Sitting of 19 December 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Fishermen's Federation
    Mr. Mylesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet next the chairman of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I met representatives of the fishing industry, including the president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, on 29 November to discuss progress towards a settlement of the common fisheries policy and again during the Council of Ministers on 3 December. Arrangements will be made to meet the industry again before the next Council takes place.
    Mr. Myles: If the hoped-for discussions with the chairman of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation take place soon, will my right hon. Friend consider declaring a moratorium on interest on White Fish Authority loans? Will he bear in mind the ever-increasing costs that are borne by the fishermen and that the money that those fishermen get decreases with the ever-decreasing quotas and the effect of imports?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If that was a brief question, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Younger: That is not a proposal that we have considered so far. There would be difficulties in making an exception for interest rates on such a matter. I am conscious of the difficulties that the
    600
    fishing industry faces because of rising costs, and we shall certainly take all these points into account.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that at a time when the ban on herring fishing in the North Sea costs the industry thousands of pounds—albeit rightly—there is deep anxiety and anger at the evidence that French fishermen are landing herring caught in the North Sea, in French ports? Do the Government accept that that is happening, and, if so, will they do something about it?
    Mr. Younger: We do all that we can to investigate every case that is reported to us. As I have said before at Question Time, prosecution has been brought on at least one occasion. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall investigate very seriously every example that we hear of.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the Secretary of State tell us something about the limitations on mackerel fishing and whether they were agreed with the fishermen's associations?
    Mr. Younger: The announcement made this week was a warning that we shall have to do something, because the catching capacity of the fleet is increasing while stocks are depleting. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not make any detailed arrangements without first consulting the fishing industry.
    Mr. McQuarrie: I had intended to ask the question posed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] My question would have been the same as that asked by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged. There was a detailed debate on the subject last night, and it will come up again.

    Health Boards
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects next to meet chairmen of health boards in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): I met the chairmen of health boards in Scotland on 13 November. No arrangements have been made for a further meeting. The

    601
    next regular meeting between chairmen and officers of my Department will take place on 11 March 1980.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman have an urgent meeting with the chairman of the Grampian health board in order to investigate the report that the health board has had to stop open-heart surgery? Otherwise, many emergency patients will have to go to Glasgow or to London to have their operations. Is it not totally unfair that the board should bear the opprobrium of having to stop that kind of surgery, since that responsibility belongs to his Department? If anyone dies, it will be the hon. Gentleman's responsibility.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I am aware of that problem, and it has many ramifications. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have further details, I shall be delighted to give him a detailed reply.
    Mr. Pollock: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Grampian health board, will he impress upon him the need to ensure that there is adequate provision at local level for maternity cases and for the mentally handicapped? The present policy of the board seems designed to concentrate such help in large centres of population.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: As my hon. Friend knows, I was in Duff town last weekend to discuss this problem. In the light of those discussions I shall be considering the matter further.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Minister met the chairmen of the health boards, did he discuss with them the mean and nasty little cuts that he has made in the ambulance services in Scotland, whereby out-patients at physiotherapy departments will not be carried if they can walk, walking-out patients will not be carried and limitations have been placed on hours of attendance? Does he agree that despite constant denials that there will be no cuts, there have been those cuts in the Health Service in Scotland?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been no cuts in the ambulance service, and certainly no mean and nasty cuts. However, in the interests of public expenditure we have asked that where people can easily get to hospital without an ambulance—and
    602
    their doctors say that they can get to hospital without an ambulance—they should do so.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that 17 part-time chairmen of health boards and two full-time members of the Scottish Health and Welfare Commission are costing approximately £69,000 per annum? Will he investigate that high cost with a view to reducing it and thus helping to reduce public expenditure?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Naturally, I wish to help to reduce public expenditure. However, if my hon. Friend takes the figure that he has mentioned and divides it by the number of people concerned he will see that we are getting a good service. I greatly value the work that these health board chairmen do. They are called part-time, but some of them work almost full-time.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the appalling ignorance on the part of the Minister of what is happening in his constituency—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a formula that hon. Members use when giving notice of their intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

