.

Cromartie, E.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.
[Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Trenchard, V.

de Clifford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Denham, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wise, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Amherst, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bacon, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Banks, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Simon, V.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Somers, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

David, B.

Maelor, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Monson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Dowding, L.

Moyne, L.

Thurso, V.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wade, L.

Energlyn, L.

Norwich, V.

Walston, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.
[Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wigg, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy
Seal.)

Wigoder, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

Hamnett, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hankey, L.

Rhodes, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Jacques): There have voted Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 76. There being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order No. 53, which provides that no proposal to amend the Bill in the form which is before the Committee shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such Amendment, I declare the Amendment disagreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
5.46 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 30, after ("of") insert (", and Schedule 4 to,").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment makes good the omission of a necessary cross reference. Its purpose is purely technical and editorial.
5.47 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The Committee will probably be glad to know that this is nothing more than a probing Amendment.
200
I am particularly anxious to know why the Government feel it necessary that a vehicle requiring certification should have to be sent for examination or re-examination. In the notes which the noble Baroness kindly provided it was suggested that the reasons were where a vehicle had not been in use for a long time and was therefore not necessarily due for an annual test, or where a plate or certificate had become defaced, or some such cause. They went on to say that that would obviate some of the growing amount of paper work that was required under the present arrangements. I cannot quite see how any of this applies, and I hope the noble Baroness will provide the Committee with some figures to justify this change. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: When a goods vehicle is presented at a testing station for its first test, a plate and a plating certificate are issued by the Department of Transport showing its maximum permissible load, in terms of its axle weight, gross weight and, in the case of a towing or towed vehicle, its train weight. These weights may not necessarily correspond with the design weights specified by the vehicle's manufacturer. Subsection (2) will empower the Secretary of State to require that a vehicle is examined or re-examined for any purpose of plating or certification.

201
There are three main circumstances in which the power, which will be permissive, is likely to be used. First, where the Secretary of State has been required on demand to replace a lost or defaced plate showing the maximum permissible load of a goods vehicle that has been out of service on the road for several years and has not been presented for annual tests; secondly, where there is a discrepancy between the details of the vehicle in the applications for a replacement plate and the Department's records, which may affect the plated weight; and thirdly, where the Department has good reason to believe that the vehicle has been modified and the modification has not been notified to the Secretary of State as required under Section 45(6)(a)(ii).
The effect of the obligation on the Secretary of State to replace a lost or defaced plate is that he must retain ad infinitum records of all goods vehicles for which he has at any time issued a plate or certificate. While I cannot give the noble Lord actual figures, I understand that the weight of paper is becoming rather embarrassing and much too much to handle. Maintaining this ever-increasing volume of records is a substantial task, and when the records relate to vehicles that are no longer used on the roads, then it is also wasteful.
The exercise of the powers sought will enable the Department to destroy the records of goods vehicles that have not been submitted for HGV tests for three years, and therefore can reasonably be assumed to have been withdrawn from service on the roads. The number of instances where vehicles are brought back into service after such a gap will be relatively small, so the burden on the industry will, in such cases, be small. But what is important is just the sheer weight of records which appear to us to be out of date. If the vehicle has not come back for testing over a period of three years, there must be some very good reason for it not still being on the road.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. She will forgive me, I hope, if I am somewhat tart in saying that of course she has not provided any figures. She says "The Department think "or" We think. "We do not know—and should
202
know—the numbers of vehicles that are involved. If the problem is the pure weight of masses of paper—I take it that she means by weight, mass—of course we may always get rid of that by recording on microfilm. That still does not overcome the problem, however. No doubt, if we adopted that suggestion, there would be an additional fee for microfilming the records, or something like that.
I am not terribly happy, to be quite honest. Again, I do not think that the Government have justified this. They can produce neither facts nor figures. It is opinion and nothing else. I really cannot see the point at this stage of keeping the Committee longer on it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 13
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
Drivers' hours (EEC rules)
(". In section 96 of the 1968 Act (restrictions on drivers' hours), after subsection (11A) (added by the European Communities Act 1972, with a view to penalising contraventions of the applicable Community rules), there shall be inserted—
"(11B) But a person shall not he liable to be convicted under subsection (11A) if—

(a) he proves the matters specified in paragraph (i) of subsection (11); or

(b) being charged as the offender's employer or a person to whose orders the offender was subject, he proves Lie matters specified in paragraph (ii) of that subsection".").

The noble Lord said: I can assure the Committee that this Amendment is really quite simple. Under the Transport Act 1968, drivers' hours are prescribed, and there is no quarrel here at all. The 1976 drivers' ages and hours of work legislation, however, amended the 1968 Act, and introduced Community rules on drivers' hours. This Amendment to the 1968 Act became effective through a commencement order in January of this year. This resulted in denying to owners, operators and employers, the use of the statutory defence clauses, which were contained in the 1968 Act, where the vehicles to which the Community rules are applied are involved. Vehicles in use—but outside

203
the Community rules—may still use the defence, but those within the Community rules may not.
This Amendment seeks to reinstate the statutory defence clauses that have been in force for something over 40 years. It include those vehicles that are now subject to the Community rules. There are no changes in the presentation of the Amendment from that which obtained before. The onus of proof rests entirely with the employer. I do not think that the Committee need find anything with which to argue. I understand that the industry has consulted the Government. The Department has indicated a favourable approach to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord is sitting tight in his seat. May I say that we accept this Amendment?
Clause 9 [Control of off-street parking]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 13, leave out ("and") and insert—
("save that the said Schedule 5 shall be read and have effect as if there had been inserted therein a requirement that in cases where the Minister has received a copy of representations objecting to draft regulations, which have not been withdrawn he shall, after consultation with persons appearing to him to be affected by such regulations select and appoint a person to hold a public inquiry in connection with the matter and such regulations".).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is related to the control of off-street parking. Clause 9 proposes that an Order in Council will enable the operation of public off-street parking to be regulated in English and Welsh counties by the county councils, and in Scottish regions and islands areas by the regional or Islands Councils. The Government proposals are made clear in Clause 9(2) and are governed in the case of Greater London by what was contained in Section 36 of the Transport (London) Act 1969. It is important, therefore, to see what happend to the regulations as far as London is concerned, because it governs my attitude and, I think, the attitude of Lord O'Hagan and his noble friends.
No action was taken in relation to the Greater London provisions until, I think, October 1976, when an order was made by the Greater London Council for car parking licensing schemes in respect of Westminster, Camden and Hammersmith. These created, to put it mildly, very considerable opposition. I understand that there were 4,600 objections. The representations were received by the Greater London Council and sent to the Secretary of State for Transport for his consideration.
On 14th January 1977 the Greater London Council was informed by the Secretary of State as follows:
"Having carefully considered both your Council's draft regulations and the representations received, the Secretary of State has decided not to issue a direction under the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Act.".
The reply of the Secretary of State meant that the Greater London Council could make regulations—and they did—without modifications. What happened eventually was that there was a change in the political control of the Greater London Council and the regulations were rescinded. However, it is a fact that an order was made governing these very important areas in the centre of London. Despite considerable opposition, had it not been for the change in political direction, the Secretary of State having refused to intervene, the regulations would have become law. I for one would have been one of the victims.
However, my own attitude towards this matter is more particularly based on my experience as a Member of another place. In consequence, I suppose, of one being in a place a long time one neither loses habits nor contacts that one builds up. That is true of a Member of Parliament. From time to time, right down to the past few days, I have been the recipient of complaints from people who live not very far from where I happen to have a flat in London, about the transport arrangements—if I may so describe them—in Westminster. To the annoyance of some of your Lordships, I ventured to give my experiences on Second Reading. They did not regard it as wholly relevant, but I do. For me transport is one subject and has to be looked at as one subject, and it is my belief that it cannot he handled on an ideological basis. The problem is too complex: it is changing all the time, and what may be right today has to be modified

205
tomorrow. One must look at it right across the board.
I mention a fact, which may be of interest to some of your Lordships who are present today but were not present on that Friday. Here, in this great city of Westminster, as a result of the lack of powers or failure to act on the part of the local authorities, there is now not one single garage that can tow away a broken car or carry out repairs. Such garages have almost all gone, and if there are one or two left they are in the process of going. That comes about because the council do not look at the problem as a whole. Of course the Westminster Council in these matters is under the control of the Greater London Council.
But it does not end there. This is an area where property is being developed, so garages that were operating from mews premises can no longer afford to carry on. Indeed, I made an approach to the clerk, the chief executive, and told him about the troubles of a garage which was the last one in the process of going—how I had gone to the Church Commissioners. I think Lord Thomson holds the post as Commissioner of Works, and he and the chief executives made representations and the answer that they got from the authorities was, "Well, we are doing what we can; we are going to find them premises in Maida Vale"—as if finding premises in Maida Vale was of any help to the many Members of Parliament, and maybe also to Members of your Lordships' House, who had used the garages in Horseferry Road and beyond and now will not be able to do so.
I therefore hold a view born not only of that experience but of my experience as a constituency Member of what happened in this case. The powers that the Greater London Council took in the 1906 Act were necessary. Particularly in congested urban areas it is necessary that there should be an authority whose supreme duty it is to look at the problem right across the board from the point of view of the public interest. The profit motive and the financial convenience of this or that firm are subordinate to the fact that the public interest must prevail.
I have made inquiries of the Minister and I want to pay my tribute—one that has been paid by many noble Lords—
206
to the noble Baroness who is responsible as spokesman for the Government today. She has been most helpful. She has taken aboard and has listened to what I have had to say and I gather from those conversations that the Government do not envisage using the powers in Clause 9 to licence privately operated public car parks outside the most congested urban areas. That accords with my own thinking. I think it is necessary for London and almost certainly necessary for other great conurbations such as Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and the like. However, one wonders, if that view is right—and the Minister can confirm or deny it—why the Bill is not amended, or would the noble Baroness be willing to conceive an Amendment that would limit the powers of Clause 9 to the congested urban areas?
I have had some experience and have often come forward with suggestions which sound very good and convincing to myself, but one comes up against the hurdle of the Parliamentary draftsmen. How can this be drafted in such a way as to do what I want but will not at some time in the future land somebody in the courts or lead to endless disputes? I am quite sure that the powers ought to be possessed in a very limited number of cases. I suspect that there are difficulties in that direction, so I have gene for a safeguard, the basic principle being that the public interest must prevail. The public interest must rest with the Secretary of State, not least of all for the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, which are that one is likely to come up against areas in which, as it were, the problem extends across the board. The difficulties brought by the motor-car and the transport problems are no respecters of British local government areas; they go right across the board and this is another argument as to why they have to be looked at across the board.
My safeguard is this: I have a fundamental faith in the common sense of my fellow countrymen and, if any individual is aggrieved, what he wants to know is that his case is going to be conveyed speedily and efficiently to the point where a decision is taken. He wants it clone out in the open because the final court is public opinion. I suggest, with respect, that the Secretary of State made a very grave error when, having received information

207
that there were 4,600 objectors he proceeded to act without due regard to the impact of those 4,600. If he had ordered a public inquiry, much of today's opposition would not have found expression.
What I would like to do is to make it mandatory for the Secretary of State, when he gets representations following proposals for the control of parking areas, to call a public inquiry so that the public at large who will be affected, not only in terms of cost but in terms of convenience—and, if I may use a racing expression, they are going to get a run for their money—will know not only that the Secretary of State will be fair (as he will be) but he will be seen to be fair. The public inquiry is the answer that I put to your Lordships for consideration.
I want to make one other point. The question of parking is a very pressing one. When I was driving into London this morning we were almost at a standstill right across the centre of London. The time is coming when we will come to a standstill. I do not believe that this can be solved by one agency alone. It cannot be solved by the entrepreneur on his own or by the public department. The public authority is too rigid in its approach; the entrepreneur has to get a return on his investment, he has to make a profit and the public have got to know both in terms of cost and service that they are getting a square deal. What I want to see happen and what I believe the British economy needs is a partnership between those who share my political philosophy, who believe that the present state of technological advance demands an element of planning and also the advantage of the pricing system as an instrument.
There is no basic contradiction between the concept of planning and using the pricing system. That is what I believe that the Conservative Government tried to do. They used the parking meter in an attempt to solve the parking problem through the use of the pricing system. There is no alternative except a vast bureaucracy which is going to say, "This car goes in and that car stays out. You come in between nine and ten o'clock and you go out between four and five"—with a host of officials enforcing it. I do not want that. Therefore, I believe that the parking meter must be used, and that, regrettably, prices
208
must be put up to ensure that there are not given more permits than there are places, which is happening in Westminster at present. if this occurs, there is chaos. There must be a plan. It must be conceived in the public interest. The Secretary of State must be the final arbiter. The responsibility for its application must be a partnership. It must be an effective and equal partnership, with equal rights and equal safeguards, between, on the one hand, the public authority, and, on the other, the entrepreneur.
I very much hope that the Committee will agree to the retention of Clause 9 in some form. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to accept the principle—even though there may be weaknesses in my argument, as I am sure there are—and we can come back to this at the Report stage and do better. The control of parking spaces is essential in terms of the public interest. It involves a vital problem in the congested urban areas. The clause itself goes too wide. However, I would not attempt to narrow it; but if other noble Lords can find a method by which to do so, then good luck to them! I believe that the clause should stay, but there must be safeguards in the public interest. The essential safeguard is the public inquiry, conducted in the open. The Secretary of State must accept some form of assurance to meet the rights of the aggrieved individual, or aggrieved individuals if the representation is in a collective sense. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I was most interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Wigg said about the Amendment. In the past I have been concerned with parking regulations in central London. and so I am well aware of the usefulness to a local authority of the power which we are discussing. I believe that the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Wigg are extremely interesting. My fear is that the Amendment, as drafted, may be open to misinterpretation, because it asks for a mandatory public inquiry if there are objections, and it does not quantify the nature or the weight of the objections. This is a particular aspect of the Amendment which would have to be looked at during a later stage.
I should very much regret it if the Committee proceed to agree with the later

209
Amendment, set down by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, which would completely remove Clause 9, because I believe that the powers in the clause are most necessary in tightly congested urban areas, as described by my noble friend Lord Wigg. London has these powers now, and to my mind there is no reason why other highly congested urban areas should not have the same powers as well. My view would tend to be that we should support an amended form of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wigg.
Lord O'HAGAN: In the interests of saving time I wish to reserve my comments on Clause 9 until we consider whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. If such a clause is to remain—and I hope that it will not—it may be necessary to bring in procedure of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. My suspicion is that the system set out in the clause is liable to lead to such difficulties that a review provision of this kind, with a safeguard of an appeal to the Minister, would be unlikely to make any contribution. Here I refer to words used by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He may not have been using them in the sense of referring directly to Clause 9 itself, but he talked about a vast bureaucracy which would say that this car went in and that car goes out. That is what Clause 9 is all about, and one cannot cure it by amending it in this particular way.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: At Second Reading it was obvious that Clause 9 of the Bill would be one of our headaches when we reached this stage. The clause extends to all county councils, and regional councils in Scotland, the discretionary powers which the GLC now has to control privately-operated public car parks by licensing. These powers already contain safeguards which ensure that no licensing scheme can be introduced without full consultation with representative organisations, and without ensuring that the Secretary of State is aware of the proposals, and has an opportunity to intervene. The council must give public notice of its intention to make regulations and send a draft of them, and subsequently copies of any objections it receives, to the Secretary of State. He may then give the council a direction not to make the regulations without his consent, and he
210
may require the regulations to be modified, but before giving his decision he may hold a public inquiry.
The Secretary of State's course of action would in practice depend on the nature of the representations. If there were little or no objection, he might choose not to intervene, but if there were considerable opposition to the scheme, as opposed to the principle of licensing, he would be more likely to order a public inquiry, or refuse to consent to the regulations. When the GLC proposed to make regulations at the end of 1976, the Secretary of State decided not to intervene or to hold a public inquiry, largely because he held that the objections were in substance objections to the licensing powers which Parliament had specifically y granted to the GLC. It seems sensible to keep the Secretary of State's options open, and to leave him with discretion as to whether or not to hold a public inquiry w hen draft regulations are published.
A public inquiry must be hell if a car park operator is aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority about the terms of his licence, or by refusal to grant one, and he requests an inquiry. However, the Secretary of State is not required to entertain the appeal if the decision flows directly from the regulations themselves; that is, if the appeal is based on objections to the licensing scheme. The 1969 Act also makes provision for compensation to be paid where an operator suffers as a result of licensing, and any dispute as to the amount of compensation has to he decided by the Lands Tribunal.
I have had correspondence with many noble Lords since Second Reading, and I have talked to some of them about this matter. The 1969 Act provides for the public inquiry to be mandatory in certain circumstances. Under the provisions of Part III of Schedule 5, if an operator appeals to the Secretary of State against a decision of a licensing authority—whether it be to refuse, or to revoke a licence, or to impose onerous conditions in a licence—a public inquiry or a hearing must he held if the operator or the local authority requests one. The Act also makes provision for compensation to be paid where an operator suffers as a result of licensing.
The Government do not envisage that the powers to license privately Operated car parks will he needed outside the most

211
congested urban centres, and this will be made plain in advice which the Department will issue to the local authorities. If the authority proposes to license car parks outside such areas, there would clearly be a strong case for the Secretary of State to exercise one of the options which he has under Part I of Schedule 5: for example, to order the regulations to be modified or not to be made. We do not expect that the control over public available parking space will be widely used, but it will be a valuable addition to local authorities' traffic management powers where there are terribly congested areas. These discretionary licensing powers are unlikely to be needed outside the very hard-pressed city centres in our large conurbations, and this is the point we are going to make very plain in our advice to local authorities.
Clearly, the case for the Secretary of State to intervene at the draft regulations stage would be strong if an authority were attempting to use the powers contrary to the advice which they had been given. I hope this has satisfied my noble friend. We have had talks and long correspondence about it, and I hope that at last we have reached something which is acceptable to him and to the Committee.
Lord WIGG: Would the noble Baroness be good enough to amplify the use of the word "advice"? Twice she mentioned "advice". This could take the form, not quite of advice: it could be a Statutory Instrument, it could be an announcement which she would make known to your Lordships' House. On the other hand, it could be an addendum to a Christmas card. I should like to know what form it is going to take.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure my right honourable friend is not proposing to send out Christmas cards with the advice once this Bill becomes law. What normally happens in cases like this is that where local authorities are involved the Secretary of State has to decide what means he will use in order to give the necessary advice to the local authorities and to the organisations concerned. I think it would be a little premature at this point of time to say whether it will be by Statutory Instrument, whether it will be by a letter to the local authorities or
212
how it will be done, but we are aware of the problems. We certainly do not want all local authorities to take this up, but only those where it is necessary to solve their traffic problems in the really congested urban areas.
Lord WIGG: The one comment I want to make is this. I think there is a great deal in the point made by my noble friend, that the weakness is that I have not limited the point of pressure, as it were. I would ask the noble Baroness to reconsider it between now and Report stage, to see whether, while retaining the nub of Clause 9—and I regard that as essential—there is a form of words which could be used and which would limit the area over which the powers would be exercised, a formula which would, as it were, rule out objections to the principle of licensing to which she referred. I must say that that came as rather a surprise—the 4,600, the large majority of the representations being related to licensing per se. I quite agree that they should go.
I wonder whether a form of words could be found which would achieve that and, at the same time, make it mandatory upon the Secretary of State, where objections are coming in on a very large scale, as I believe happened in October 1976, then to accept the obligation to order a public inquiry. Or, at the last throw, could he make it clear in the form of advice, where representations were received, not on terms of licensing, as it were, but in respect of the merit of the proposals, whether lie would in normal circumstances order a public inquiry. I am suggesting that we should go to a sort of half-way house between "may" and "shall". I want "shall", the Minister has "may", and apparently never the twain shall meet. I am still hoping that we shall have a little less "may" and a little more "shall". If the noble Baroness could go even some way to meet me, I should be quite content to withdraw the Amendment and then see what could he produced between now and Report stage.
Baroness STEDMAN: I do not think that at this stage I could go further than say that I will certainly look between now and Report stage, and consult with my advisers, to see whether it is possible to tighten up the definition of "congested",

213
and I will certainly ask my right honourable friend whether he is yet in a position to say by what means he will distribute the advice which we are proposing to give to local authorities. Whether that goes far enough for my noble friend is for him to say.
Lord WIGG: I am always grateful for something, and that is something. It is not, perhaps, as much as I want, but I still have freedom of action and, in the circumstances, I will not trespass on your Lordships' time further. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord O'HAGAN: I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships to think about the future of Clause 9—and I hope it will soon have no future, just a past. I do not attempt to tackle this clause in a frivolous vein. If I had felt like putting down frivolous Amendments to this Bill there is plenty of scope for a whole series of nit-picking points. As the noble Baroness may have noticed, the number of Amendments coming forward from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee has not been conspicuous, and that is because I and my noble friends felt it would be better to concentrate on those few points which we considered of most importance.
It may not seem to a casual observer, or to a Member of the Committee who has drifted into the Chamber because he has nothing better to do, that a clause devoted to the subject of off-street parking and a system for its better regulating, particularly in our greater cities, is a subject over which there could be much controversy, but I should like to explain why, at least to me, it is. I would begin by saying that I do not regard this simply as a matter of transport. I think it goes wider. A friend who will no doubt become known to noble Lords opposite and on this side in years to come has just written a book about Conservatism called Binding the Leviathan. It is the Leviathan of the State, at both local level and at central level, which is one of the main
214
burdens and banes of the modern citizen. What we have in this clause is a particularly unpleasant and insidious form of extension and penetration of official bureaucracy and Nosey Parkerdom into our everyday life.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who I am very glad is here today to take part in the debate, I hope, will no doubt feel from his experience that it is useful for a certain number of larger local authorities to have the sort of powers which are laid down in this Bill. These powers are not being used at the moment, as I understand it. The present membership of the Greater London Council does not like them, does not use them and has no intention of using them, so they are not being used at the moment. It is no good saying that these powers are merely permissive, because you do not give a Minister or a Secretary of State power to do something unless you intend that he may at some point use that power. You do not give somebody a legislative weapon unless you intend him to use it at some point.
Therefore, what we have had so far in the case of the powers which were described very fully by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in the debate on his previous Amendment, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is one council which has changed its mind owing to a change in Party political circumstances and has not now any intention of using those powers. So there is not much experience to recommend whether or not those powers are a good idea, and the only authority that has them has decided not to use them. On the other hand, there is the strong opposition of the Automobile Association, the strong opposition of the RAC, there are many other bodies and interests which are not happy at the prospect of these controls and there is the "futility", as the RAC describe it, of the Nottingham zone and colour scheme which was a similar scheme aimed at intervention in parking control, more or less on the lines that may be allowed under this particular clause. I say that subject to correction.
These powers have not been used extensively. The place where they were allowed to be used, stopped using them; they were not particularly useful there. Although they are said to be permissive they will, no doubt, he used; and the

215
noble Baroness herself said at the Second Reading on 9th June (Official Report, col. 1563):
"My right honourable friend has not sought at this stage to legislate on private non-residential parking. These provisions"—
that is, the provisions before you in this clause—
"are solely to control privately-operated public car parks".
It is clear that it is the Government's policy that what is in this Bill is merely a first step to a wider system of control. We have no confidence in a wider system on the rather shaky foundations I have so far described, bearing in mind what the RAC call the "futility of excessively restrictive methods", as has been demonstrated by the Nottingham zone and colour scheme. A Transport Road and Research Laboratory report reveals that £280,000 was wasted on what they call "this objectionable experiment".
The proposals in this clause do not have a healthy history. If they had, it might he that the wider objections against them have no real grounds. But I believe that there are wider objections. I believe that especially in this Committee we need to look very carefully at the creeping extension of local government and central Government control. We need to say, when the sort of powers contained within this clause are before us: "Are they really necessary? Would they really benefit the average citizen of the average large city? What is the likely cost? How many officials will be involved? What will be the burden on the average person trying to park? Will businesses be helped or hindered?" Some businessmen are frightened about the prospects that this sort of parking control could usher in. Is the overall effect likely to result in more interference in the liberty of the individual or not? The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may laugh, but this is very serious. It is the increasing control by the tiniest methods that add up to 1984.
Lord WIGG: I agree absolutely; but how, as a driver in London, can you talk about the liberty of the individual when you can sit in the same spot breathing in the fumes from one of the defective lorries of which there are many—and which I always seem to get close to me! Do not talk to me about the liberty of the subject!
Lord O'HAGAN: I will not answer the noble Lord by speculating on how many permits he might need, how many officials he might need to visit or on how many council doors he might have to knock on if this system is introduced. I will leave that to his fertile imagination.
I do not want to detain the Committee for too long. I suggest that the Government have admitted that these proposals are the thin end of a rather wider wedge to empower local authorities, where they want to, to interfere in parking. Of course, the local authorities must deal with traffic problems—I accept that—but many of those most affected by the problem, such as the RAC and the AA, do not feel that these proposals are an advance. They see them as a reverse. The experience we have had of over-ambitious schemes of this sort in Nottingham is bad. London has given up the powers it had. There are a whole variety of special interests, different groups of one sort or another, who are worried that the sort of regulations that might come about under these controls—the parking space may be open on only certain days of the week or for fixed hours—need to be satisfied. Would the local authorities really be in a position to satisfy all these anxieties without employing a vast crowd of extremely expensive officials? I think that the best and kindest course to take with this clause is to send it to the everlasting sleeping ground where dead clauses go. I beg to move that this Committee now kills it off.
Baroness DARCY DE KNAYTH: I should like to give further support to Lord O'Hagan's Amendment, partly for the reasons that he has given and particularly because if Clause 9 stands part of the Bill I see in it the very real danger of a great reduction in the liberty of disabled people. The regulation of traffic in urban areas in respect of privately-operated off-street public car parks is to be affected by raising charges or limiting the hours of opening to force people to use public transport. But disabled drivers and passengers cannot be forced on to public transport; they are unable to use it because it is physically impossible for them to do so. Where alternative on-street parking is not made available to them or

217
where they are not exempted from charges, disabled commuters run a very real risk of no longer being able to go out to work.
At present, four inner London boroughs do not recognise the orange badge scheme—they provide badges only for those disabled drivers and passengers who live or have a permanent place of work in their areas. These are the City of London, the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and part of Camden. They do this on the ground that they are congested urban areas. Disabled drivers and disabled passengers are thus being deprived of their right as citizens to visit these areas, to shop or to fulfil other domestic and business duties.
The powers to impose further indiscriminate traffic measures to be given by this clause to the local authorities could similarly curtail the freedom of movement of disabled people in other cities, notwithstanding the fact that the orange badge is recognised in those areas. The point is that people who cannot walk or hop on a bus or cycle have to resort to private motoring to get into or about cities. If they are prevented from parking their cars by financial or physical means their entry to or movement within the cities is impossible.
Where local authorities are given such sweeping powers the careless exercise of which could seriously affect the freedom of movement of disabled people within cities, I think that they must be put under a statutory duty to ensure that their actions under these powers do not adversely affect the disabled. I understand from the chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled—and this was in a letter from the Secretary of State for Transport—that the Government are unwilling to safeguard the interests of disabled people in this way and wish merely to emit weak exhortatory noises in the form of guidelines. Such an approach, I am sure the Committee will agree, has seldom if ever proved adequate with any but the most enlightened of local authorities.
We cannot allow the freedom of movement of disabled people to be curtailed in this way. Is it not totally illogical to rehabilitate the disabled, to retrain them, to improve access for them, to go some way towards providing them with mobility
218
and, at the last count, to prohibit them from parking so that they cannot go to work or carry out their everyday business? The Silver Jubilee Access Campaign over the past year has done much work towards improving access and public feeling; and we had Access Week about three weeks ago. All this work promises to be very fruitful. Are we to risk i s abortion by allowing Clause 9 to stand part of the Bill?
It may be that the noble Baroness, who, as others have said before me I know, is always very reasonable and, where possible, obliging, will be able to offer some form of safeguard for disabled drivers and disabled passengers to be written into the Bill. But unless she can offer something very much stronger than the issue of guidelines I shall have no choice but to follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, if he decides to press his Amendment to a Division—as, I hope, will all noble Lords who feel that disabled drivers and disabled passengers should enjoy at least the same amount of freedom as their fellow citizens.
6.40 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I rise to support my noble friend in his Amendment from the rather narrower point of view, that of the motor car and motorist. For those years that I have been involved in matters motoring, I have always been surprised at the fact that so few bodies will come to accept that motor cars are not the prerogative of the luxury classes. Motor cars are used by all kinds of people for all sorts of purposes. There is an increasing growth of their use and numbers. Yet, there has never been in any area in which I have lived or worked what I call a proper acceptance of the role of the motor car. The measures contained in this Bill illustrate this. As I said in Second Reading, it is quite a negative approach. It is the kind of approach that one normally meets from a number of transport engineers whose problem is traffic engineering or traffic management. One so often hears: "It is very difficult; what we want to do is keep them out". That is instead of regarding the whole exercise as one of superb opportunity for the brilliance of road traffic engineering and management.

219
I thank the noble Baroness very much for her letter which she wrote to me after the Second Reading. I am sorry to have to make one quotation to support my argument. The noble Baroness writes:
"The ability to license privately operated public car parks should enable local authorities to deter non-essential private car use at peak periods: this can be a major cause of congestion adversely affecting essential business users".
This is exactly the kind of attitude about which I am complaining. Here is a Minister who wants to deter a use. There should be traffic engineering schemes to encourage the general use.
The noble Baroness wrote:
"…it will be for individual local authorities to decide whether they should be used in their own areas; we do not believe that they will be needed outside the most congested urban centres".
How many authorities do the Government suppose might avail themselves of this opportunity? How many of those local authorities, having availed themselves of the opportunity, are likely to pay more than lip service to the guidelines because they already have their own pet charging systems, hours systems and so on?
Here is an area where a private enterprise advantage can be laid alongside a local authority facility to the mutual benefit of all. I can see no conceivable reason whatsoever for giving these powers to authorities. No good will come of it; indeed, I rather suspect exactly the reverse. Motor cars seem to arouse the deepest passions in people. Deprivation of a right to go here or there arouses quite terrible passions in people. When somebody says: "You may not go there between 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning because that is for an essential business user", who quantifies an essential business user? Who quantifies my essential need to go into town in peak hours? I gave an example during Second Reading. That is a non-essential use if a reasonable and adequate public service were provided. But that is not so, and I become a nonessential user taking up space on the roadway. I decide, having travelled into town, to pursue another job as I take up parking space. I think that I should have the right to choose my place and how much I pay out of what is going to be offered to me. It is for those very limited and somewhat selfish reasons that I support my noble friend.
6.45 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: The point at issue surely is the question of movement in our inner cities. It is not a question of local authorities being bloody minded and wanting to deter motorists from using their cars, but accepting the fact that there are more people who want to use their cars than can be coped with by the road systems in the inner areas. The GLC has been trying over a considerable number of years to reduce the number of car parking spaces in central London, initially in collaboration with the local authorities in the central areas. This was done by removing a number of parking meters in the central area and other car parking spaces under their control. This was before we came to the 1976 situation and was part of a strategy to improve movement. That was a very positive strategy by the GLC at that time: a strategy attempting to remove the nonessential user, which in GLC terms was defined as somebody who had two calls to make during the day, and trying to persuade commuters to move on to the public transport system. Therefore this was a very positive approach and was in no way, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has suggested, a negative approach. It was something which was trying to improve the fluidity in the centre of our city, trying to help and improve the business community in our city as a whole. Therefore the fact that these additional powers were necessary was something which was very right and proper.
Regarding remarks made by the noble Baroness, I have very great sympathy with her point that the central London boroughs have not recognised the orange badge scheme. It is obviously clear that adequate arrangements must be made for the disabled. Indeed, I would say to her that the greater fluidity of movement would be of particular help to the essential disabled user. Therefore she should welcome some of the aspects of this particular clause. It would be regrettable if the clause were removed from the Bill. I regard it as the thin end of a different wedge: the thin end of a wedge trying to get the earlier 1969 Act repealed and deprive the GLC of the powers which it now has. I hope that the Committee will resist this plea from the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to delete the clause.

221
I hope that we can have Lord Wigg's Amendment and provide proper arrangements for public inquiries.
6.48 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I should like to support the noble Baroness in her plea for facilities for the disabled. It is a matter of great regret that the problem has not been tackled already by the local authorities. But the noble Baroness should think again before supporting the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in his Amendment. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, underlined the fact that the removal of this clause does not deal with the motor car as a vehicle. One of the most extraordinary things is the prayers in aid from those two organisations—to one of which, to my intense regret, I subscribe—the RAC and the AA. Two more bureaucratically and inefficiently run organisations I have never met. They are even worse than the Army at its worst—and that is saying something. Why should organisations which are concerned with the motor car as a vehicle—something that goes—spend their time on duplicating a letter to deal with a motor car, not when it goes but when it stops?
This clause is wholly concerned with the motor-car but not as a vehicle at all. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is up the pole! It does not deal with the motor-car as an instrument. The fact is that the motor-car will either go or stop; but in London at any given moment in time there are more people who want to stop than who want to go, and so the ultimate logic of it is that nobody goes. We all stop. We had a wonderful example of that this morning, right across London. Even though the police were called out to control it, the traffic had come nearly to a full-stop.
If this clause is taken out and if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is right, the Conservative Party are hell-bent on relying entirely upon the market place. All I can say to the well-wishers of the Conservative Party is that they should pray that they lose the Election, because if they win and put that into operation, if one has the patience to watch what happens, it will be real fun! They are living in a world which has long gone,
222
and even the present world is passing from us. Those of us who work now are going to be very fortunate in the future because a revolution has taken place which we do not recognise, and the motor-car is only part of it.
In all the great cities of the world one sees the same problems; the problems of congestion and pollution. Some of your Lordships may have been 40 miles at sea outside Los Angeles and seen the great cloud of pollution that hangs over that city. In all the cities along the Pacific seaboard there is the same problem. It has become utterly unmanageable. What we have tried in this country is control by a democratic method. That is what I cannot understand: it was a Conservative Government which put its money on the pricing system. It introduced meters and said, "if you come in you are going to pay" That seems to me the way to tackle it: but, like it or not, that is the road down which we have gone. And now suddenly we are asked to throw all that away, to remove the discipline of the Secretary of State or of the local authority and leave it to the utterly inadequate resources of one of the partners.
I want a partnership; I want, on the one hand, the State (as expressed through the State and its smaller brother, the local authority) and, on the other hand, the entrepreneur, working together. I readily agree—I made the point on Second Reading—that the entrepreneur who takes a site and develops it finds that that is a costly business. It is a large capital investment, and he is entitled to expect to get his money back. He is entitled to expect that not only will he recoup his outlay but that he will make a reasonable profit; and in return for that he gives a service and makes a charge. All very proper; that is the way to guarantee the freedom of the individual and also to guarantee the service.
I understand the joint thinking of the RAC and the AA—and their combined thinking is not an arithmetical but a geometrical process along the road to idiocy—which says, "Just throw everything on one side: do nothing; leave it; and it will all come right on the day." Your Lordships can underline that by going into the Lobbies tonight in support of the suggestion to tear up what is a sensible reserve power. The powers should