    National Health Service (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the structure of the National Health Service in Scotland.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: My right hon. Friend's proposals for changes were set out in a consultative paper "Structure and Management of the NHS in Scotland" published on 11 December.
    Mr. Adams: Against the background of the Minister's recent public statement as reported in The Scotsman, will he tell the House precisely with what he intends to replace the structure of the National Health Service in Scotland and when? Does he agree that his utterances as reported in The Scotsman do nothing for the confidence of the health boards or the people working in the Health Service? Does he further agree that the only solution to the problems of the Health Service in Scotland is a massive increase in public expenditure?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: My right hon. Friend's consultative document, which was reported in The Scotsman, asks for replies by 30 April. It is clearly a consultative document, and we are asking for opinions from all concerned. I am sure that we shall get sensible opinions and achieve a more efficient Health Service at the end of the day.
    Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are too many administrators and paper-pushers in the National Health Service in Scotland? Will he confirm that he is taking steps to restore the balance between administrators and medically qualified staff, to the benefit of the patients, for whom the Service is there?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I hope that that fact will come out in the observations that I receive. Our intention is to get the effort to the sharp end of the Service, and that is why we have suggested, for example, that those concerned look at the role of districts and health councils.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Can the Minister recall who was responsible for the reorganisation of the Health Service which is coming in for so much criticism?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that there was no reorganisation in Scotland of the type that he is suggesting.
    Mr. Peter Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the waiting list for orthopaedic patients in Scotland, which dramatically increased during the industrial troubles of last winter, has not yet been seriously reduced? In any reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland, will he do all that he can to ensure that the effort is directed to making sure that people with painful conditions get the treatment that they need?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Regrettably, I accept that that is the position, and we shall do everything that we can to prevent its occurring again.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that although his consultative document was published last Tuesday the first sight that hon. Members had of it was when 25 copies were placed in the Library last Friday afternoon? The
    604
    Vote Office still has no supplies of that document available for hon. Members, and I checked on that before I came into the Chamber. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is scandalous? When will the Government decide to run the country through Parliament and not through press releases in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Fairgrieve: The adjective "scandalous" should be applied to more serious matters. My Department regrets very much that these 25 copies were not in the Library sooner, and I shall take steps to see that that sort of thing does not happen again. However, there is no question of a consultative document of that nature being put in the Vote Office.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current situation in the fishing industry.
    Mr. Younger: I am aware that the fishing industry faces many problems as a result of rising costs and the decline in many of the more important fish stocks. The current uncertainties in the industry can best be removed by a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy and the Government are working urgently to that end.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Aberdeen should be treated in the same way as Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood, which last year were given £l·2 million? Will he confirm that those three ports have now put in for further aid and that it would be monstrous if they received two grants of aid and Aberdeen received none?
    Mr. Younger: I shall certainly look into the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, the district council and the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners Association have made a preliminary request for aid, and I understand that they are following that up with a memorandum. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider that memorandum most urgently when I receive it.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: When did the right hon. Gentleman abandon the Government's policy that industries must sustain themselves without subsidy?
    Mr. Younger: I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but the Government have abandoned no policies.
    Mr. John MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend realise that fishermen on the Clyde have conserved their fish stocks, especially herring, very well over the years, and that any policy for the future must protect them against non-local fishermen, whether they be foreigners or fishermen from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I share his admiration for the way in which the Clyde fishermen have controlled a difficult situation over recent years. I assure him that any common fisheries policy will take into account their interests and those of other Scottish fishermen.