223
be held in reserve for those areas where they need to be applied, with safeguards for the interests of the entrepreneur and, so far as is humanly possible, with safeguards for the liberty of the subject. All that I agree with: but to throw away the planning concept, in favour of what?—nihilism—is just plain barmy, and I will have nothing to do with it.
Viscount SIMON: I shall speak only very briefly. This is an extremely difficult subject, I find. I have been impressed by a great deal that has been said on both sides of the Committee in very different terms. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, describing to us what the Greater London Council was trying to do. So far as I understood him, he said they had the idea of reducing the number of parking spaces in order to increase the flow of traffic. But surely the result of decreasing the number of parking spaces is that you have more and more cars going round and round St. James's Square, waiting for somebody to move. I do not know that you really increase the amount of rolling traffic, unless it is the rather useless traffic.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I think the experience very simply is that if you take out a large number of parking spaces and if on the first occasion somebody does exactly what the noble Viscount has suggested, on the second occasion he does not bring his car in.
Viscount SIMON: Some people may be more logical than I am. But, generally speaking, I came into the Committee feeling that I would support the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in this suggestion that we should reject Clause 9. I am still minded to do that, really from this consideration. We have had a great many difficulties outlined. The noble Baroness has been very helpful in suggesting that it does not really mean this and promising that guidance will be given, and so on. The noble Baroness who spoke on behalf of the disabled moved us all, I am sure, and I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will find it in her heart to be able to do something to meet the points that were made.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has made some very important points about a
224
proper method of appeal against decisions. I wonder whether the Committee would not be wise to follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and reject Clause 9, and then invite the noble Baroness to bring in another Clause 9, in which she meets the very real criticisms that have been made. I do not know whether that would be possible, but I should like to suggest that we make it possible for her to do that by rejecting this clause.
Earl HOWE: I fully support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I am not going to add to what has already been said, but I should like to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has made the most astonishing and ridiculous remarks about the RAC and the Automobile Association. So far as the RAC is concerned, he obviously speaks with no proof and with no knowledge at all. He pretends to be a member of one or other of the organisations and then tries to pull them to pieces. I can only say that both of them represent something like 5 million motorists, and that they are a great success and much respected. I expect that shortly he will make an apology to me by letter.
Lord WIGG: I do not believe for one single split second that they represent anybody but themselves, and they do that very badly. The idea that they represent 5 million people—utter tosh!
6.58 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: It was in June 1977 that the Government White Paper announced that it was our intention to consult on legislation to enable the county and regional councils to license the privately operated public parks. This power is a logical extension of local authorities' traffic management powers, particularly where POPP constitutes a substantial proportion of the public parking space that is generally available. The powers are entirely discretionary and it will be for the local authorities concerned to decide whether their use is appropriate, in the light of their local traffic conditions and their ideas of traffic management, As I have said before this afternoon, we do not expect them to be needed or to be used outside the most congested urban centres.
The local authority associations have generally welcomed the extension of their

225
powers of off-street parking as a useful traffic management tool, and in response to an earlier consultation paper which we sent out in the summer of 1976 on the control of the private non-residential parking, a number of the major authorities, including Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils, spontaneously pointed out to us their lack of control over POPP as a gap in their powers which they thought should be filled before they had any more powers to control the PNR.
Lord O'HAGAN: Would the noble Baroness like to make a spot-check on how many Members of the Committee know what POPP is, apart from the drink?
Baroness STEDMAN: I thought, having said "privately operated public parks" once in full, that noble Lords would then understand and I need not say that at every point. PNR is the private non-residential parking spaces. But those are the major authorities who said that they thought that their lack of control over POPP was a gap in their powers which ought to be filled, before they sought any powers, or were given any powers, to control PNR. If local authorities' traffic management policies are to be effective, they need to be able to control all publicly available parking space, and to apply a consistent charging policy throughout their areas. The result will not inevitably be higher charges, particularly for short-term parkers.
We heard about the GLC. The 1969 Act powers were not invoked before 1976, partly because of the effects of earlier price control policies, and partly because the GLC were exploring other means of restraint at the time. The then Labour GLC made regulations in 1976, but these were revoked soon after they came into force in 1977 by the new Conservative GLC. But the GLC has made no approach to the Department seeking the repeal of their 1969 Act. Indeed, in their response to the Department's consultation paper, the present GLC said that other authorities might find the ability to license POPP helpful in their own circumstances.
I was asked which towns were likely to be thinking of using their powers under Clause 9. That, of course, we cannot say, but what I can tell your Lordships is
226
that those towns where POPP represents a sizeable proportion of the public parking stock include Bristol, Brighton, Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham, Reading, Leeds and Sheffield. I should have thought that those, with the larger conurbations, were of the kind of size or had conditions where they would be likely to try to invoke these powers. It has been suggested that perhaps POPP is just the thin end of the wedge; and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, referred to the comment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he was not seeking at this stage to legislate to control PNR. That is still the case. POPP is quite different from PNR, because that is publicly available parking space while PNR is not publicly available.
We have the different roles of the counties and the district councils. Since the reorganisation of local government in 1974, it has been the county council, as highway authority, that has, in general, been responsible for on-street parking, while district councils usually take the lead in providing and operating off-street car parks. The division of powers in London is slightly different, because the London boroughs have wider powers than the usual district councils. Since the county council is responsible For traffic management policies, of which parking and waiting restrictions on the highway are an important element, it makes sense for these functions to be with one authority; and the scale of highway functions makes them appropriate for action on a countywide basis.
Clause 9 provides for enabling county councils to make regulations to set the parameters within which licensing shall take place, and in so doing they will ensure that the terms and conditions of licences are consistent with their traffic management policies. But the mechanics of issuing licences and stipulating terms and conditions is best left to the district councils, and that is what we are proposing. The Secretary of State is at present considering with the local authority associations whether the present division of transport functions between county and district authorities could be improved. However, this Bill is not the forum for discussion about the allocation of functions between authorities.

227
Authorities are not expected to license privately operated public off-street car parks outside the most congested areas. The licensing scheme will apply only to those car parks that are available to the public for payment. Many small privately operated car parks are reserved exclusively for contract parking, and these are not open to the public for payment. It is the provisions of the 1969 Act which are to be extended, and not the former GLC regulations. What we are proposing under Clause 9 is not to give other counties the powers in the GLC regulations, but that each county council should use the powers of the 1969 Act to make regulations that are appropriate for their local conditions.
The noble Baroness inquired about the provisions for the disabled, and referred to the fact that some of her colleagues had written to my right honourable friend. The Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled have represented to the Secretary of State that restrictions on off-street car parking at certain times of the day could prevent access to town centres, or their work, by disabled motorists who could neither walk nor use public transport, and they requested an amendment to place local authorities under a duty to safeguard the interests of disabled motorists. We have resisted proposals at this stage to amend the 1969 Act powers, on the grounds that they have already been extensively debated in Parliament and not found defective in practice, since they have never been used. To accede to the request of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled would be to depart from that principle. The powers already provide that before making regulations a county council must consult representative organisations. This gives organisations such as the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled the opportunity to ensure that their views are made known to the authority before any licensing scheme can be introduced, and a local authority can require special provision to be made for the disabled as a condition of the licence.
The Secretary of State shares, as we all do, the concern of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled that the special needs of the disabled should be properly considered. Accordingly, in the
228
advice which the Department will be issuing to local authorities about the licensing of privately operated public car parks, local authorities will be asked to consider the needs of the disabled. The noble Baroness referred to this letter, but did not feel that we had gone far enough, and thought that we ought to be going further at this time. I am not in a position tonight to say how much further we can go, but I share her concern, and that of all noble Lords, that the disabled should be properly catered for.
I am willing to take this back and have further discussions with my advisers to see whether there is any way by which we can strengthen the claim of the disabled for special consideration, but more than that I am not able to promise the noble Baroness or the Committee this evening. This Bill was debated in Committee in the other place for eight days, and they did not remove Clause 9. It was debated in another place on the Floor of the House, and they did not remove Clause 9. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will think very carefully before he takes us into the Division Lobby. If there is a need to amend Clause 9, and noble Lords can find ways of amending it, there will be an opportunity at the Report stage to put down further Amendments. But I think that it would be to the detriment of the Bill if this Committee tonight agreed to take out Clause 9.
Lord O'HAGAN: I hope that I may, on behalf of my noble friends on this side, thank the noble Baroness for her usual efficient and thorough answers to points that Members of the Committee have put up. But the comprehensive nature of what she had to say, which I shall read with great interest when it is printed in Hansard, does not really alter the point which my noble friends and I have tried to bring to her attention tonight. The noble Baroness spoke of what happened in another place in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We are a different House, and while we exist we should carry out a different function.
Our main function, in passing Amendments to Bills, is to give Members of another place the opportunity to take a second look, to have a second thought, to re-examine their proposals and to decide whether they are really worth having. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg,

229
the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and many of my noble friends have brought forward different points about this clause that have given them pause for thought. It is a clause that is not intrinsic to the whole Bill, and the Bill will be better off without it. Let us get rid of it.
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 9 disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10 [Bicycles]:
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: May I raise two points on Clause 10 with the noble Baroness. I believe that all noble Lords welcome the inclusion of this clause. I should like to ask the noble Baroness
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bacon, B.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blyton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Collison, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

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

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Fulton, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wigg, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Exeter, M.

Moyne, L.

Alport, L.

Forester, L.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Norwich, V.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Barrington, V.

Gray, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rochester, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Sandys, L.

Bradford, E.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Harvington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hereford, V.

Simon, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Somers, L.

Cathcart, E.

Howe, E.

Spens, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swansea, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Long, V.

Thurso, V.

Crathorne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Cromartie, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Daventry, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vivian, L.

de Clifford, L.

Morris, L.

Wade, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elton, L.

Wise, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

how, the local authority having provided a bicycle park, the cyclists are to get to that park. Although the local authority have powers to provide cycle lanes, it appears that these powers are not very often used. Because of the general congestion of the roads, it seems to be more difficult to get to the end of the journey where there is, so to speak, a haven.
To illustrate the point which I am trying to make with a certain amount of seriousness, where I live in Hampshire there is a new roadway, known as the

231
Western Approaches, which comes over Totton Causeway. Part of this new roadway has been built and its building has taken away the cycle lane, which will not, apparently, be provided elsewhere. The result is that at peak hours a number of people from the Totton area using bicycles into the new container berths are deprived of their safe way, because at those hours the traffic density is fairly formidable. Consequently, cyclists are using the pavement. Because of the traffic density, there are very few pedestrains. Therefore, the pavements are not used by pedestrians but they are used by cyclists, who are now committing an offence and are being prosecuted.
After asking some oblique questions about the cycle way, I understand that it is not to be reinstated. I realise that the noble Baroness cannot give me a specific answer because I did not give her notice that I intended to ask a specific question. However, it seems to me that in giving guidance to local authorities as to the best way of implementing the clause, this would be a good opportunity to re-emphasise their responsibility to provide cycle ways down which cyclists can safely bicycle to reach, as I say, the haven of the new parking place.
Baroness STEDMAN: I take note of the noble Lord's point. In Clause 10 we are removing any doubt as to whether those authorities that have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act to provide parking places can, in the exercise of those powers, also provide stands and racks for bicycles within the boundaries of the highway. Up to this point there has been some question as to whether bicycle racks are street furniture and, therefore, must have a specific Vote or whether they can be classed as parks for bicycles, as we do with car parks. This is intended to clear up that point.
I share the noble Lord's concern about making provision for cyclists. Indeed, my colleagues in the Department do so as well. Perhaps I am fortunate, in that I come from a town which has a new town grafted on to it. Cycle ways are built into it which are now being extended throughout the old town. This scheme is working, but there are some minor difficulties in an old city. Nevertheless, it can be done and I am quite sure that
232
the Department is for ever reminding local authorities that they have the power to provide cycle lanes and that the Department will do what it can to encourage local authorities to provide them.
Clause 10 agreed to.
7.22 p.m.
Lord COCKFIELD Lord COCKFIELD moved Amendment No. 16:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Duty of British Railways Board
(".It shall be the duty of the British Railways Board to run all sections of its business in such a way so as to improve the service to its customers, reduce its costs, improve its productivity, increase its efficiency and reduce its reliance upon subsidies or grants whether under this Act or any other measure.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment pursues the point that I made in the course of the Second Reading debate—namely, that neither the Bill nor the directive issued by the Secretary of State under the 1974 Act contain any requirement on the Railways Board to run the railways efficiently or economically. This seems to me to be an extraordinary omission in a Bill which makes £3,000 million of public money available for the Railways Board as a subsidy towards running the passenger services. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has kindly written to me about the comments I made in the course of the Second Reading debate but, for reasons which I shall explain, I think it is important to pursue this matter. I think none of us is under any doubt about how important a sum such as £3,000 million is. Even if one looks at the £403 million which is the Railways Board claim for the current year, this comfortably exceeds the £370 million that the reduction of one penny in the basic rate of income tax has cost and which has caused the Government so much grief and anxiety in another place.
It is instructive to look at the history of this matter. We start with the Transport Act of 1947, which set up the British Transport Commission and was in fact the Act which nationalised the railways. This contained two relevant provisions. I do not propose to read them in full: I shall quote only the relevant words in the sections. In Section 3(1), it states:
"It shall be the general duty of the Commission … to provide … an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated system of public inland transport".

233
I stress the words "efficient" and "economical." In Section 3(4) —and again I quote—it provides:
"the Commission shall so conduct that undertaking … as to secure that the revenue of the Commission is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another".
The next major enactment was the Transport Act of 1962, which contained two similar provisions. In Section 3(1), it states:
"It shall be the duty of the Railways Board … to provide railway services in Great Britain and … to have due regard … to efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
Again, there are the two words "efficiency" and "economy." Section 18(1) contains the provision that the boards should break even, taking one year with another. The next major enactment was the Transport Act of 1968 which, in Section 41(2), said:
"It shall be the duty of each of the authorities"—
and perhaps I may interpose that subsection (1) of that section defined "authority" to include the Railways Board—
"… so to perform their functions … as to secure that the combined revenues of the authority and of their subsidiaries … are not less than sufficient to meet their combined charges properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another".
In 1974 there was a dramatic change. The Railways Act of that year provided for subsidies amounting to £1,500 million, but without any requirement on the railways to operate efficiently or economically. Nor did the directive issued by the Secretary of State under that Act say a word about it. Indeed—and I think this point is important—the impression that would be given to the ordinary reader by reading the Transport Act 1974 was that the subsidy of £1,500 million was in some way a burden imposed upon this country by the EEC. That impression is given also in the Railways Boards Annual Report—and I quote:
"Such obligations may be maintained in so far as they are essential in order to ensure the provision of adequate passenger services".
What the Railways Board did not quote was the paragraph which immediately preceded that and I shall therefore quote it for them. This comes from Regulation 1191/69. It reads as follows:
234
"Member States shall terminate all obligations inherent in the concept of a public service as defined in this Regulation".
In other words, the broad intention of the EEC Regulation was not to extend public service obligations but to restrict or even terminate them. That point is in fact reinforced by the preamble, which is written in a very peculiar form of pidgin-English—and I agree that the Government at least had no responsibility for that. It says:
"One of the objectives of the common transport policy is to eliminate disparities liable to cause substantial distortion",
and it goes on to say that the disparities are those caused by the public service obligation.
The simple truth of the matter is that the Government used the EEC regulation which was designed to achieve one purpose, to do precisely the opposite. I have no doubt that this is a perfectly legitimate piece of political nimble-footedness; nevertheless it is apt to give rise to misunderstanding and my feeling in the light of this is that the 1974 Act is not a good precedent to follow. It is not a good precedent for another reason, which is that in 1974 and 1975 we were going through an era in which public expenditure was rising very rapidly. It rose so rapidly that in the end it caused grave embarrassment to the Government. This is not a Party political point, because the Government went through great anguish trying to get the level of public expenditure down again and the need to control public expenditure is a matter which is common ground between both Parties, although the emphasis may differ as between one Party and the other.
I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that, as a quid pro quo for the Bill, for the public making available to British Rail subsidies totalling £3,000 million, there should be a clearly spelled out obligation imposed on British Rail to operate their business efficiently and economically. In this connection I seriously suggest that we should put behind us the bad precedent of 1974; that we should reaffirm the good precedent of 1947, in an Act passed by a Labour Government; that we should follow the precedent of 1962, which was an Act passed by a Conservative Government; that we should follow the precedent of 1968, another Act passed by a Labour

235
Government—I am trying to be entirely impartial; the Labour Party score two to one—and that we should insert in this Bill a clear statement of the obligations of the Railways Board. This the proposed new clause does. I beg to move.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: Before speaking on the noble Lord's Amendment, I should like to take the opportunity, in the context of this debate on support for British Rail, to clarify a point I made in opening the Second Reading debate on 9th June. I spoke on that occasion about the elimination of British Rail's freight deficit. To correct any misunderstanding, I should say that it is this Government's policy that British Rail's non-passenger rail businesses must pay their way. I am pleased to say that the British Railways Board have this year eliminated the need for Governmnt subsidy for any part of their business other than the passenger railways. Last year, for freight and parcels businesses, they managed to contain the need for temporary subsidy to well within the ceiling set by the Government. This year the Board expect to manage without Government assistance, and it is their expectation that this will remain the position in future years.
I recognise the fundamental concern expressed in this new clause, and I am sure it is shared on all sides of the Committee. A large nationalised industry is charged with a vital national task for which it requires a considerable annual subsidy. We all want to be sure that we get the best possible service for the smallest possible subsidy, and we know that the heart of the matter is efficiency and improved productivity. But however we may enshrine these principles in legislation—and Section 3 of the Transport Act 1962 already placed a duty on the Railways Board "to have due regard … to efficiency, economy and safety"—efficiency and productivity basically stem from good management. They are achieved by finding good managers and creating conditions in which their skills can flourish. That implies clearly defined objectives, a relationship with Government based on confidence and understanding, a stable financial framework and the right incentives.
236
The Government's policy towards the railways is founded on these principles, and we are fortunate in having Sir Peter Parker as chairman of the British Railways Board. He has demonstrated a sense of realism and purpose, and has accepted that, although the railways have a vital role to play in the social and economic life of the nation, the nation does not owe them a living. He has repeatedly stressed the central importance of productivity for the long-term health of the railways. In his commentary in the Board's annual report for 1977 he says that the Board were encouraged by the way in which they have moved towards a positive and constructive relationship with the Department of Transport, and he spoke of the Government's White Paper on Transport Policy as bringing a message of new certainty to the railways.
It was in that White Paper that the Government said that in the next few years the Board would need to pursue vigorously measures for increasing efficiency and reducing costs, and it set the Railways Board the broad financial objective of reducing subsidy on revenue account for the operation of passenger services by £20 million by the end of the decade.
Since the Board are already constrained by the public service obligation to operate their railway passenger system so as to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided at the end of 1974, they have a strong incentive to increase their efficiency and productivity. Indeed since 1975 they have reduced their requirement for passenger support, in real terms, by 12 per cent. This is a significant achievement. And, with the co-operation of the railway trade unions, the number of staff employed has been reduced by over 12,000 since the end of 1975.
The Government and the Railways Board are well aware of the need to strive to achieve all the objects embodied in the new clause. It is a hard road and it will mean some very difficult choices. The Government have every confidence in Sir Peter Parker and the members of the British Railways Board. The Board already accept, I am sure, the duties, that would be imposed on them by the new clause. While I recognise and share, as do my colleagues, the very well-meaning concern of the noble Lord that the rail

237
ways, like every other public enterprise, should provide a better service at a lower cost, I believe that will be achieved not by statutory exhortation, not by a new clause added to this Bill, but by good management and by good Government. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I rise to support my noble friend in his Amendment. Many of us in your Lordships' House are railway enthusiasts and no doubt travel regularly. The noble Lord's Amendment is, quite frankly, an Amendment which I think the noble Baroness should perhaps think of accepting, as she did with such grace our Amendment No. 13. It is an Amendment which commends itself on these grounds. It is a declaratory clause and a declaratory clause is, to use an expression, a piety; it is a counsel of perfection, it sets a standard.
Here I think my noble friend has put his hand on something very important. We would all agree with the noble Baroness when she says that the central importance is to improve productivity; but while she has stressed that the public service obligation is sufficient, I think it goes very much deeper than that. I would suggest to the noble Baroness that what we seek is something which is more akin to an account of stewardship. My noble friend has been through every Transport Act since 1947, every Act which concerns British Rail. He has done it with great objectivity, laying stress upon the number of occasions on which the Government of the day, very often a Labour Government, have thought fit to include a declaratory clause of some description. The noble Baroness is saying now that, because conditions are created by the current chairman of British Rail, it is really unnecessary to include a declaratory clause in the present Bill. She rests her argument on past Acts and the public service obligation.
I think one thing which is very clear about the whole ethos of stewardship is a need for renewal. It struck me at the time when the four railway companies handed over to British Rail, or British Railways as it was then. They produced a pictorial document which I remember very well, which was called An Account of our Stewardship. I am sure many railway enthusiasts will remember it. It was an account of how the four railway companies had come through the war years and had handed over four going concerns to British Railways in 1947. We believe that this ongoing commitment is something which the Railways Board should welcome, and to include this in the Bill would be a very small amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: I have nothing more to add. We think that this is superfluous. We accept what is behind it, but we think that it is superfluous because the duty has already been placed on the British Railways Board under the 1962 Act.
Lord COCKFIELD: With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, the point that I was making was that the long tradition had been broken in 1974. It was broken in unfortunate circumstances, and I believe that we ought to re-establish the old sense of orthodoxy in these matters. As the noble Baroness will know, Governments come and go and, equally, I suppose, chairmen of the British Railways Board come and go. In my view there is really on substitute for an absolutely clear statutory declaration as to what are the aims and duties of the British Railways Board. In those circumstances, I feel that I must press the Amendment.
7.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mansfield, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Gisborough, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield. L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hereford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Killearn, L.

Moyne, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Newall, L. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

O'Hagan, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thomas, W.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sandy, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Selkirk, E.

Vickers, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bacon, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

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

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L.(L. Privy Seal.)

Thurso, V.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wade, L.

Hamnett, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

White, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.50 p.m.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord COCKFIELD Lord COCKFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Additional information to be included in Annual Report
(".In respect of any year or other period after the end of 1978 in which a payment has been made to British Rail under section 3(2) of the Railways Act 1974 as amended, the Railways Board shall, without prejudice to any other information which may be required, include in its report under section 4(5) of the Railways Act 1974 the following information in relation to the railways business:

(a) a detailed statement of revenue and costs under such headings as the Secretary of State shall specify for the railways business as a whole and for each region and principal service separately together with comparative figures for the previous year and an explanation of the differences between the two years, the statement to indicate also the surplus or deficit on each region and each principal service separately;

(b) an analysis of productivity for the railways business as a whole and for each region and principal service separately indicating what changes if any have occurred during the period in question together with an explanation of the progress or lack of progress made during the period; and

(c) a financial plan for the succeeding period of five years indicating in addition to any other information that may be specified by the Secretary of State what payments the Board plans to claim under section 3(2) of the Railways Act 1974 as amended, how these payments are estimated to be made up, for the business as a whole and for each region and each principal service
240
separately and including also particulars of the Board's plans to improve productivity and increase efficiency.").

The noble Lord said: This is the second Amendment in my name, which pursues another point that I raised in the course of the Second Reading debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has written to me about this. I greatly appreciate what she says and I shall deal with the points she raises in my speech. The basic point I make is that if the public are to provide this amount of money, amounting to £3,000 million, it is essential that they should be satisfied that the money has been properly spent. This, indeed, is recognised by British Rail themselves. On page 11 of their latest annual report they emphasise:
"… the value of an open style of management and greater disclosure to Parliament and the public".
The new clause is linked to the need to justify the public paying the money. The requirements imposed by the clause relate only to periods when the subsidy is being received. It is closely and directly linked, therefore, to the payment of subsidy. May I begin by saying that no business of the size and complexity of British Rail could possibly be run without a management information service which provides the kind of information which is set out in this proposed new clause.
The clause contains three paragraphs and I shall take them in order. The first paragraph requires a detailed statement of revenue and costs, and surpluses or deficits for each region and for each of the principal services. The object of this is to see what services and what regions are profitable, and what regions and what

241
services are not profitable. This is designed to show where the subsidy is in fact going. The cost analysis specified by the new clause will also provide valuable clues as to the reasons why some regions and some services are profitable and other regions and other services are not profitable. It will provide guidance as to marketing policy and the success or failure of particular policies.
On page 15 of their latest annual report the Railways Board say that they propose providing some information of this sort. But it appears that the information is to be restricted to services and excludes regions; and the information is promised only "within the next three to four years". I suggest to noble Lords that this is not really good enough. We have waited for 30 years since the railways were nationalised. It is now four years since the 1974 Transport Act was passed. The money provided in that Act is nearly exhausted, and we are now asked to wait for another three to four years before this essential information is provided. May I also ask—If I am correct in the way in which I have read the annual report—why is the information to be confined to principal services and why are regions excluded? There is already some information in the annual report about regions, and it seems to me to be reasonable that all this information should be given in relation to the regions.
One of the most valuable tools of management is what is known as "inter-firm comparisons"; that is, you compare the way in which your firm is operating—what is its level of costs in particular areas—with the experience of other firms. There is clearly no firm with which British Rail could be directly compared, and the nearest approach that one could get to an "inter-firm comparison" for British Rail is a comparison between the various regions.
Paragraph (b) of the new clause requires a productivity analysis on similar lines. I need hardly stress the importance of productivity. The noble Baroness herself referred to it directly in her speech. We had a debate on it in your Lordships' House last week; we have another such debate next week. The chairman of British Rail himself, on page 7 of the latest report, says:
242
"Raising productivity is a priority that will not go away".
Further down on the same page he refers to:
"Our intention to move towards more disclosure and more effective monitoring".
Paragraph (b) of the new clause is therefore designed to help the chairman of British Rail to move in the direction in which he obviously wants to go.
Paragraph (c) of the new clause reflects the fact that no business can be run properly and efficiently without a financial plan for the future. I am in fact indebted to the Government for Clause 2 of the present Bill, on which paragraph (c) of my new clause is modelled. If the Government feel that it is reasonable that every non-metropolitan county council ought to produce a five-year plan, including—and I now quote Clause 2(2)(c) of the Bill:
"estimates of the financial resources required … with proposals for obtaining such resources"—
surely it is reasonable that British Rail should do the same.
Finally, I should like to make two points. In her letter to me the noble Baroness has said that British Rail give an immense amount of information in their annual report, and she said they give more information than is required by statute. They do, of course, give a very great deal of information and one must pay tribute to them for it. It is a most interesting and informative report. The trouble is that it is not always very easy to pull together the various strands of information; nor is it easy to see exactly what is happening in particular areas of the railways operation.
It is true that the information given is in excess of the statutory requirement, but I suggest that that is really quite beside the point. The statutory requirement is to be found in Section 4(5)(a) of he Railways Act 1974. This provides that British Rail shall produce:
"such information as the Secretary of State may from time to time specify".
So to defend the lack of information on the basis that it is not required by statute is merely to say that the Secretary of State has failed to require British Rail to produce the information. Therefore, this clause is designed to help the Secretary of State by imposing the obligation to produce

243
the information in any year in which a subsidy is drawn.
I want to make one other point. My own view is that on broad constitutional grounds discretion given to Ministers, which goes wider than is absolutely essential, is not a very good thing. People tend to argue that either the discretion is not properly used or it is not used at all, and examples of this will be so familiar to your Lordships that I need not quote specific instances. I suggest that it is always very much better for the requirements to be set out clearly and positively in the statute itself, so that the subject, as well as the Minister, knows exactly what his rights and duties are. This is what the new clause sets out to do. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord has shown in his speech and the very careful wording of his new clause a wholly praiseworthy concern to be satisfied that British Railways Board gives a full account of its need for passenger support and its use of the money paid by the Government, and he calls for rather more information than any shareholder would expect to see published in company accounts. But that is understandable. The railways are more important to society and the economy than most private companies, and their passenger operations require a considerable annual subsidy. I hope to convince him, however, that his new clause is unnecessary, since much of the information he calls for is already provided, and that where information is not provided then there are good reasons for this.
The noble Lord has drawn our attention to the British Railways Report and Accounts for 1977 and has commended that document to your Lordships' House. I would also call attention to the Government's response to the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the role of British Rail in public transport. Both of them contain a great deal of information about the railways. In their response to the Report of the Select Committee the Government said that they agree that Parliament and the public would be better informed if more details of the public service obligation
244
grant were published, and that after discussion with the Board they have agreed to give Parliament a breakdown of the Board's claim for grant each year when that claim is accepted, usually in the spring.
There follow three tables setting out the Board's forecast of passenger railway business sector costs and revenue and support requirements for 1977. Similar information for 1978 was published in the Official Report of 3rd May as part of a Written Answer by my right honourable friend this year. The same figures are also set out on page 12 of the British Railways Board's Report and Accounts for 1977 alongside comparable figures showing the estimated results for 1977. We have at our disposal now three sets of figures for the passenger railway. The forecast for 1977, the estimated results for the same year, and the forecast for 1978.
There is more. On page 47 of the Board's Report and Accounts noble Lords will find the railways' operating account, which shows that, after Government payments, there was an operating surplus in 1977 of over £44 million compared with £101,000 in 1976. The new clause would seek an explanation of the changes from one year to another. There are many reasons for this commendable success and they will be found within the pages of the Annual Report and Accounts.
I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that the financial information for the whole railway sought in this new clause is already made available, and indeed the published information for the passenger business sectors goes further than required in the new clause. But the new clause also seeks a breakdown of information by regions and principal services. Although British Rail is organised administratively into regions and divisions, and although expenditure budgets are compiled for regions and divisions, no attempt is made to analyse the expenditure in terms of regional net profit and loss accounts. The assets provided by the region contribute to the profitability of services which are not regional, nor are earnings assessed regionally. It would therefore he impracticable to provide a full regional analysis in the form sought.
The new clause also calls for information about principal services. Information on

245
the direct costs and revenues of principal services is, of course, available to the Board. But the allocation of indirect costs to individual services, for instance for track and signalling and for administration, presents great difficulties. Even by 1981, after the Board expect to have developed their system of avoidable costing to the point where they will be able to attribute some, but not all, of the indirect costs to the different business activities, it will not be possible to judge whether individual services are profitable or unprofitable, although it will then be possible to say what contribution a service makes to the residual total of indirect costs.
I now turn to the question of productivity. The Board is very aware of the need to convince us all that it is using its physical and manpower assets efficiently. The need, of course, applies to all the nationalised industries, and in the recent White Paper on the Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 7131) the Government said they would require industries to publish key performance indicators. We are now discussing with the Board how best they can fulfil the requirements of that White Paper in future Reports and Accounts, but noble Lords will note that the 1977 Report and Accounts provides a good deal of information on performance and productivity.
On page 14 the Board have taken the first step in publishing performance indicators which include measures of labour productivity and a look back over the last ten years. They show some important improvements. There are also several pages of information on staff numbers, and receipts and traffic in the section on statistics (pages 63–69). The Nationalised Industries White Paper shows, I suggest, that the Government is aware of the need to publish more information; and the latest Report and Accounts shows that the Board are moving steadily along this path.
The third part of the new clause refers to the Board's financial plan for railway business, and the noble Lord has argued persuasively for disclosure of this plan, or large parts of it. It may help if I explain the Government's policy on nationalised industry plans and the present position so far as plans for the railways are concerned. The planning of any nationalised industry requires a dialogue
246
between the industry and the Government—in the case of British Rail the Board look to the Government for guidance on economic prospects, on the social objectives underlying the payment of grant and on the financial objectives for sectors of the business. This is recognised in the recent White Paper on the Nationalised Industries, which goes on to say:
"… so that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and the public, can be better informed of the industries' objectives the Government has asked them to publish in their annual reports and accounts a summary of the broad objectives in their corporate plan, and the main points in any major review, and any Government response to them".
The British Railways Board expects to be able to send us a corporate plan later this year, one component of which would be a rail plan, and we should expect to see the publication in the Board's report and accounts next year of the broad objectives contained in that plan. But in this new clause the noble Lord is calling for details of the Board's requirements for support and of their plans to improve productivity and increase efficiency. We have already given the Board a broad objective for the passenger business in financial terms, which is to contain and then to reduce subsidy to the revenue account for the operation of the passenger railway system. In the White Paper The Government's Expenditure Plans 1978–79 to 1981–82 (Cmnd. 7049) the provision for passenger subsidies to the British Railways Board shows a reduction from £341 million in 1978–79 to £318 million in 1981–82 at 1977 survey prices. This is the framework within which the Board must plan.
I am quite sure that noble Lords would agree with me that we want British Rail, within the constraints imposed by the public service obligation, to operate commercially. We have already told the Board that they should expect no subsidy for their non-passenger business from the beginning of this year. And we have said that we consider that Inter-City services should pay their way. The Board will not meet these financial obligations unless they act commercially and we must remember, when we call for information about the Board's plans, that it would not be reasonable to expect them to disclose information which might weaken that commercial position.
On the matter of plans to improve productivity and increase efficiency, I

247
once again refer to the White Paper on Nationalised Industries, which says:
"There are obvious difficulties for any industry, whether nationalised or private sector, in predicting the path of all its key performance indicators in future years; and any industry has to be ready to respond to circumstances by changing priorities within its overall objectives. The Government believes, nevertheless, that the nationalised industries should be prepared to make public suitable aims in terms of performance and service, and it has asked them to do this in their reports and accounts".
British Rail have therefore been asked to publish performance indicators—and, as I have already remarked, the Board's 1977 Report and Accounts contains a foretaste of what these might be. We shall be discussing with the Board how these might be developed, and in due course we should expect them to be supported by an explanation of significant trends.
The Government largely endorse the intention of the new clause; if the noble Lord and I appear to differ, it is not about the ends but about the means. I cannot accept that greater openness about the railways' business can best be achieved by this clause. I have explained that to a large extent where the information is available it is already published, or that publication is being actively discussed with British Railways Board. But in some respects the information is simply not available; in others its disclosure, without a great deal of detailed supporting analysis, could be misleading.
Disclosure of information is, by its nature, a sensitive topic, but I am sure noble Lords will realise, from a reading of the 1977 Report and Accounts, that much has been done by the Board to show, in Sir Peter Parker's own words
"… in a clearer, cleaner way what deal it is that the railways have with society".
I believe that much more can be achieved by the close co-operation of the Government and the Board within the clear framework of Government policy than can be achieved by new, necessarily inflexible, legislation. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Lord O'HAGAN: The noble Baroness has given a very comprehensive reply which I am sure contains much food for thought; we will study it and perhaps return to the matter on Report. There were some individual items, for example
248
the question of the regions, which I found most interesting and which we will need to look at again if the course pursued by my noble friend Lord Cockfield is to be taken any further. Meanwhile, we will study what the noble Baroness said, and I wish to thank her and her Department for the thorough answer she has given to the points made on this Amendment.
Lord COCKFIELD: I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the detailed and comprehensive reply she gave to the comments I made. I would only make the point that every major private sector company must face this problem of information being alleged to be difficult to obtain or to be unobtainable, and in the end they must solve these problems. My suspicion is that before many years are out British Rail will find that they will not only have to solve them but will no doubt solve them. As my noble friend Lord O'Hagan said, the Minister has given us a great deal to think about. We will study what she said with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Transfer of controlling interest in Freightliners Limited]:
8.13 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("1st July 1978 ("the transfer date")") and insert ("the appointed day").
The noble Baroness said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed at the same time the following Amendments: Nos. 19, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 26, which are all concerned with the same point. The NFC financial reconstruction and the transfer of Freightliners were intended to take place on 1st July 1978. However, it is now clear that the Bill cannot be expected to be enacted by this date. It would not be appropriate for the transfer of Freightliners or the extinguishment of a portion of NFC's capital debt, which partly relates to the transfer of Freightliners, to take place retrospectively. It is therefore necessary to amend the date of 1st July 1978 in Clauses 12 and 14.
Clause 21(1) already provides for the Secretary of State to make an order