    Rates
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to seek powers to negotiate the levels of local rates levied by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My right hon. Friend does not propose to seek new powers of this kind, but I shall be consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about certain aspects of the present rate support system. My right hon. Friend will then reach a view on the need for change in his powers relating to grants to local authorities.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that I hope that when he consults the local authorities he will bear in mind that the Conservative Party issued a manifesto pledging the implementation of certain policies? As the Government are responsible for the prudent handling of finances, is he further aware that I hope that there will be no interference with local authorities in the performance of their traditional function?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct in that local authorities have their obligations, but in Scotland the Government provide over 68 per cent. of their expenditure and therefore have a prime obligation to ensure a proper level of support for those authorities.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one difficulty is that local authorities that were well behaved under the previous Labour Administration and adhered to the guidelines are now facing the greatest difficulties?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have kept that in mind for the rate support grant for next year in order to assist prudent authorities and to discourage those who might otherwise be profligate. The ratio of needs to resources in the rate support grant has been changed to assist those authorities which are prudent and which intend to continue to be prudent.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he is trying to govern Scotland by press handouts? Under the powers of local government, could not he have made a statement to the House? Will he confirm that concurrent functions and not the boundaries are under review?
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that the review of local government in Scotland is not a comprehensive one. Any recommendations of the review committee have to be consistent with the viability of existing regional and district councils. After several years of experience of the new system there is widespread agreement among the local authorities that it will be useful to consider the detailed changes that might be appropriate at this time.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government fixed the rate of industrial rating in Scotland at 15 per cent. on the then reasonable assumption that there would be revaluations on both sides of the border? As there has been a revaluation only in Scotland, which has moved the burden of rates towards industry, does he agree that the figure should now be reconsidered?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the provision for industrial derating, which was originally a temporary measure, will, as a result of the provisions of the recently published Local Government Finance Bill, be permanently established. That will be of assistance to industry in Scotland and it will ensure that its rate burden is not significantly different from that south of the border.
    Mr. Milian: Is it not clear that, with the present accelerating rate of inflation, and with the Government cheating on the cash limits by refusing to pay their fair share of the costs of that inflation, rents next year in Scotland will go through the roof?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should complain about the cash limits that have been set for next year. He was responsible for suggesting to local authorities that wage increases this year would be a mere 5 per cent. That figure was greeted with derision by the local authorities, and rightly so. The figures set by this Government are far more realistic. If local authorities are prepared to accept the advice of the Government about the level of expenditure, there is no need for rates to soar through the roof, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Milian: Why does not the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Is it not absolutely clear from what the local authorities have said that the cash limit is quite inadequate and that most local authorities in Scotland will have great difficulty in keeping rate increases next year to below 30 per cent? Is it not the case that many of them will go beyond that figure?
    Mr. Rifkind: Any local authority that reduces its expenditure on the basis that the Government have indicated will not face the problem referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. He is correct that local authorities would have liked higher cash limits, but I have not heard representations from any local authority that the cash limits are not enormously more realistic than those set by the right hon. Gentleman in the previous Administration.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will define the responsibilities of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) in relation to the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Younger: The responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State concern the exercise by the Agency
    608
    of those statutory functions which require ministerial approval under the Scottish Development Agency Act and the guidelines.
    Mr. Hogg: The new guidelines require the SDA to refer certain investment proposals to the Under-Secretary of State. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way the wisdom of his hon. Friend is greater than that of the collective wisdom of the board?
    Mr. Younger: It is not a question of greater wisdom. It is more a question of both parties playing a specific role. My hon. Friend and I have the role of checking investment above a certain level by the Agency. That is to the mutual benefit of the Agency and the Government.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one real problem facing the Agency is the low level of regional incentives compared with those in the Republic of Ireland? In view of the fact that, so far, the Agency has displayed all the dynamism of a tortoise in relation to industrial investment in my constituency, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that urgent action is vital in view of the rising trend in unemployment?
    Mr. Younger: I am always anxious to hear suggestions on this matter from all hon. Members. Regional incentives in the areas where they are concentrated—particularly in West Central Scotland—are as high as any in Western Europe. As far as a comparison with Ireland is concerned, we have to make a careful comparison of all facets of investment. When that is done, little difference can be found.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that all sensible people in Scotland warmly welcome the firm new guidelines that have been put forward? Until he and the Government took a grip on the SDA, it showed a net return on investment of minus 14·3 per cent. under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The Agency has welcomed the guidelines and believes that they will lead to an improvement.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is grave public concern about the way in which his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has

    609
    interfered in the Agency's work? That public concern has been expressed in the national press by a host of bodies. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Agency an assurance that his hon. Friend will stop interfering? Economics taught at Greenock high school are no better than those taught at any other school in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in the implication of the last part of his question. Apart from the Labour Party in Scotland, nobody has suggested that my hon. Friend has done other than carry out his duties in an excellent manner. It is interesting to note that what he has done so far has been under the guidelines set by the previous Administration.