249
appointing a day for the coming into force of these clauses. Under the terms of the Amendments, the transfer of Freightliners and the extinguishment of debt would then take place on that day. It is envisaged that the Secretary of State would make an order under Clause 21(1) for these clauses shortly after enactment.
Lord O'HAGAN: Any Amendment which prevents the possibility of retrospective legislation must be right; I therefore support this Amendment and the others to which the noble Baroness referred.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("date") and insert ("day").
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("date") and insert ("day").
8.16 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 12.
The noble Baroness said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 23. This is a technical Amendment, to ensure there is no doubt about the consequences for pensions on the transfer of Freightliners Limited from the National Freight Corporation to the Railways Board. It is a long-established principle of pensions arrangements as they apply to the nationalised transport industries that the pension rights of an employee are preserved if he is transferred from one of the industries to another. Sections 136(2) and 136(4) of the Transport Act 1968 contain provisions which ensure this.
If the Amendment were not made, there could be a doubt as to whether Section 136(2) and (4) of the 1968 Act applied in the case of the trasfer of Freightliners Limited to BRB. The
250
reason for this is that Freightliners Limited is at present a joint subsidiary of NFC and BRB, NFC being the majority shareholder; Freightliners Limited is therefore already a subsidiary of BRB. In Section 51(5) of the Transport Act 1968 there is a provision that for the purposes of certain provisions of that Act, which include Section 136, a joint subsidiary of two transport authorities is to be regarded as a subsidiary of each of these authorities. By amending the Bill so as to provide that, for the purposes of Clause 12, Freightliners Limited shall not be regarded as a subsidiary of BRB until the transfer date, any doubts about the manner of the application of Section 136 of the 1968 Act will be removed.
Lord BANKS: We accept that the pension schemes and those pensions which depend on them should be preserved by this means.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 18, leave out ("transfer date") and insert ("appointed day").
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 22, at end insert—
("(3A) Section 136(2) and (4) of the 1968 Act (transfers in connection with pension schemes and preservation of pension rights) apply in the same way; and for the purposes of section 136(4)(c), Freightliners Limited is to be treated (despite section 51(5) of that Act, which made it a joint subsidiary both of the British Railways Board and N.F.C.) as having become a subsidiary of the British Railways Board only on the appointed day.").
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 13, line 21, at end insert—
("(7) In this section "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 21(1) below for the coming into force of this section.").
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.19 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: In asking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, about the transfer, I would remind her that I drew attention to this issue on Second Reading. Why have Freightliners Limited, a subsidiary of BR but with NFC owning the majority share, to be transferred? What are the advantages, and to whom do they accrue? I understand that NFC are still opposed and that Freightliners Limited have made a small profit.
I can appreciate the argument that British Rail would wish to operate a total road-rail service, but if Freightliners Limited are embraced in British Rail, there is a probability, notwithstanding what the noble Baroness said in answer to my noble friend Lord Cockfield on Amendment No. 17, that Freightliners could lose their identity in the mishmash of the whole of British Rail. So far as the freight haulage industry is concerned, any comparison of freight rates which they currently can make would then be denied to them; and of course there is bound to be a little thought that any industry which relies to some extent on public funding can increase its business at the cost of its competitors because it is supported by its subsidy.
That is one side of the argument. On the other side, it is my understanding that Mr. Peter Parker said that Freightliners is to be operated as a separate unit. If that is his intention, fine. It is not, certainly, for me—neither do I think it is for the Committee—to determine how Mr. Peter Parker, chairman of British Rail, runs the business put under his charge. If it is to be run as a separate unit, why cannot it remain as a separate unit, as it stands now—that is, as a separate trading entity under NFC, with British Rail deriving those benefits that come from its share?
I started by asking why Freightliners should be transferred. I end, having put two points of view, again by asking, Why? What is the necessity for transferring it? Could the noble Baroness explain why the Government feel it is necessary?
Baroness STEDMAN: I shall do my best. The ownership of Freightliners has been the subject of prolonged public debate. I am sure all noble Lords will
252
agree that a firm decision now on the future of the company is essential for its future success. At present the ownership is divided between the two major public corporations, the National Freight Corporation and the British Railways Board, both of whom have enormous expertise in their own sectors of the transport world. The question is, which one should control Freightliners to give it the best prospects of a sound commercial future?
Over the past few years British Rail has shown that it is capable of providing freight services that make excellent commercial sense. That is shown not least by the fact that its need for grant, which was £66 million as recently as 1975, will have been entirely eliminated by this year. It has done this by providing services that are competitive and by effectively marketing their advantages to customers. The services that it has built up in this way have enabled the railways to meet the needs of heavy industry and, with the introduction of Speedlink, to develop modern streamlined services for the general merchandise market. The Speedlink services and Freightliners are increasingly complementary. It makes sense that they should be marketed as a package by British Rail's Freight Corporation organisation. There is no doubt that Freightliners will be able to act in a fully commercial fashion under British Rail. The chairman of the British Railways Board has stated that he intends to build on the strength of the Freightliner company, retaining the characteristics of an independent profit centre, and a very high degree of delegated responsibility and authority. I hope that answers the noble Lord's points.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: The noble Baroness knows very well that it has answered my points—and has answered them quite delightfully. However, I have just one small question. When the noble Baroness was dealing with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, I understood her to say that the accounting that would be reported in the annual report would pay due regard to the separate entities. Therefore, I imagine that Freightliners, its activities, profitability and turnover, will be separately monitored. In that case the fears, as it were, of the other side of industry will not be realised, as it will be able to monitor those aspects.

253
In conclusion, I should like to say that I understand that most sections of the industry fully endorse exactly what the noble Baroness said. The Speedlink service is a huge success, and is much used by the other side of industry. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that British Rail does look set for taking its fair share of the business. I do not believe that any noble Lord on this side of the Committee wished to deny the railways a proper and increasing share of freight. I do not think that there has ever been an argument that road haulage should deny the railways their rightful opportunity if they set their house in order and if they provide the kind of service that the customer wants. It is only the lack of that service in recent years which has perhaps added to the expansion of road freightage. I hope, therefore, that, under the present chairman, British Rails' success can go from strength to strength.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Reduction of capital debt]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("1st July 1978") and insert ("the day appointed under section 21(1) below for the coming into force of this section")
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 13, line 31, leave out ("date") and insert ("day").
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to
Clause 17 [17. Provisions supplementary to s. 16]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 15, line 31, at beginning insert—
("pension" and" pension scheme "mean the same as in the 1962 Act and").
The noble Baroness said: This again is a purely technical Amendment. It provides for the definition of "pension" and "pension scheme" in Section 92(1) of the Transport Act 1972 to apply to the
254
interpretation of the clauses of the Bill, Clauses 16 and 17, which provide for funding NFC's historic pension liabilities. These are the definitions which apply for the interpretation of corresponding provisions in the Railways Act 1974. The Amendment is needed to ensure that the funding schemes for the National Freight Corporation and British Railways Board schemes are on a consistent basis. I beg to move.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Travel concessions for transferred employees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount SIMON: I wanted to ask one question on Clause 18 before it stands part. I am sorry that I have not given notice of it to the noble Baroness. If she cannot reply off her capacious cuff I shall well understand it. I cannot understand why this clause is necessary. As I see it, there are numbers of employees of the National Freight Corporation in these other bodies who were formerly British Rail employees. They have carried with them the right to the travel concessions which they would have had under British Rail. Would it not be much simpler to give them a little card to say "I am an ex-British Rail employee", and let them take it to the railway station and obtain the concession, instead of going through the business of getting it from someone else who has to recover the amount from the Treasury?
Baroness STEDMAN: It is not quite as simple as that. Under Sections 4 and 5 of, and Schedule 4 to, the 1968 Act, a considerable number of British Rail staff were transferred to subsidiaries of the Corporation, when it took over the control of Freightliners and National Carriers. The retired employees continued to be eligible for their concessions, though at a reduced level—concessions covering in many cases, wives and families, as well as employees who transferred, widows and retired employees. When the British Rail staff were transferred under the 1968 Act they retained their previous conditions of service including their travel

255
concessions. The Corporation and the former rail subsidiaries took over the responsibility for the cost of those concessions in respect of the staff transferred to them. They are made by the Corporation and National Carriers to the British Railway Board and the London Transport Executive, and at present amount to about £1½ million a year. The intention of the clause is that the Secretary of State should have power to reimburse the Corporation for the payments made in future. The Secretary of State must have Treasury approval for the reimbursement, and he may impose such terms as, with the approval of the Treasury, he considers appropriate. That is the reason for putting the clause in the Bill.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Citation and extent]:
8.30 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 18, line 23, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 4 (Concessionary fare schemes) was added to the Bill to require all those county councils who have to prepare and publish annual public passenger transport plans to include in them certain material about travel concession schemes. Clause 22 lays down that the requirements about county transport planning in Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill do not apply to Scotland and Clause 4 should likewise be disapplied. The Amendment secures this.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments about Lorries]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 46, leave out from ("rates") to end of line 47.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a section that refers to the charging of fees and the method of payment in respect of vehicles brought to a testing station for inspection with a view to
256
removal of a prohibition. There are two kinds of prohibitions called GV 160, which is mainly for matters of overweight, and it is very seldom that a vehicle will be directed to a testing station for examination to prove that the overweight has been remedied. It is more than likely that a vehicle will be sent to the station for removal of a GV 9. This is the form of prohibition used in cases of maintenance. In fact this is the prohibition note to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred when we were discussing the major part of Schedule 3.
Currently GV 9s are issued. These are prohibition notices broadly under two headings—"Immediate" or "delayed". If it is an "Immediate" the repair can be effected by the roadside or the vehicle can be towed away and repaired in a garage. Subsequently the inspector who issued the prohibition notice is asked to make a further inspection with a view to issuing a GV 10—that is, a removal of the prohibition notice. In many instances the inspector may go to the premises, or he and the operator may find a common meeting place. This subsection provides that the inspector can direct the vehicle to go to a testing station, in which case the full rigours of the test are undertaken. One can see the good sense in that, but, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone pointed out, there can be delays.
One of the most common causes for the issue of a GV 9, a prohibition notice, is smoke. Smoke is that indefinable, non-measurable nuisance that inspectors are fairly fond of, and often it is a minor adjustment, perhaps the replacement of a fuel pump or replacement and/or adjustment of an injector, which can be effected in a matter of hours. The current practice is that, having effected the repair, the owner phones the station and says, "I have finished this. May I come in?" Normally the man says, "Yes, come down, stand in the queue and we will get through". According to my noble friend, there appears to be at least one station that does not adopt this way of dealing with them. They deal with GV 10s on certain days.
It would appear to me—and this is really the point of my Amendment—that if we have to make an appointment and pay in advance, further delays will occur. Already the issue of a GV 9 can bring proceedings in a court under the

257
construction and uses provision. That is penalty one. Penalty 2 is that the vehicle has to be taken out of service and may be delayed during repair and/or—and this is important—awaiting a suitable appointment for clearance. That is the second penalty. The third penalty that applies both in the case of the GV 160 and the GV 9 is that these matters are reported to the licensing authority. They go in the folder, and if there are too many GV 9s or GV 160s the licensing authority can call the operator to task. Various formalities are gone through but the licensing authority has the right to revoke or suspend the licence, thus depriving the operator of an earning capacity.
There are these three penalties, and do not let us forget that there is no independent appeal. Any appeal against a GV 9 is referred to the senior mechanical inspector and I understand that invariably he finds in favour of his inspector. The operator is not allowed an independent engineer; he is not allowed an independent source of appeal. So his penalties are virtually pre-set at the moment of the offence. I should like to know exactly what the payment of fees for inspection means. It says
"in accordance with prescribed scales and rates";
but there are not any at the moment, so presumably they will have to be made for inspections at testing station for the issue of a GV 10. I should further like to know exactly what is meant by,
"and payment of the fee may be required to be made in advance".
I can see great difficulties here. I do not wish to be difficult about this matter or to delay the Committee, but I think the industry has a perfect right to understand what is meant, and that is the purpose of this Amendment which I now beg to move.
Lord O'HAGAN: I think my noble friend has a point here, particularly on the advance payment of the sums in question; and if the noble Baroness is going to write to my noble friend rather than delay the Committee further, I hope she will be good enough to send me a copy of the letter as well. There is one rhetorical question which I should like to put to the noble Baroness in celebration of this enjoyable Committee stage. The question is: Why did she miss her train?
258
Why are we all here at quarter to nine, instead of finishing at quarter past eight? Because a noble and absent Lord has delayed the proceedings and then gone off. It is a great pity if the further stages of this Bill are going to continue to be delayed by the noble Lord who comes here, makes a row, causes a nuisance and then, if I may coin a phrase, "wiggers off". We deprecate the noble Lord's continual malevolent interference in this Bill, and I hope that if he is going to continue to participate he will speed things up or else be more constructive.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: In defence of my noble friend, who has been accused of causing a nuisance and going off, I wish to say that I consider that he had valid points to raise, and he raised them. Perhaps some of us have spoken for longer than we should have done on many of the clauses, and this would be a contributory reason for our being here at this time of the evening when we had hoped that we might have finished by about half past six. None the less we are getting to the end of the Committee stage now. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, I am sure the noble Lord will understand if I say that I will write to him. on his detailed questions. I shall send copies of the correspondence to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in order to let them know what is happening, and to ensure that they, and I, are clear in our minds before the Report stage.
With regard to the Amendment itself, I should say that the existing plating and testing scheme requires payment of fees in advance in all cases, whether the vehicle is brought to the testing station for inspection, or the operator merely wants to replace a mislaid document. Billing customers for payment in arrears—and especially where dealing with the reluctant payer—could be time consuming, and could prove expensive. As the scheme is required to be self-financing the extra cost would have to be passed on to the non-offending section of the industry. That is the reason for the inclusion of the provision in the Schedule.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I apologise to the Committee—and I mean this sincerely, because I also want to go

259
home tonight, and I have to travel 60 or 70 miles—but I must say that the noble Baroness has not answered the question. I wish to refer to the difference between plating and testing, and the payment of fees in advance. An operator will know when he is to offer a vehicle for plating. He will know when his vehicle is due for testing. He will fill in the appropriate form, and make an appointment. He will send the money with the application for the appointment. He does not know when he is to get a GV 9—I actually believe this. He certainly does not know when he is to complete the repair and request a GV 10. Therefore, the parallel which the noble Baroness draws is not in fact parallel; it is divergent. In one case the person concerned knows when he is going, and so he can write and pay in advance, but in the other case, it is not known. The noble Baroness might say in her letter: "Ah, but payment in advance means that the chap says, ' come along at 4 o'clock and bring the money with you '." I could quite understand that.
I quite accept that there should be no credit facilities, which would be expensive. I quite accept —and the industry accepts—that if one commits an offence one must pay. This may be the fourth penalty one has to pay—I refer to a fee for getting a GV 10, whereas today one does not pay. I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment on the basis that the noble Baroness has offered to write to me, but what the noble Baroness has to say will govern whether I return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.43 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 23, leave out lines 10 to 21.
The noble Lord said: We discussed this matter at an earlier stage, but I gave notice that I might wish to return to it, and I shall now do so quite briefly. In dealing with earlier clauses, the noble Baroness said that guidance would be issued to the inspector with regard to the five-mile limit. This provision appears to deal with matters which are more likely to occur in rural and country areas, where weighbridges and testing stations are not
260
so readily available as they are in urban areas; hence the necessity for providing designated areas. I think that that is a fair understanding of the situation. Can the noble Baroness assure the Committee that in framing the guidelines due regard will be paid to the very nature of the work that is carried out in rural areas? I particularly have in mind pea harvesting, which is so very crucial, as well as beet harvesting, and similar activities. I also wish to ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind that nowadays planning requirements are fairly stringent, and the environmental lobbies—particularly the Council for the Protection of Rural England—make great play regarding the siting of particular farm buildings. One thinks of the very large grain silos. In these circumstances, more traffic—and heavy traffic—has to travel farther than it otherwise would, and has to use roads which are not primarily designed for its use. If the noble Baroness can give me an assurance on this it would be very helpful to the industries concerned.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord will know that since Second Reading I have had consultations with some of his colleagues on the very point that he has raised his evening. I understand that it is felt that on occasions our examiners are perhaps a little too strict, do not have too much care about the loads which the vehicles are carrying, and perhaps do not show quite enough sense, and that they have directed loads of peas, sugar beet and other goods away from where they were heading. I understand that this happens only in very rare cases. Such incidents are not general; indeed, there has been great praise of our examiners during our discussions on the Bill today. However, we are proposing to send out guidelines, and we shall ask all our examiners to be aware of the fact that some lorries may be carrying livestock or perishable goods. We shall ask them to be as reasonable as they can about such matters.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. As the last speaker during this stage of the Bill it falls to me, on behalf of my noble friends and other Members of the Committee, to thank her very much for the great attention that she has paid to all that we have said.