    Sir William Gray
    Mr. James Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the findings of his investigation into the source of the press leak from his office regarding his decision not to reappoint Sir William Gray as chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the findings of his investigation into the source of the press leak from his office regarding his decision not to reappoint Sir William Gray as chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Younger: I have already made clear that there is no evidence to suggest how the decision not to reappoint Sir William Gray as chairman of the Scottish Development Agency became known to the press in advance of my announcement on Monday 3 December. I am, however, satisfied that my office was not involved.
    Mr. White: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is really satisfied with that answer? It was a distasteful position for Sir William Gray to find himself in and I hope that the Secretary of State has written a letter of apology to him.
    Mr. Younger: I have written to Sir William to thank him for the work that he has done for the SDA. I am satisfied that my office was not involved in the leak. I was interested to see that the press report made that fact clear.
    Mr. McKelvey—
    Mr. Lang: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the appointment of Sir William Gray's successor, Mr. Robin Duthie, will be widely welcomed throughout Scotland, and beyond? Not only is he an extremely successful businessman operating in Scotland, but he is a man without political affiliations.
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that the general welcome for the appointment of Mr. Duthie will assist the SDA in carrying out an excellent job in the future.
    Mr. McKelvey—
    Mr.. Speaker: I should have called the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey), and I do so now.
    Mr. McKelvey: I find the Secretary of State's answer most disappointing, and I feel that he should have discovered where the leak came from. Nevertheless, will he assure the House that he is not contemplating any more politically motivated dismissals or redundancies in Scotland? If he is contemplating such matters, will he name the people involved?
    Mr. Younger: There was no political motivation in the change. I am enjoined by the Act to make an appointment to the chairmanship of the SDA. The previous chairman's appointment had run out and I appointed the best man that I could find for the job. I am convinced that I achieved that.
    Mr. John MacKay: Despite the gnashing of teeth on the Labour Benches, does my right hon. Friend remember that the Labour Party would not find a seat for Sir William Gray on Strathclyde regional council at the time of the reorganisation? Will he hazard a guess at how many rejection slips Sir William has received from his so-called Labour Party friends?
    Mr. Foulkes: Not as many as Teddy Taylor!
    Mr. Younger: I am glad that my responsibilities do not extend to investigating the reasons why the Labour Party withdraws its support from certain Labour members. No doubt Labour members are able to answer that point better than I.
    Mr. Millan: While I have every respect for the abilities of Mr. Duthie and wish

    611
    him well in his new appointment, I feel that the way in which Sir William was dismissed at short notice, in conjunction with the press leak, has left a nasty taste. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least apologise for that?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to Mr. Duthie. It is unfortunate that the leak took place, because it gives the impression that Sir William had not done a satisfactory job. Let me state clearly that I am most grateful to him for doing an excellent job in that position for the four years that he was in office. His term of office came to an end and it was up to me to make an appointment, and I did so.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Knowing that all this has absolutely nothing to do with politics, will the right hon. Gentleman recall his remark of a few moments ago to the effect that the Scottish Development Agency welcomed the new guidelines and, indeed, thought that they were an improvement? What would he have done if the SDA had not welcomed those guidelines?
    Mr. Younger: I should have told the House. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman thought that this was nothing to do with politics. At times I thought that he thought that he had nothing to do with politics either.

    CBI and TUC
    Mr. Allan Stewartasked the Secretary of state for Scotland when he plans next to meet the Scottish Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My right hon. Friend and I have met representatives of both bodies several times since taking office and have made it clear that we are prepared to meet both bodies at any time they wish.
    Mr. Stewart: When my hon. Friend next meets both sides of Scottish industry will he point out to them that there have been no adverse effects whatever on industry and employment in Scotland following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's courageous and correct decision to abolish exchange controls, despite the
    612
    hysterical, economically illiterate scare-mongering from the Opposition?
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision to abolish exchange controls is likely to benefit the United Kingdom and Scottish economies, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House last month.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister, when he meets either of those bodies, explain why unemployment has risen by 500 in Scotland in the last month and why the underlying trend is clearly upwards? Will he also say where this trend will end? In other words, what is his high target for the unemployment that will follow from the public expenditure cuts that Scotland is experiencing?
    Mr. Fletcher: That is one point that I do not have to explain to either body. The STUC and the CBI in Scotland are fully aware that unemployment doubled under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When he next meets the STUC will my right hon. Friend remind it that the problem in Scotland has been not the lack of investment capital but the lack of areas for that investment capital to produce profit and jobs for the future?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is right. There is no shortage of investment funds in Scotland, but there is a shortage of investment opportunities. Until the economy operates on a more sound basis we cannot expect opportunities to present themselves quickly.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) has displayed his knowledge of the Scottish economy from A to B? When the Minister next meets the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, will he discuss with it the statement yesterday by his hon. Friend's successor at the CBI that unemployment in Scotland next year will rise to 250,000 as a result of the Government's policies?
    Mr. Fletcher: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I would not disagree with the fact that next year unemployment is likely to rise throughout the United Kingdom, including Scotland. However. I am not in

    613
    a position to say what the figure might be.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from community groups, tenants' associations and other bodies supporting the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Rifkind: We have received large numbers of letters from individuals who support sales and who wish to buy their own homes. Very few representations have been received from organisations expressing views, whether favourable or otherwise, on the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that very few of those letters will come from areas such as Glasgow, Garscadden, where there is widespread fear and dismay about the effects of the sale of council houses? Is the Minister aware that most of my constituents expect that any sales will be in the more popular areas of Glasgow, which will reduce social mobility by ensuring that those who do not already live in those areas will have no chance of moving there to a house of their choice? In view of that, will the Minister look again at the inflexible and dogmatic way in which he approaches this problem?
    Mr. Rifkind: The letters that have been received from individuals have included approximately 200 in favour and 10 to 15 against the Government's policy. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that all tenants in Scotland will have the right to buy their homes. I am convinced that tenants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, when they realise the generous discounts available, will take the opportunity to buy their own homes, in the same way as tenants are doing throughout Scotland.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister confirm that he has had representations from the housing authorities in Tweed-dale, and Ettrick and Lauderdale district councils, and presumably elsewhere in Scotland, pointing out that his inflexible formula will be disastrous in the rural areas? Does he agree that these representations are more to the point than letters from individuals?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government do not accept that any of the proposals in the
    614
    Tenant's Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill will be disastrous in the rural areas. There is no reason why council tenants living in rural areas should not have the same rights as those in urban areas. We believe that we should ensure that this fundamental freedom is available to all Scottish tenants.
    Mr. Peter Fraser: Can my hon. Friend indicate, from the sales of council houses that have already been achieved since his order went out to local authorities, what finance has been required by those tenants buying their houses from local authorities and what proportion has been self-financed?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is already clear that this year more council houses will have been sold to tenants than in any other year in Scottish history. We are pleased to see that a substantial proportion of tenants have been able to finance the purchase of their own homes other than through local authority mortgages. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the building societies have informed us that 25 per cent. of their depositors are council tenants. The building societies are therefore clearly able to help council tenants as well as other owner-occupiers.
    Mr. George Robertson: On a previous occasion the Minister said that the purpose of the Government's legislation on the sale of council houses was to extend a new human right to council house tenants. What does he say to families living in high rise flats who will see their chances of ever getting out of those flats and moving into other areas compromised by the Government's proposals? What sorts of human rights will those people have in future?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the very tenants to whom he refers have found that even without this right to buy they have been unable to move to an area of their choice for many years. What we are saying to these tenants is that they will now have the right to buy and at least have something to show for the many years during which they pay rent.

    Scottish Development Agency
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when next