261
The noble Baroness has been in attendance on us for 6¾ hours. She must be Tuesday's child full of grace. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN: Before the Bill is reported to the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I also wish to express my appreciation, as well as that of my Department, of the way in which noble Lords have consulted us and given us an opportunity to try to sort out some of their problems before we arrived at the Committee stage. I am most grateful for the co-operation we have had from both Benches opposite.
Lord O'HAGAN: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings; I wish to say merely that I am looking forward to the next stage of the Bill.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
8.48 p.m.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [81] as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 30, page 14, line 13, after ' shall' insert 'subject to section 46(3) '.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. Clause 30 of the Bill gives the High Court exclusive original jurisdiction in Admiralty matters, and provides that the county court shall have no such jurisdiction.
262
This clause was drafted with. civil proceedings in Admiralty in mind, but where the proceedings in question are criminal proceedings in respect of an indictable offence which is triable by virtue of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland courts, then the case would go to the Crown Court. This is expressly provided for in Clause 46(3). The generality of Clause 30 is not at present, however, limited in any way, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the High Court's jurisdiction does not overlap, but is subject to, that of the Crown Court under Clause 46(3).
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2.]
Clause 35, page 20, line 2, leave out (other than a provision listed in subsection (7))'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. With this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. The combined effect of these Amendments is to remove the two exceptions to the provisions of Clause 35(6). This ensures that all appeals (from inferior courts, tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions) will, in future, lie to the Court of Appeal rather than to the High Court. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3.]
Clause 35, page 20, line 8, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 13 and insert 'be final'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4.]
Clause 52, page 34, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 2 and insert Subject to any statutory provision, the Crown Court Rules Committee appointed under section (Crown Court Rules Committee)'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, which is linked with Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8. Together they make fresh provision for a committee to make rules of procedure for the Crown Court, and they give a separate identity to that committee which will be charged with this function. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5 and 6.]
Clause 53, page 34, line 14, leave out Clause 53, and insert the following clause:
Crown Court Rules Committee
'.—(1) There shall be a committee known as the Northern Ireland Crown Court Rules Committee (in this Act referred to as the Crown Court Rules Committee) which, subject to section 54(2), shall consist of—

(a) the Lord Chief Justice who shall be chairman;

(b) two judges of the High Court or the Court of Appeal nominated from time to time by the Lord Chief Justice;

(c) two county court judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice;

(d) a resident magistrate nominated by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice;

(e) the Master (Queen's Bench and Appeals);

(f) a practising member of the Bar of Northern Ireland nominated by the Lord Chancellor;

(g) one other practising member of the Bar of Northern Ireland nominated by the Council thereof;

(h) the president of the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland or a member of the Council thereof nominated by him;

(i) a practising solicitor nominated by that Council;

and shall have the functions conferred on it in relation to the making of Crown Court rules by section 52.
(2) The secretary to the Crown Court Rules Committee shall be such person as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time designate and such secretary shall, in relation to Crown
264
Court rules, be the responsible officer within the meaning of sections 2 and 4 of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958.
(3) Sections 54(2), (3), (4) and (6), 55(4) and 56(1), (2) and (3) shall apply to the Crown Court Rules Committee and Crown Court rules as if references in those provisions to the Rules Committee and rules of court included references to the Crown Court Rules Committee and Crown Court rules respectively.' Clause 54, page 34, line 34, leave out and section 53(1)'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 7.]
Clause 54, page 34, line 41, leave out 'Attorney General' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7, which transfers from the Attorney-General to the Lord Chancellor the power to appoint one of the members (a practising barrister) of the Supreme Court Rules Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8.]
Clause 54, page 35, line 8, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 9 and insert 'rules of court by section 55'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9.]
Clause 54, page 35, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

265
'(5) The joint secretaries to the Rules Committee shall be such persons as the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, may from time to time designate and one of the persons so designated shall be either the Principal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice or another officer serving in the Supreme Court.'
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. At the same time, I shall speak to Amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 9 provides for the two joint secretaries of the Supreme Court Rules Committee rather than one as at present, and provides for them to be designated by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, who is chairman of the Committee. Amendment No. 11 is consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10.]
Clause 55, page 37, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.10. This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11.]
Clause 56, page 37, line 39, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 43 and insert—
'(4) Such of the joint secretaries to the Rules Committee as the Lord Chancellor may designate shall, in relation to rules of court, be the responsible officer within the meaning of sections 2 and 4 of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958.'.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.11.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 12.]
Clause 69, page 44, line 32, levae out ', and other persons employed for the purposes of,"
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. By removing these words from paragraph (e) of Clause 69(4), this Amendment ensures that only the functions of officers' of coroners' courts will be transferred to the Northern Ireland Court Service. The work of other persons, such as pathologists, will not become the responsibility of the new court service. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 13.]
Clause 70, page 45, line 18, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3)'.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. This is simply a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 14.]
Clause 70, page 45, line 31, leave out from ' barrister ' to end of line 33 and insert ' solicitor or other person whom he considers to be suitable for appointment having regard to his knowledge and experience'.
8.55 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. This Amendment enables the Lord Chancellor, in exceptional circumstances, to appoint a person who is not legally qualified to one of the posts set out in Schedule 3; for example, staff who have served for a long per rod in the office or department in question, and who have thereby acquired a wide experience of its work. There is legislative provision in England to enable such persons in the Principal Registry of the Family Division to be appointed as Registrars, and many such appointments

267
have been successfully made, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 15 and 16.]
Clause 71, page 46, line 27, leave out A statutory officer shall vacate his office' and insert 'Subject to subsection (4), a statutory officer shall retire ',
Clause 71, page 46, line 29, at end insert—
'(4) Before appointing a person as a statutory officer the Lord Chancellor may, having regard to the age of the person to be appointed and such other circumstances as the Lord Chancellor considers relevant, direct that subsection (3) shall, in its application to that person, have effect with the substitution for the age of 72 years of such lower age as may be specified in the direction.'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg, to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, with which is linked Amendment No. 69. These three Amendments enable the Lord Chancellor to specify, in relation to any statutory officer appointed after the commencement of the Bill, that that person shall retire at an age which is lower than the age of 72, the age laid down in Clause 71(3). I ought to point out that the question of retirement age would be a matter for negotiation with the prospective appointee before he is appointed, so he is not cut suddenly short in his prime. Once he is in post, his retirement age would not be altered to his disadvantage without his consent. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 17.]
Clause 74, page 47, line 13, at end insert—
'2(A) Where anything is for the time being authorised or required by this Act or any other statutory provision to be done to or by a particular statutory officer and—

(a) that statutory officer is not available because of absence or other reason and no person may, by virtue of subsections (1) and (2), exercise his powers; or

(b) his office is vacant,

then it may, unless the Lord Chancellor
268
otherwise directs, be done during such unavailability or vacancy to or by any other statutory officer.'
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. This Amendment inserts a new subsection in Clause 74 and will take effect where a particular statutory officer—which means one of the officers described in the first column of Schedule 3 to the Bill—is unavailable, or if that particular statutory office is vacant. The new provision is very similar to the provision made by Clause 11 for the exercise of the powers of the Lord Chief Justice in his absence, or if that office is vacant. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 18.]
Clause 76, page 48, line 10, leave out officer appointed under section 69' and insert ' member of the Northern Ireland Court Service '
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 32. These Amendments deal with similar points and are purely drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19.]
Clause 78, page 48, line 28, leave out ' and for the purposes of this Part) ' and insert ' and the county court and for the purposes of this Part and Part I of the Administration of Justice Act 1965)'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. With this Amendment I propose also to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 48, 49 and 73. This group of Amendments seeks to extend the application of various sections of the Administration of Justice Act 1965, relating to investment provisions and funds in court, to the Supreme Court and county courts in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 20 to 24.]
Clause 79, page 49, line 12, after in ' insert ' the Supreme Court or the county'
Clause 80, page 49, line 16, after 'Court' insert 'or the county court'
Clause 80, page 49, line 19, after 'Court' insert or the county court'
Clause 80, page 49, line 22, after Court 'insert or the county court'
Clause 80, page 49, line 23, leave out 'that'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 en bloc, and with the leave of the House I will also deal with Amendments Nos. 33, 56 and 80. With the unification of the administration of all courts in Northern Ireland, it is possible also to unify the administration of funds in court, and. there arc clear advantages in so doing. These Amendments extend the provisions of the Bill to cover funds in the county courts, so that they will be dealt with in the same way as funds in the Surpeme Court. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 25.]
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
Investment of funds in court.
'.Save in a case in which it is provided by an order of the court that it shall not be placed or invested as mentioned in the following provisions of this section, and subject to any provision to the contrary made by rules made under the next following section, a sum of money in the Supreme Court or in the county court—

(a) may, if the High Court or the county court (as the case may be) so orders, be dealt with in such of the following ways as may be specified in the order, namely:—

(i) it may be placed, in accordance with rules so made, to a deposit account or a short-term investment account (that is to say, to an account of one or other of two kinds such that, in the case of an
270
account of either kind, there will, under rules so made, but subject to any exceptions thereby prescribed, fall to accrue on moneys placed thereto interest derived from the transfer to, and investment by, the National Debt Commissioners of the moneys placed to all the accounts of those kinds);

(ii) it may be placed to a long-term investment account for transfer, under rules so made, to such one of the funds established by schemes made under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 as may be so specified;

(iii) it may be invested by the Accountant General in such of the securities designated for the purposes of this paragraph by rules made under section 55 of this Act or section 146 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 as may be so specified;

(iv) it may be invested by the Accountant General in accordance with directions given by an advisory commit lee appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with rules made under the next following section;

(b) shall, if no order is made with respect to it under the foregoing paragraph, be dealt with as follows:—

(i) except in a case in which it was paid in under section 63 of the Trustee Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, it shall be placed, in accordance with rules made under the next following section, to a deposit account;

(ii) in the said excepted case, it shall be invested by the Accountant General in such manner as may be prescribed by rules so made.'

The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25. With this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. These two Amendments substitute a new clause relating to the investment of funds in court in place of the provision in Clause 81.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 26.]
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
Rules as to funds in court.
'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury may make rules regulating, subject to the provisions of section 80, the deposit, payment, delivery and transfer in, into and out of the Supreme Court and the county court of money, securities and effects

271
which belong to suitors or are otherwise capable of being deposited in, or paid or transferred into, the Supreme Court or the county court or are under the custody of the Supreme Court or the county court, and regulating the evidence of such deposit, payment, delivery or transfer and, subject to the provisions of section (Investment of funds in court), the manner in which money, securities and effects in court are to be dealt with, and in particular—

(a) providing (subject to any exceptions prescribed by the rules) for the accruer of interest on moneys placed to deposit accounts and short-term investment accounts and prescribing the rate at which interest on moneys placed to deposit accounts and the rate at which interest on moneys placed to short-term investment accounts is to accrue;

(b) requiring the Accountant General—

(i) to transfer to the National Debt Commissioners all money paid into the Supreme Court or the county court which is not required by him for meeting current demands, except money placed to a long-term investment account or ordered to be invested in securities;

(ii) to transfer money placed to a long-term investment account to that one of the funds established by schemes made under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 specified in the order pursuant to which it was so placed;

(c) prescribing for the purposes of section (Investment of funds in court) (b)(ii) the manner of investment of money by the Accountant General and regulating the investment, pursuant to an order under that section, of money in securities;

(d) regulating the crediting of interest accruing on moneys placed to deposit accounts and on moneys placed to short-term investment accounts and the crediting of dividends accruing on shares in funds established by schemes made under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 which have been allotted in consideration of the transfer of money in compliance with such provision of the rules as has effect by virtue of paragraph (b)(ii) and of interest or dividends accruing on securities in which money has been invested by the Accountant General pursuant to an order of the High Court or county court or to section (Investment of funds in court) (b)(ii) and on other securities in court;

(e) providing—

(i) that, in such cases as may be prescribed by the rules, no sum of money (whatever its amount) shall be placed to a deposit account or a short- or long-term investment account or be invested in securities;

(ii) that, in no case, shall a sum of money of an amount less than such as may be so prescribed be placed to, or remain in, a deposit account, be placed to a short- or long-term investment account or be invested in securities;

(f) prescribing the time at which money which falls to be placed to a deposit
272
account or short-term investment account is to be so placed and the times at which interest on money so placed is to begin and cease to accrue and the mode of computing any such interest;

(g) providing that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the rules, interest and dividends such as are mentioned in paragraph (d) shall be placed to deposit accounts or short- or long-term investment accounts;

(h) providing for dealing with accounts or effects which, subject to such, if any, exceptions as may be prescribed by the rules, have not been dealt with for such period (not being less than fifteen years) as may be so prescribed;

(i) prescribing the manner in which money is to be furnished to the Accountant General by the National Debt Commissioners and the Public Trustee respectively for the purpose of enabling him to comply with orders of the High Court and county court as to the payment of money out of court;

(j) providing for the discharge of the functions of the Accountant General under the rules by deputy;

(k) providing for the constitution and procedure of the advisory committee referred to in section (Investment of funds in court) (a)(iv) and for the remuneration of its members;

(l) providing for such matters as are incidental to, or consequential on, the foregoing provisions of this subsection or are necessary for giving effect to those provisions.

(2) Rules under subsection (1) may make different provision in relation to the Supreme Court and the county court.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. With this Amendment I propose to speak to Amendment No. 30. These Amendments substitute a new clause for the present Clause 82 of the Bill which made provision for rules as to funds in court.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 27.]
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
Application of investment provisions.
'.—(1) Sections 1, 2, 12, 13 and 15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1965 (which make provision for the investment of funds in court in common investment schemes and by the National Debt Commissioners) shall have effect

273
in Northern Ireland subject to the modifications and amendments set out in the following provisions of this section.
(2) In sections 1, 12, 13 and 15 of that Act—

(a) references to the Supreme Court and county courts shall be construed as references to the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland and county courts in Northern Ireland, respectively;

(b) references to rules made with respect to funds in the Supreme Court and rules made under section 7 of that Act shall be construed as references to rules made under section (Rules as to funds in court) with respect to funds in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland or statutory deposits;

(c) references to rules made under section 168 of the County Courts Act 1959 with respect to funds in county courts shall be construed as references to rules made under section (Rules as to funds in court) with respect to funds in county courts in Northern Ireland;

(d) "statutory deposits" shall have the meaning assigned to it by section (Statutory deposits) (3) of this Act;

(e) references to the Accountant General (except in section 15) shall be construed as references to the Accountant General of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland.

(3) At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be inserted—
"(3) The Public Trustee Act 1906, as modified by subsections (1) and (2), shall, for the purposes of the exercise by the Public Trustee of his functions under section 1 above be deemed to extend to Northern Ireland."
(4) In section 15—

(a) in subsection (1) the reference to the Accountant General shall be omitted;

(b) subsection (3) shall be omitted.'

Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. This was taken with Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 28.]
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause:
Statutory deposits
'.—(1) Section 80(1) shall apply to a statutory deposit as it applies to the payment of money into the Supreme Court; and section 80(2) and (3) shall apply to the deposit with the Accountant General of securities in lieu of money in exercise of a right to make such a
274
deposit conferred by section 29 of the Tramways (Ireland) Act 1860 or by rules made by virtue of subsection (2).
(2) Sections (Investment of funds in court) and (Rules as to funds in court) shall apply to a statutory deposit and to securities which are in the hands of the Accountant General in consequence of a person's having availed himself of such a right as is mentioned in subsection (1) and rules made under section 82 may include separate provisions with respect to such deposits and securities and, in particular, may authorise the deposit, under the statutory provisions mentioned in subsection (3), of securities in lieu of money.
(3) In this section and sections (Application of investment provisions) and 84 "statutory deposit" means money desposited with the Accountant General under or by virtue of—

(a) section 29 of the Tramways (Ireland) Act 1860;

(b) section 7 of the Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924;

(c) section 4 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act (Northern Ireland) 1940; or

(d) section 75(2)(b) or 78(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1970;

or any statutory provision which was re-enacted by any of those provisions.'
9.4 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. With this Amendment, which inserts a new clause, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 34, 50, 75, 76 and 89. This group of Amendments deals with statutory deposits; that is to say, deposits which can or must be paid into court under various statutory provisions, for example as an alternative to taking out third party motor insurance. They will simplify the provisions as to rules dealing with these payments into the Supreme Court. The new clause applies rules as to funds made under the new Clauses 81 and 82 to statutory deposits in the same way as to any other funds in court. This rectifies the mistaken reference in the existing Clause 83 to statutory deposit regulations which are made by the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce under the statutes listed in subsection (3) of the new clause. The remaining Amendments are purely consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 29 to 50.]
Leave out Clause 81.
Leave out Clause 82.
Leave out Clause 83.
Clause 84, page 51, line 13, leave out 'officer serving in the Supreme Court' and insert ' member of the Northern Ireland Court Service'
Clause 84, page 51, line 15, after 'Court' insert 'or the county court'.
Leave out Clause 85.
Clause 101 page 60, line 4, at end insert—
'(bb) the ordinary hours of sitting of courts of summary jurisdiction;'
Clause 102, page 60, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Where the Lord Chancellor at any time directs that any of the Acts listed in subsection (3) is to be reprinted, section 30 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 shall apply as if—

(a) that direction were contained in an enactment; and

(b) in subsection (2) of that section for the words "the Clerk of the Parliaments" there were substituted the words "the Clerk to the Assembly".

(3) The Acts referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) the County Courts Acts (Northern Ireland) 1959 and 1964;

(b) the Magistrates" Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964; and

(c) the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.'

Clause 116, page 68, line 24, after 'court' insert or by the Enforcement of Judgments office'.
Clause 116, page 68, line 34, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 35 and insert 'An order under subsection (1) or (2) may provide for the manner in which any fees fixed thereby are to be taken, applied and accounted for but, subject to any provision so made,'
Clause 119, page 69, line 28, after 'order' insert 'or rules'
Page 70, line 5, at end insert—
'(5) Any power conferred by this Act or by any enactment listed in section 117(2) on the Lord Chancellor to give directions includes power to vary or revoke any directions so given.'
Clause 120, page 70, line 39, at end insert—
' "magistrates' court" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964;'
Schedule 5, page 82, line 26, after 'if' insert 'for'.
Page 89, leave out lines 1 to 5.
Schedule 5, page 89, line 23, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
Page 92, line 25, at end insert—
'The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943
In section 6(2), as it applies to Northern Ireland, for the words from "a judge of" to "conclusive" substitute the words "the
276
Court of Appeal, appeal therefrom, within such time as may be limited by rules of court made under section 55 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, to the Court of Appeal whose decision shall be final".
In section 14 for the words from "Lord Chancellor" to the end substitute the words "Lord Chancellor (except the reference in paragraph 7A of the Schedule) there shall be substituted references to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland".
In the schedule, as it applies to Northern Ireland, in paragraph 5(4)(c) for the words "a judge of the High Court" substitute the words "the Court of Appeal".'
Page 93, line 25, leave out as it applies to Northern Ireland'
Schedule 5, page 82, line 36, at end insert—
'The Maintenance Orders Act 1950
In section 13(1) for the words "in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland" substitute the words in the prescribed manner".
In section 25(2) for the words from the beginning to "regulating" substitute the words "Rules made under section 23 of the Magistrates' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 may regulate".
In section 28(1) in the definition of "prescribed" for the words "by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland under this Act" substitute the words "under section 23 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964".'
Page 94, leave out lines 14 to 19.
Page 96, line 6, leave out from 'words' to end of line 8 and insert 'from "any such moneys" to "Northern Ireland)" substitute the words "money in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland".'.
Page 98, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 99.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 50 en bloc, by leave of the House. These Amendments are all either consequential on Amendments which the House has already agreed to or are simply drafting Amendments. In the latter category are Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47. And, consequential on those Amendments which will he taken later, are Amendments Nos. 63, 71, 74 and 72.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 51.]
Schedule 5, page 100, line 6, at end insert—
'The Juries Act (Northern Ireland) 1953
For sections 1 and 2 substitute—
" Payments to be made in respect of jury service.
1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who serves as a juror shall be entitled, in respect of his attendance at court for the purpose of performing jury service, to receive payments, at rates determined by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service and subject to any prescribed conditions, by way of allowance—

(a) for travelling and subsistence; and

(b) for financial loss, where in consequence of his attendance for that purpose he has incurred any expenditure (otherwise than on travelling and subsistence) to which he would not otherwise be subject or he has suffered any loss of earnings, or of benefit under the enactments relating to national insurance and social security, which he would otherwise have made or received.