    615
    he will meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend with responsibility for industry and education and I have already had preliminary meetings with Mr. Duthie and expect to meet him regularly in the future.
    Mr. Hamilton: Many of us on the Opposition Benches congratulate the new chairman and wish him well in his difficult task. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the new chairman that the visit to America of the Under-Secretary of State was a disaster, according to reports in the press? The hon. Gentleman played down the work of the Scottish Development Agency, which did not do it a service. In view of the new Government guidelines, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Under-Secretary will not be breathing down the neck of the chairman and the board, and will allow the Agency to get on with the work of rejuvenating Scottish industry?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes to Mr. Duthie. My hon. Friend's visit to America was an outstanding success. He met a number of important firms with investment opportunities in Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend will, as before, carry out his duties with strict regard to what he is entitled to do by statute.
    Mr. Ancram: Can my right hon. Friend confirm with the new chairman that under the new investment guidelines the SDA will no longer be able to subsidise inefficiency or promote subsidised unfair competition as in the past?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend can be assured that the new guidelines make it clear that the Agency's investment functions will be much more likely to be efficiently managed with technical skill in investment matters, which will ensure what my hon. Friend has suggested in his question.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State accept that the SDA has been a glorious success in its ability to attract jobs and industry to Scotland? Does he agree that Scotland now has a major advantage, as against the Northern region, in its ability to attract jobs and industry for the future? Will the right
    616
    hon. Gentleman try to sell the idea of a development agency for the Northern region to the Secretary of State for Industry?
    Mr. Younger: That is a matter that the hon. Gentleman must take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I agree that the Scottish Development Agency and those who work in it are doing a good job. The functions that were inherited from several bodies that have been in business for a long time in Scotland have been carried out extremely efficiently. I and my hon. Friend will give the Agency our support to do an even better job in future.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new factory units have been built by the Scottish Development Agency since its inception.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Since it was set up in December 1975 the Scottish Development Agency has completed a total of 177 factory units providing some 2·5 million sq ft of factory space.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many of these units have been sold? Has he given the SDA any guidance about whether its attitude to such sales should be active or passive?
    Mr. Fletcher: I am not aware of how many units have been sold. I believe that the majority of this accommodation is rented. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be in the public interest if more sales of these factories could be to their occupants.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister impress upon the Scottish Development Agency the importance of looking at existing industrial sites for factories? Has he had any discussions with the SDA about the Singer site at Clydebank? What progress has been made with the Government's plans for some sort of rescue operation in that hard-hit area?
    Mr. Fletcher: My right hon. Friend and I have asked the Scottish Economic Planning Department, in conjunction with the SDA and the local authorities, to prepare a working plan for the Clydebank area. We hope that the findings of the group on this project will be available shortly.
    Mr. Budgen: When my hon. Friend next sees the officers of the SDA will he remind them that in all their work, whether it is building factory units or otherwise, they should stick to the tight guidelines that have properly been imposed upon them? Will he remind them that there are wider implications than the purely Scottish one, in that they are spending money from the taxpayers of the whole of the United Kingdom, and one of their objectives is to take jobs and investment away from places such as Wolverhampton, which was once prosperous?
    Mr. Fletcher: As my right hon. Friend said, the SDA has accepted the new guidelines that we have presented to it. We have every confidence that it will cooperate with us in making sure that the guidelines are carried through successfully.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the Government's assisted places scheme as it affects Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: About 25 letters have been received about the proposal, mainly from parents who are interested in the scheme.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that because of the distorted geographical distribution of the schools—most of them being in the East of Scotland, and nearly 40 per cent. of the places being in Edinburgh—the taxpayers of the West of Scotland, including Ayrshire, will effectively be subsidising the privileged education of the petty bourgeoisie of the city of Edinburgh? What will he do to alter this position?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member has certainly changed his coat since he had to flee from Edinburgh politics a few months ago. I take the point that traditionally the distribution of schools is not as good as it might be. We hope that as the scheme comes into being there will be further opportunities for schools in other parts of Scotland to take advantage of it and provide a better choice for parents.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister accept that if anyone wishes to set
    618
    up a private school and fund it 100 per cent. from his own resources it would be a denial of democracy to stop him from doing so? However, does he further accept that the types of schools that have been discussed are half State and half private, and therefore the State part is robbery from the public purse?
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. I am glad that he accepts the point that, just as people should be free to set up independent schools if they wish, so parents should be free, regardless of their means, to take the opportunity to send their children to these schools if they wish to do so.
    Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have just heard from the Opposition Benches, particularly from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), is a grotesque misrepresentation of the purpose of the scheme? Is it not clear that the hon. Member has not even read the opening sentence of the document, which says quite clearly that the objective of the scheme is to provide an option for able children from lower income families?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. So many Labour Members are annoyed by the fact that the whole object of the scheme is to help lower income families—the very people whom they always claim to look after.
    Mr. Canavan: If it is the declared intention of the Tory Government to cut out all non-essential public expenditure, what possible justification is there for taking away meals, milk and transport from the 95 per cent. of children who attend State schools in order to give an extra £60 million a year to the privileged, private fee-paying schools, which cater for a minority of the population? Will the Minister give us an assurance that before he comes to an ultimate decision on this matter it will be debated adequately on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Fletcher: It is a great pity that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is unable to get to his feet in this House without grossly exaggerating his points. We are not taking meals and transport away from children in the State sector. We are allowing the local authorities greater discretion.
    Mr. Lang: Is it not astonishing that Labour Members, so many of whom have had privileged education, are now so anxious to kick away the ladder which children from under-privileged homes might have the opportunity to climb?
    Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that when the Labour Party returns to power we shall immediately abolish this scheme? Will he make that clear when he is having discussions on the matter? Is he further aware that his assisted places scheme has no supporters whatsoever in the educational world in Scotland? Will he give every child in Scotland the best possible Christmas present by resigning before he ruins Scottish education?
    Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member makes abundantly clear the well-known fact that under Labour Governments the less well-off people in this country are always worse off.

    Devolution
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the all-party talks about the government of Scotland to conclude.
    Mr. Younger: We received only this week the last of the replies from the other parties. We hope that it will be possible to establish talks at any rate with some of the parties early in the New Year. It is too soon to forecast when they will end.
    Mr. Grimond: Does that reply mean that there is still no agreement, even about the agenda? If there is such an agreement, does it include the prospect of a directly elected Assembly?
    Mr. Younger: I understand from the replies received that most of the other parties are prepared to undertake talks, but on certain conditions. On the question of a Scottish Assembly, I made it clear in the debate on the repeal order on 20 June that as this matter had been thoroughly thrashed out over two or three years in the House, and had been put to the Scottish people in a referendum, it was not something that people would thank us for going over again and again.
    Mr. Michael Martin: Is the Secretary of State aware that local authority housing contracts have been held up by the SDD? Will he give us an assurance that the Government are not using the SDD to delay housing contracts and modernisation contracts submitted by the Scottish Special Housing Association, such as those in the Balornock and Robroyston area? Will he also give an assurance that he will investigate whether this delay has taken place?
    Mr. Younger: That is another question, but I assure the hon. Member that no such thing is taking place.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people in Scotland are delighted that so-called devolution, as generally defined on the Labour Benches, is now effectively dead?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but I hope that he will agree with me that there is still scope for trying to improve the way in which Scottish business is handled in this House. I hope that we can have talks about it.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the assurances that were given by Lord Home of the Hirsel during the debate on the referendum about the Conservative Party's proposals for devolution, will the Secretary of State comment on the contrast between the Government's policy of offering Northern Ireland full legislative and executive self-government, including industrial powers, which were not on offer previously, and the paltry talks that are now on offer for the reformation of government in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I am not surprised that the Scottish National Party is not prepared to take part in these talks, because its objective is the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and Scotland is Scotland. We want to do it our way.
    Mr. Millan: Is it not clear that now that the Government have been flushed out by being asked to provide an agenda for the all-party talks they have abandoned even their phoney commitment to devolution? Is it not a fact that there is nothing in the suggested agenda that

    621
    has anything to do with devolution? All that the Government want to talk about now is the management of Scottish parliamentary business. Why was yesterday's meeting postponed, and will it take place later this week?
    Mr. Younger: On the last point, I certainly hope to have a meeting as soon as it can be arranged. There have been a number of difficulties in getting all the parties concerned together. On the first point, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman indicated, namely, that there is scope for discussing how we can improve the conduct of Scottish parliamentary business. That is a desirable end for its own sake. The right hon. Member must accept that after all we have been through in the past three years it is not on to start talking about the whole subject of devolution again.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. George Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the likely sources of finance for mortgages for the sale of local authority housing, and how much will be available from each source.
    Mr. Rifkind: All prospective purchasers will be expected to seek finance for sales from private sources in the first instance. As the explanatory and financial memorandum relating to the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill indicates, we have estimated that 30 per cent. of the finance will be drawn from tenants' existing resources or provided by building societies and other private lending institutions, leaving 70 per cent. to be provided through loans from housing authorities.
    Mr. Robertson: The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill merely deals with one of the financial aspects of the sale of council houses. Can we expect from the Scottish Office the commitment to provide a long-term assessment of the financial consequences to local authorities as well as to central Government that has been promised by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Are we likely to receive that assessment in sufficient time to enable that most important aspect of the sale of council houses to be considered on Second Reading?
    Mr. Rifkind: We intend to provide the Government's assessment of the financial consequences to assist Members when the Bill is being considered.