(2) Subsection (1) shall apply to service on a coroner's jury.
(3) The determination of the amounts payable to persons under subsection (1) and the manner of making those payments shall be in accordance with arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor and all such payments shall be made out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
(4) In subsection (1) 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service; and for the purposes of that subsection a person who, in obedience to a summons to serve on a jury, attends for service as a juror shall be deemed to serve as a juror notwithstanding that he is not subsequently sworn.
(5) No person shall be entitled under any Act other than this Act or under any rule of law, custom or agreement to payment for his service as a juror."'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. With this Amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 78. These Amendments will alter the way in which certain fees, salaries and allowances payable to coroners and jurors are fixed.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 52.]
Schedule 5, page 101, line 26, at end insert—
'In section 2(3) for the words from "is a barrister-at-law" to the end substitute the words "has practised for not less than five years either as a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or as a solicitor of the Supreme Court".'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 52 makes textual amendment to the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, relating to the qualifications for appointment as a coroner. At present, that Act provides that barristers and solicitors of five years' standing who are practicing in Northern Ireland shall be eligible. This means that candidates have to be drawn from the ranks of practising barristers and solicitors. This rule has been abandoned, however, for all other judicial appointments because it precludes from appointment those who may have taken up other posts but who might be suitable.
This Amendment would, therefore, bring the position for coroners into line with that for all other judicial appointments by requiring that eligibility shall rest on having practised for the necessary period, but that it shall not be necessary for candidates to be in practice immediately before appointment. The need for this Amendment arises in part from the difficulty which has been experienced in finding suitable practitioners who are willing to undertake the duties of coroners in Northern Ireland, since although they arc part-time duties, they are burdensome and not very well remunerated. The question of remuneration is at present under review and it is hoped that, with the establishment of new Court Service, greater clerical assistance may be made available.
Before parting with this Amendment, I should like, as Lord Chancellor, to pay tribute to the work that the coroners have done and to the way that, with such modest remuneration, they have dealt with their sombre work in Northern Ireland.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 53 to 56.]
Schedule 5, page 101, line 32, leave out '26 and 27' and insert '11(3), 26. and 27(2)'
Schedule 5, page 101, line 32, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert—
'In section 36(1) for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
"(1) The Lord Chancellor may by rules—

279
(a) made after consultation with the Treasury, make provision with respect to the records, accounts and returns which the Lord Chancellor may require coroners to keep and submit to him and with respect to information to be supplied by coroners;".
For section 36(2) substitute—
"(2) The Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service determine—

(a) the salaries or fees and superannuation to be paid to coroners and to registered medical practitioners employed under section 27(2);

(b) the fees and allowances payable to persons assisting at post-mortem examinations;

(c) the allowances payable to witnesses under this Act.".'

Schedule 5, page 101, line 40, leave out '3' and insert '3(1)'
Schedule 5, Page 102, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 103.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 53 and 55 are drafting Amendments. Amendment No. 54 was taken with Amendment No. 51, and Amendment No. 56 was taken with Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 57.]
Schedule 5, page 104, leave out lines 49 to 51.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57, and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 81 at the same time. These Amendments are necessary because under the provisions of Clause 69 and associated repeals in other legislation the county court service will cease to exist as a separate entity. Section 138 also needs to be repealed because of the new provisions contained in Clause 116(4).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)
9.8 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 58.]
Schedule 5, page 108, line 16, at end insert—
'For section 3 substitute—
"Justices of the peace.
3. Justices of the peace shall be appointed in accordance with section 103 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978"
In section 6(1) for the words from "member of" to the end substitute the words "member of the Northern Ireland Court Service, notary public or commissioner for oaths".
In section 7 for the words from the beginning to "shall" substitute the words "A person appointed as a justice of the peace shall, except where he has already done so in connection with a former appointment,".'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. With this Amendment I will speak also to Amendment No. 85. Together, they make some textual changes to the Magistrates' Court (Northern Ireland) Act 1964. The most important of these relate to the provisions of that Act concerning justices of the peace.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 59.]
Schedule 5, page 108, line 18, at end insert 'and for the words "being eligible for appointment as resident magistrates" substitute the words "being persons who are eligible for appointment as, or have previously been, resident magistrates".'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. This Amendment makes a small but important textual alteration to Section 10 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, which is the provision governing the appointment of deputy resident magistrates. In order to ensure the continuing prompt despatch of business in magistrates' courts, it is necessary to have an adequate number of persons who can be invited to act as deputies when the need arises. Under Section 10 at present only persons who are eligible for permanent appointment as resident magistrates are eligible for appointment as deputies and this Amendment will enable retired resident magistrates to be appointed and thus brings the position into line with the provisions of the Bill relating to the appointment of deputy county court judges and the appointment of persons to assist in the transaction of the business in the High Court.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
9.10 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 60 and 61.]
Schedule 5, page 109, line 18, at end insert—
'For section 30 substitute—
"Clerks of petty sessions.
30. References in this Act to clerks of petty sessions are references to the persons appointed as such by the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of his power under section 69 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and include references to persons appointed under that power as assistant or deputy clerks of petty sessions.".'
Schedule 5, page 109, line 38, at end insert 'and in subsection (8) for the words in brackets substitute the words "(other than a member of the Northern Ireland Court Service) ".'
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. These are both drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 62.]
Schedule 5, page 110, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—
'In section 150(1) and (2) for the words from "to the clerk of petty sessions" to the end substitute, in each case, the words "to such member of the Northern Ireland Court Service as the Lord Chancellor may designate and such person shall forthwith give notice to the other party to the appeal".'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62. It may be convenient to deal also with Amendment No. 87. They make certain changes to Sections 150 to 152 of the Magistrates' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, and are primarily concerned with procedural matters. These Amendments arise out of the creation of a new court service and the desirability of maintaining flexibility of functions of different officers within that service.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 63.]
Schedule 5, page 112, line 13, at end insert—
'In section 65(2) for the words from the beginning to "to be held" substitute the words "Directions given by the Lord Chancellor under section 21(3) of the Magistrates' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 1964".'
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. This Amendment was taken with Amendment No. 35.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 64.]
Schedule 5, page 112, line 30, at end insert—
'In section 178, as originally enacted, for the word "Ministry" where it twice occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 1(2) for the words "Governor" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

(b) in paragraphs 1(3) and 8 for the word "Ministry" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

(c) at the end of paragraph 1(4) add the words "by regulations made under paragraph 8";

(d) in paragraph 2(2) for the words from "who" to the end substitute the words "who has taken the said oaths after a previous appointment as a member of any such panel or who has taken the said oaths as required by section 7 of the Magistrates Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964";

(e) in paragraph 6 for the words "The Ministry may pay" substitute the words "The Lord Chancellor may, out of money provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, pay" and for the words from "Ministry may determine" to the end substitute the words "Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine";

(f) at the end of paragraph 8 add—

"(d) be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instrument Act 1946 shall apply accordingly".'

Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.

283
I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 92, 93 and 94. These Amendments recognise that the responsibility for the holding of juvenile courts contained in Schedule 2 will transfer to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 65.]
Schedule 5, page 112, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 113 and insert—
'In section 1 for subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor may by order apply this Act, with such modifications as the circumstances may require, to any judgment or award of any court or tribunal given or made or having effect or capable of being made effective in Northern Ireland.
(4) An order under subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.".
For section 3 substitute—
The Enforcement of Judgments Office.
3.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall maintain within the Northern Ireland Court Service an office to be called the Enforcement of Judgments Office (in this Act referred to as 'the Office') by or through which, subject to the provisions of this Act, all judgments to which this Act applies shall be enforced.
(2) The functions of the Office shall, subject to and in accordance with rules and with directions given by the Lord Chancellor, be exercisable by—

(a) the Master;

(b) a Judicial Officer; and

(c) the Chief Enforcement Officer or any other member of the Northern Ireland Court Service.

(3) In this section and in the following provisions of this Act—

(a) 'the Master' and 'Judicial Officer mean, respectively, the Master (Enforcement of Judgments) and a Judicial Officer (Enforcement of Judgments) appointed under section 70 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978;

(b) 'the Chief Enforcement Officer' means such officer of the Northern Ireland Court Service as the Lord Chancellor may designate for the purposes of this Act".

In section 12 for the words "be deemed to be court records" substitute the words "be preserved in such manner and for such period as the Lord Chancellor may direct".
In sections 14(1)(b), 22, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 95 for the words "a designated officer" wherever they occur substitute the words "the Office".
In sections 19(1), 22(a), 26(1), 34(b), 40, 97 and 108(2) for the word "regulations" wherever it occurs substitute the word "rules".
In section 40(3) for the words "fees in accordance with a schedule of fees" substitute the word "charges".
In section 105 at the beginning of paragraph (c) insert the words "except as provided by rules".
In section 116(2) for the words "a judge of the High Court" substitute the words "the Court of Appeal".
For section 117 substitute—
"Judgment Enforcement Rules.
117.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules, to be known as 'Judgment Enforcement Rules', for the purpose of regulating the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the Office by this Act or on the Master by the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and generally for carrying both Acts into effect.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) Judgment Enforcement Rules may—

(a) provide for regulating and prescribing the procedure and practice to be followed in proceedings before the Office, including the manner in which, the time within which and the conditions on which any proceedings may or are to be taken;

(b) provide for regulating any matters relating to the costs of proceedings before the Office;

(c) make provisions as to proceedings by the Crown;

(d) prescribe or fix anything which under this Act may or is to be so prescribed or fixed;

(e) amend or repeal any statutory provision passed before the commencement of this Act so far as may be necessary or expedient in consequence of provisions made by the rules.

(3) Judgment Enforcement Rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.
(4) Judgment Enforcement Rules which may involve an increase in expenditure out of public funds shall not be made except with the concurrence of the Treasury; but the validity of any rules so made shall not, in any proceedings in any court or in the Office, be called in question either by the court, the Office or any party to the proceedings on the ground only that the Treasury did not concur or are not expressed to have concurred in the making of the rule.".'
For section 120 substitute—
"Financial provision.
120. All expenses of and incidental to the operation of this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom,".'
In section 128(1) for the words "and any rules of court, rules or regulations made thereunder" substitute the words ", rules made thereunder and rules of court".
In section 129(1)—

(a) in the definition of "enforcement officer" for the words from "senior" to the end substitute the words "other officers of the Northern Ireland Court Service designated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act;

(b) in the definition of "the Master" for the words "section 5(2)" substitute the words "section 3(3)(a)";

(c) in the definition of "rules" for the words from "rules made" to the end substitute the words "Judgment Enforcement Rules made under section 117".

In Part II of Schedule 4 in the amendment to the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act 1857 for the word "regulations" substitute the word "rules".'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90.
This pair of Amendments represents the completion of the process, which has been largely carried out in your Lordships' House, of transferring responsibility for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor. The Enforcement of Judgments Office was the one part of the court system in Northern Ireland with which there was no time to deal before the Bill left this House.
These lengthy Amendments, Nos. 65 and 90, deal with the control and finances of the Enforcement of Judgments Office. The effect of these Amendments is to replace the provisions concerned by much simpler ones, putting the Enforcement of Judgments Office on the same footing as other parts of the Court Service. The new Section 3(1) also provides in the interests of flexibility for the Lord Chancellor to provide by rules how the functions of the Office are to be allocated.
I hope to be able to set up consultative arrangements in Northern Ireland which will ensure that the. point of view of users is always fully taken into account. I have reason to believe that the Bill's aims are very acceptable to those in
286
Northern Ireland who are interested in the Office, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 66.]
Schedule 5, page 114, leave out lines 8 to 17 and insert—
'In section 3 for the words "rules made under section 13" substitute the words "Judgment Enforcement Rules".
In section 9(3) for the words "a Judge of the High Court" substitute the words "the Court of Appeal".
In section 9(4) for the words "Judge of the High Court" substitute the words "High Court or the Court of Appeal".
In section 16(1) —

(a) in the definition of "appropriate authority" for the words "Minister of Home Affairs" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

(b) in the definition of "Master" for the words "for the enforcement of judgments' substitute the words "(Enforcement of Judgments)" and for the words "designated officer" substitute the words "Judicial Officer (Enforcement of Judgments)".'

The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66. This Amendment makes changes to the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 which are all consequential on changes made elsewhere in the Bill but the 1971 Act is not changed in any substantive way.
Moved That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 67 to 96.]
Schedule 5, page 114, line 33, at end insert—
'The Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1974
In Article 2(2) for the definition of "the Juries Officer" substitute the following definitions—
"division" means a county court division within the meaning of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;
"the Juries Officer" in relation to a division means such officer of the Northern Ireland Court Services as the Lord Chancellor may designate to be the Juries Officer for that division.
In Article 4(2) for the words from the beginning to "area who" substitute the words "The Chief Electoral Officer shall arrange to be sent to the Juries Officer for each division a list of those persons selected who reside in the division and the Juries Officer".
In Article 4(3)(b), (6) (where it first occurs) and (9)(c) and Article 5(3) for the word "area" substitute the word "division".
In Articles 4(4) and (5) for the words "Area Provisional Jurors List" substitute the words "list referred to in paragraph (2)".
In Articles 4(5), (6) and (7) and 5(3) and (4) for the word "Area" wherever it occurs substitute the word "Divisional".
In Schedule 2—
(a) at the end of the entry relating to officers of the Northern Ireland Office add the words "and officers of the Lord Chancellor's Office certified by the Lord Chancellor to be so engaged";
(b) after that entry insert—
"Members of the Northern Ireland Court Service.";
(c) after the entry relating to members and staff of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland insert—
"Members and staff of the Police Complaints Board for Northern Ireland";
(d) after the entry relating to persons in the Northern Ireland Civil Service insert—
"The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and persons appointed to assist him.".'
Page 115, line 30, at end insert—
'The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
In Articles 5, 6(2) and 8(3) for the words "county court or of the High Court" substitute the words "Crown Court".
In Articles 6(4) and 7(2) for the words "Court of Criminal Appeal" wherever they occur substitute the words "Court of Appeal".'
Schedule 6, page 119, line 35, at end insert 'and shall not, in relation to any such person, have power to make any such direction as is referred to in section 71(4)'.
Schedule 7, page 120, line 53, column 3, leave out "4" and insert "14".
Page 123, line 49, at end insert—
"Section 112."
Page 126, line 25, at end insert—

'14 Geo. 6c. 37.

The Maintenance Orders Act 1950.'

Section 13(2).

Schedule 7, page 126, line 52, after 'sections' insert '30,'
Schedule 7, page 128, line 8, at end insert—

'1977c. 38.

The Administration of Justice Act 1977.

In Part III of Schedule 2, paragraph 12.'

Schedule 7, page 129, line 13, at end insert—

'14 & 15 Geo. 5c 21 (N.I.)

The Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924.

Section 7(1)(c).'

Schedule 7, page 129, line 45, at end insert—

'4 & 5 Geo.6c. 9 (N.I.)

The Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act (Northern Ireland) 1940.

Section 4(3).'

Schedule 7, page 130, line 15 leave out 'In section 21(6)' and insert—
'In section 21—

(a) in subsection (1) the word "fees";

(b) in subsection (2), paragraph (b);

(c) in subsection (6)'

Schedule 7, page 130, line 41, column 3, leave out Section 36(2)'
Schedule 7, page 130, leave out line 43 and insert "appointed day," "council," "county," "maintenance and equipment," "Ministry" and "Minister".'
Schedule 7, page 131, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 12 and insert—

'Section 98.

Section 99(3).

Sections 100 and 101.'

Schedule 7, page 131, leave out line 21 and insert—

'Section 137(b) and (c).

Section 138.'

Schedule 7, page 131, line 34, after (c)' insert 'and (e)(ii).
In section 148 the words from "and all orders as to fees" to "as to costs or fees" and the words "costs and fees".'
Schedule 7, page 131, line 39, at end insert 'and in the definition of "prescribed" the words "or by regulations made under subsection (10) of section one hundred and eight,".'
Schedule 7, page 131, leave out line 41, and insert—
'Schedules 1 and 3.'
Schedule 7, page 132, column 3, leave out line 8 and insert—
'Sections 4 and 5.
In section 7 the words from "so, however, that" to the end.
Section 8.
In section 13(2) the words ", subject to section 3(4),".'
Schedule 7, page 132, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert—
'In section 23—

(a) subsection (3);

(b) in subsection (7) the words "or (3)" and "and fees";

(c) subsections (8) and (9).

In section 24(a) the word "fees".
In section 25(1) the words "of the Ministry".
Section 25(3).
In section 26(1) the words "and fees".'
Schedule 7, page 132, line 28, at end insert—
'Section 151.
In section 152(1)(b) the words beginning to "section 151(3)".'
Schedule 7, page 132, line 34, at end insert—
'In Schedule 6, the entries relating to the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 1947, the National Assistance Act (Northern Ireland) 1948 and the Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1955.'
Schedule 7, page 132, line 47, at end insert—

'1968 c. 6 (N.I.)

The Insurance Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.

Section 55(2). So much of Schedule 5 as relates to section 7(l)(c) of the Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924.'

Schedule 7, page 133, column 3, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—
'Sections 5 to 7.
In section 18 the words "fixed by regulations".
In section 19(1) the words "so fixed".
Section 30.
In section 40(3) the words "and approved by the Ministry of Finance".
In section 43(4)(a) the words "a judge of".
In section 52(1)(b) the words "a judge of" and "judge or".
In sections 52(3), 56(2) and 70(2) the words "a judge of".
Section 62(c).
In section 91 the words "a judge of" where they twice occur and the words "judge or".
In sections 92(1) and 94 the words "a judge of".
In section 113(1) the words "appointed under section 3(2)".
In section 114(1) the words "or regulations".
In section 116(1) the words "a judge of".
Sections 118 and 119.
In section 129(1)—

(a) in the definition of "court" the words "a judge of";

(b) the definitions of "the Minister", "the Ministry" and "regulations".

Section 133(2).'
Schedule 7, page 133, line 27, at end insert—

'1970 c. 2 (N.I.).

The Road Traffic Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

Section 87(2).

1971 c. 30 (N.I.).

The Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

In section 9(2) the words "a judge of". Section 13(1). Section 14.

In section 17(1) and (2) the words "subject to subsection (3)" Section 17(3).'.

Schedule 7, page 134, line 13, after '1964' insert ', Schedule 2 to the children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968'
Schedule 7, page 134, line 22, leave out from '1959' to end of line 24 and insert', the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968'.
Schedule 7, page 134, line 39, after '49' insert ',57(d)'
Schedule 7, page 134, line 48, at end insert—

'S.I. 1975/1503 (N.I. 15).

The Social Security pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1975.

In Schedule 5, paragraph 4.

Schedule 7, page 134, line 57, at end insert—

'S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18).

The Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.

In Schedule 1, paragraph 4.'

Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 67 to 96 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 70, 77, 79, 82, 83, 86, 88, 91, 95 and 96 make purely consequential drafting or minor technical changes to the Bill and the remaining Amendments are consequential on Amendments already accepted by your Lordships' House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Melchett.)

COMMUNITY SERVICE BY OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
9.14 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be low read a second time. This short Bill makes community service orders available to Scottish Courts. This means that where a court can now send an offender to prison it will in future be able to order him to do between 40 and 240 hours of unpaid work for the benefit of the community. The work will be supervised by the local authority social work department for the area in which the offender lives. The Bill, in extending the range of sentencing powers available to the

291
courts, has been welcomed among those concerned with criminal justice in Scotland and had a favourable reception in another place. The Government are encouraged by the considerable interest that has already been shown in developing community service in Scotland as a further option open to the courts to use in appropriate cases.
Community service has much to recommend it. It is a substantial punishment in its own right. Considerable effort, and indeed a considerable deprivation of liberty, are involved in doing, say, 120 hours of work and it should be made clear that the Government do not regard community service as an "easy option". We see community service as a useful and beneficial alternative to imprisonment. It is likely to have the side-effect of relieving slightly the severe pressure on our Scottish prisons; it is likely to prove cheaper overall than prison; and it should certainly be more constructive in terms of both the work that is being done and the effect on the offender. It has the great advantage of allowing offenders to continue in their job and to remain with, and support, their families. There is also an element of reparation to the community which will benefit from the work undertaken by offenders.
As your Lordships may be aware, pilot community service schemes have already been started in parts of four Scottish regions (Grampian, Tayside, Strathclyde and Lothian) on the basis of community service attached as a requirement to a probation order. While it is too early to assess in detail the working of these schemes, I should like to express the Government's appreciation of the work that has been done in getting these schemes going. So far—that is, up to the end of May—132 offenders have been ordered to do community service in Scotland under the present schemes. Around half the cases involved work of between 100 and 140 hours and more than half the offenders concerned were aged between 16 and 20.
We envisage that community service schemes will be extended throughout Scotland over the next five years or so as resources and experienced staff become available. Initially local authorities will receive specific grants towards the expenditure
292
they incur on community service schemes, and when schemes are in operation throughout Scotland the expenditure involved will be relevant for rate support grant purposes. The detailed arrangements are at present the subject of discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We estimate that expenditure on the schemes will rise progressively over the next five years to around £500,000 per annum but, to avoid possible misunderstanding, I should emphasise that that figure is an estimate, not a limit. In drawing up the Bill, we have had the benefit of some experience of the pilot schemes in Scotland as well as the longer-established schemes in England and Wales. The result is a short Bill of 14 clauses, of which four are purely technical. The Bill establishes community service orders as a disposal in their own right and sets out a more formal framework for community service as a condition of probation.
Clause 1 gives a court power to make a community service order—involving between 40 and 240 hours work—on an offender of 16 years of age or over, who has been convicted of an imprisonable offence. Clause 1 also provides that an order cannot be made without the offender's consent and unless the court has satisfied itself that the offender is a suitable person to do work and that work is available. Clause 2 deals with the details of the contents of an order and who is to be served with a copy of it, as well as with the arrangements for the exceptional case of a person subject to more than one order. It also provides that the local authority are to appoint an officer—usually a member of the social work department—to supervise the implementation of the order.
Clause 3 obliges an offender to keep in touch with that officer and tell him of any change of address or employment. Clause 4 sets out what happens when an offender does not do the work. The appropriate court, to which the supervising officer should refer the case, has three choices. It can fine the offender up to £50 and continue the order; vary the number of hours in the order; or revoke the order and sentence the offender again for the original offence. Since community service orders can be imposed only in respect of imprisonable offences, imprisonment will always be available on breach of a community service order and this is seen as an effective discouragement against

293
the offender's breaching the order. Clause 5 gives the court power to change an order if circumstances warrant it; for example, if the offender is found guilty and imprisoned for a quite separate offence, or if his health breaks down. Clause 6 and Schedule I deal with offenders who come before Scottish courts, but live in England or Wales.
I said earlier that the present pilot schemes worked on the basis of attaching a community service condition to a probation order. We recognise that this is an appropriate alternative to a simple community service order in certain cases where a greater degree of supervision is required, perhaps over a longer period, and, for reasons of maximum flexibility, we propose to continue to have this option available to the courts. Clause 7 therefore, clarifies the law in this area and applies most of the provisions of the Bill relating to community service orders proper to requirements of probation orders also. Clause 8 provides that community service is to be available for breach of probation, and Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State power to make specific grants to local authorities running community service schemes. Clause 10 is a rule-making provision, and the remaining clauses and Schedule 2 are purely technical.
This is a short Bill introducing a desirable and sensible power which has already been widely welcomed. I hope that it will enjoy the support of noble Lords on all sides of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
9.22 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure that the House will welcome this Bill as a comparatively modest measure. I say "modest", because I believe that the Government were minded to introduce a much more far-reaching Bill so far as Scottish criminal procedures were concerned, but, in fact, have not done so through lack of Parliamentary time. This, I think, is a pity and I say that for two reasons.
I believe that a thorough review of the powers of the Scottish courts is necessary; first, because, as is well-known, Scotland,
294
proportionately speaking, has a very high gaol population and any measure which will, or even may, reduce the numbers in prison is to be welcomed. Moreover, the more avenues which are open to the courts when dealing with offenders, the better the outcome is likely to be, both from the point of view of the public interest and that of the offender himself.
Secondly, the courts in Scotland—and one has to say this—are lagging behind those in England, so far as sentencing is concerned. I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of what is now the Criminal Justice Act 1972, when the concept of community service was introduced into the English legal system. When it is realised that in Scotland there is not even power to suspend sentences, it will be seen how far apart are the two systems of criminal justice.
I would not for one moment be taken to think that there should be any slavish adoption of all English reforms by the Scottish courts, and certainly that should not be imposed on the Scottish legal system. Nevertheless, I believe that sentencing procedures at the two ends of this moderately sized island should be reasonably in step. So I am certainly pleased, and indeed mildly surprised, that this Bill has been introduced by the Government at this moment in time, when it would have been possible to excuse complete inaction on the part of the Government by saying that this was a measure which could safely be left to the Scottish Assembly when it began to deliberate.
The aim of the Government, if I may put it in this way, is to save an offender from prison, by substituting an order requiring him to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the community instead of a prison sentence. That is the idea behind the Bill, and I do not suppose that anybody would quarrel with the motive. Equally, the idea of this form of reparation by an offender is attractive, even if it will not, I daresay, have a very profound effect on criminal statistics. The Home Office Research Study No. 39 shows that reconvictions of offenders subject to community service orders are fairly high and. indeed, can be higher than reconvictions of offenders dealt with by other means and made the subject of comparison. However, I do not believe that the experiment

295
has been tried for a long enough period or on a large enough scale to show convincing results so far. Therefore, while we on these Benches support the Government so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, there are a number of features contained in it which lead one to believe that to some degree, perhaps, it has not been sufficiently thought through.
I had deliberated whether, bearing in mind the calendar, I should invite the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to pronounce upon one or two difficulties which I have and one or two misconceptions which there may be about the Bill in order to either shorten or almost cut out the Committee stage. On reflection, however, I do not think that that exercise would be very useful if for no other reason than that the noble Lord will not, I dare say, be armed to answer such questions. Nevertheless, there are a couple of matters which I should like to put to the noble Lord because I believe that they go to the root of the Bill and, although Committee points, are almost matters of principle.
In the other place, the Minister who introduced the Bill spoke in glowing terms of making the punishment, and I quote:
"fit the crime".
This is something about which I am very enthusiastic. What better punishment could there be than to impose just that? However, I wonder whether that is what the Bill provides. One can see it in Clause 1(2)(b). If a young hooligan, to take an example, going to or from a football match sprays paint upon a wall, it is splendid, to my way of thinking, that he should be required not only to scrub it off but to do similar work which might improve the appearance of the area generally. To take another example, if the driver of a car is drunk in charge of it, in appropriate cases what better punishment could there be than that he should be made to do cleaning work in the wards of a local hospital to which road casualties are admitted, many of them crippled or at least gravely injured? The Bill, however, is silent about this.
When the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether he could say a little more about the type of community service which is likely to be made available. For instance, I think that the question comes down to
296
this: Would "a locality"—that is how it is described in the Bill—have a number of largish projects to which offenders who had become the subject of community service orders would be allocated, or would the work be tailored to the individual offender, so far as resources permitted?
Turning to the subject of resources, of course it seems that community service orders will be of little or no use and, indeed, will become the subject of derision unless they are properly and effectively carried out and supervised, and this itself cannot be done unless the social work departments have the necessary qualified and dedicated staff who are in a position to supervise and administer the orders. It seems to me that the amount of money which the noble Lord says will be spent upon this scheme must be comparatively modest unless Government thinking is that the social work departments are able, as things stand, to take on board a certain amount of extra work. For myself, I do not believe that they can.
This brings me to my last point at this stage. May I ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention that further areas will be brought into the scheme as and when resources allow, or whether community service orders are to be brought in throughout Scotland as and when the various social work departments can bring some kind of scheme to fruition which will, as it were, admit the offenders. One should not forget that it is not only Sheriff Courts which will be entitled to make these orders but district courts as well. So once, as it were, the button is pressed and courts are invited to make these orders I have little doubt from my own experience that they will, at least at first, enthusiastically adopt this method of dealing with offenders and unless the Government have thought the matter out there will be considerable disappointment when in fact in many localities no suitable schemes for the offenders to—if I may use the phrase—indulge in, are to hand.
These are matters which no doubt we may consider in Committee. For the moment at least one gives a welcome to this Bill. To me—and, apart from my position on this Bench, I speak also as president of the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—it is a very welcome measure of penal reform.
9.31 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, in welcoming this Bill from these Benches I can perhaps best describe my attitude to it by telling you one of the murkier stories of my past. At school when I was caught offending against the rules in class 1 was on one occasion sentenced by my master to paint him a picture. I put every effort I could into painting him a view from my bedroom window across the rooftops and showing him the outlook. He was pleased with it; in fact he was so pleased with it that he hung it in his study and kept it for many years. Years later when my son went to the school that same master presented him with that piece of community service which I had done for him years before. My son brought it home and we now have it in the house.
The point of the story really lies in the attitude which this engendered in me and which I can now describe to your Lordships. As a result of that imaginative punishment, so different from the Georgic or the 1,000 lines or whatever I should otherwise have had imposed upon me, I became probably one of the most cooperative pupils that that master ever had in his class. I certainly gained a new insight into people's reactions to punishment and to the imposition of authority and gained a new approach to the demands of authority.
It is that aspect of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Bill which attracts me most. The idea is that there should be put at the disposal of the courts a sentence which could perhaps lead to rehabilitation, at least to a reconciliation between the offender and the community. It is a sentence which gives the offender a chance to think again; a sentence which gives the offender a chance to do something constructive which at the same time reminds him of his offence while doing it.
I do not go along entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in trying to make the punishment fit the crime. I would hope that in using this sentence the courts in Scotland would avoid rigidly trying to make the punishment fit the crime but rather that they would try to make the punishment fit the offender. In this sense, I note the provision within the Bill
298
that the consent of the offender is necessary in order to impose this particular sentence. That is very important because unless this particular kind of sentence is used with the consent and understanding of the offender it will have very little extra beneficial effect upon him and upon the community.
I think one should beware of using it as a means of restitution to the people who have been damaged. I think one should consider it as a very useful alternative to other forms of sentence with rehabilitation in mind, rather than with the idea of restitution or punishment. Therefore, I do merely say at this point that while welcoming the provisions of this Bill I hope that it will be ensured that they are imaginatively implemented and that they will be used more with the idea of the rehabilitation of the offender and the prevention of recidivism rather than with the idea of punishment and making the punishment fit the crime.
9.36 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a few moments only. As this Bill gives Scotland what we already have in England, one or two points which have become apparent in relation to the English experience of community service might be of use in connection with the Scottish Bill. It is particularly interesting so far as I am concerned because there have been community workers in my own county of Cleveland, and furthermore, working where I have been able to see them. In my view, this scheme is a very good thing because it does save money; otherwise these offenders would be put into prison at great cost. It is a useful addition to the punitive system and it also provides some restitution to the society which they have often robbed. But it must not be thought that this will stop people offending or that it is a great cure. Indeed, some 20 per cent. have failed to continue with their community service and have got back into court. Some 60 per cent. have completed their service, and some 20 per cent. have found some benefit. Of these, some have managed to acquire the work habit and have been able to undertake jobs which they would not otherwise have done. One peculiar thing which I am informed about—I am not quite sure whether it is correct and perhaps the

299
noble Lord can tell me—is that if a lad has probation and he then breaches that probation by another crime that is an offence, and yet if he is given community service and breaches that that is not an offence. If that is a fact, it is a slight anomaly.
Another factor which has appeared is that the 40 hours which is awarded is too short; it is a period which does not appear to bite with offenders, and it is not adequately punitive. But, at the other end of the scale, 240 hours has proved to be too long and has appeared in the eyes of those who have been awarded it unachievable. It has been suggested that a more realistic period would be in the bracket between 80 and 200 hours.
Finally there is the problem of performance. It is perfectly clear that where these boys go out into the country—I can think of one job where they were burning up derelict woodland—they are extremely difficult to control; in practice what they had was a nice day out lying in the sun as soon as the supervisor had his back turned. It is obviously necessary that not only should they turn up on time—and if they do not they can be awarded further days—but that some way should be found to ensure that they actually do work and not just lie in the sun as soon as the supervisor has gone, or alternatively that the job has to be done before they are allowed to leave.
I should like to finish by saying how intrigued I was by Lord Mansfield's reference to appropriate forms of punishment, which has always appealed to me. It does remind me of the doggerel of Gilbert and Sullivan:
"If anyone spots the billiard sharp His doom is extremely hard.
He's made to dwell in a dungeon cell On a spot that's always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches in fitless finger stalls,
On a cloth untrue with a twisted cue and elliptical billiard balls".
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I detect—indeed I more than detect, I am completely aware of—a generous welcome from all sides of the House for this short Bill. I was particularly impressed by the imaginative contribution by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I should like to tell him how much I agree with his
300
observations as they relate to the question of whether the punishment should fit the crime, or rather the offender. I entirely take this point. I noted with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough said and remark that I was greatly impressed by his poetic ending.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has asked me one or two specific questions to which I shall attempt to respond at this stage. He expressed concern about the fact that the Bill is not so comprehensive as it might have been, although he was free in his acknowledgment that the Government have been purposeful in bringing what is albeit a short Bill at this time. As he will probably know, my right honourable friend said in a written Answer in another place on 20th April that the Government regret that it has been necessary to defer, on account of lack of legislative time, our proposed Bill on a number of matters in the field of criminal justice and criminal procedure. Noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot be any more definite about when the Bill will be introduced than to say that we intend that it should be as soon as possible.
The noble Earl was concerned about the need for the punishment to fit the crime, or so I understood him to say. He wondered whether the community service order would be appropriate for football hooligans, for example. I can tell him that it will certainly be available for football hooligans or vandals when they commit offences punishable by imprisonment. Whether it is used in any individual case is a question for the court which considers the case to decide. It is up to the court to say whether the circumstances of an offence and the character of an offender make a case an appropriate one for the use of community service.
The noble Earl also expressed a measure of concern about the financial arrangements proposed. He indicated that resources, are perhaps, contrained and questioned whether there were enough qualified staff. I can respond immediately by saying that it is obviously a question of priorities and there are many pressures on social work departments, which is again a fairly obvious statement to make. However, community service will be introduced in different areas as resources and staff become available, and I can give the noble Earl that assurance.

301
In the Government's view, a gradual expansion is necessary as too rapid growth would perhaps be undesirable. But, in our discussions with local authorities, it has become clear to the Government that the local authorities are keen to establish schemes as soon as they can. The noble Earl also asked whether work would be tailored to the individual offender, or a phrase of that kind was certainly used. I can say that it is up to the social work department concerned to arrange for the offender to undertake suitable work. The work will vary in nature and the social work department will take into account the circumstances of the case and of the offender when allocating the offender to a particular task.
Finally, the noble Earl asked me about the availability of suitable work. I am advised that through the co-operation of voluntary bodies and other organisations a wide range of jobs is available in each area where community service has been introduced. There has been no problem in this respect so far, and the Government do not envisage a future problem as likely to emerge in that regard.
This is a small but, in my view, a most useful Bill which will provide the courts with an additional form of sentence. I should stress that we are not making grandiose claims about the effectiveness of community service in achieving rehabilitation or preventing recidivism. This new disposal is, above all, an alternative to imprisonment. It also has the virtue of benefiting the community. The Government are confident that the courts
302
will use this option with their customary discretion and that in due course community service will become well-established as an effective addition to their present sentencing powers.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  GUATEMALA: MASSACRE
  GUATEMALA: MASSACRE