    SHERIFFS PRINCIPAL
    Mr. Pollockasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the sheriffs principal.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I do not have any plans at present to meet the sheriffs principal, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate and I have meetings with them from time to time.
    Mr. Pollock: When my hon. and learned Friend next has such a meeting, will he discuss with them the options at present available to children's panels for the disposal of cases coming before them? Will he especially consider the wisdom of introducing another option for disposal, namely, financial reparation from the child involved or, more importantly, from its parents?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Any improvement that we can make in the effectiveness of children's panels is something that I am sure both sides of the House would wish to achieve. To that end I am visiting a children's panel hearing at 9.15 am on Friday.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Solicitor-General meets the sheriffs principal, will he discuss with them the new Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that has been published today? Will he inform them of the timetable that he expects for the Bill in both this House and the other place during the next few months, and when he finally expects it to become part of our statute law?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes.

    PROCURATOR FISCAL (PERTH)
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when next he plans to meet the Procurator Fiscal of Perth and Kinross district.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I last visited the office of the Procurator Fiscal in Perth on 11 September, and I

    623
    intend to do so again early in the new year.
    Mr. Walker: When my hon. and learned Friend calls on the Procurator Fiscal in Perth in the new year, will he draw his attention to the concern felt by anglers and fishing clubs in the area about illegal poaching of salmon, especially about the use of materials that are explosive and poisonous? When my hon. and learned Friend is in court, will he draw attention to the maxium penalties that are available to the courts when prosecutions are carried out?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the problem of poaching and of the inadequacy of the penalties. That is not the only fish that I would he anxious to fry.

    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to meet the Scottish Law Commission.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate visited the Scottish Law Commission on 15 October, and further meetings will be held as and when necessary.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Solicitor-General discuss with the Commission the enormous legal complexities created by the Tory Government's policy of treating Scottish legislation as a minor intrusion into United Kingdom Bills, such as the Education (No. 2) Bill and the Local Government Planning and Land Bill? Will he give an assurance that he will make a personal contribution at some stage in the proceedings on the Education (No. 2) Bill to explain his learned views on his Government's unlearned policy of depriving children of their legal right to school meals, milk and transport, which will affect the living standards of children in Kinross and West Perthshire as well as in the rest of Scotland?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As it is Christmas I am sure that I can make a bargain with the hon. Gentleman. I am willing to make my learned views known to the Committee considering the Education (No. 2) Bill in the proportion that he is willing to restrict his ignorant views. I am
    624
    sure that all Members of the House would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would make the solemn and supreme sacrifice of forgoing sustenance himself so that the rest of the population could benefit from his abstinence.
    Mr. David Steel: When the Solicitor-General next meets the Law Commission, will he ascertain from it—if he already knows will he tell us—how it is progressing in its work of giving effect to financial settlements in divorce cases, which he knows causes a great deal of unhappiness to those in Scotland? As the matter has been under consideration for a long time, when may we see the result?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is an important matter, and the Law Commission has been working on it. It is an extremely complex issue and I regret that all the difficulties attendant upon the tragedy of human separation have not yet been solved satisfactorily by any country. If anyone can make suggestions towards a solution, I am sure that that would be welcomed by both sides of the House.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: I return to the serious issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Will the Solicitor-General discuss with the Law Commission the new practice of the Government's inserting Scottish clauses—basically Scottish legislation—into United Kingdom Bills? Is the Solicitor-General in favour of such a practice? Will he give us the benefit of his views?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Even at Christmas, it is nice to see a sinner come to repentance. I do not recollect many Bills for which the hon. Member was responsible that did not have the same characteristics. It is a difficult matter. It would be nice to have separate legislation, but it is not practicable, and in any circumstance in which it is contradictory it will not be done.

    VANDALISM
    Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is his estimate of the impact on numbers of Crown Office staff and the Procurator Fiscal Service of the introduction of a new offence of vandalism.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In the event of a new offence of vandalism

    625
    being created, it would not be expected to affect the numbers of staff in the Crown Office or in the Procurator Fiscal Service.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Solicitor-General accept that there will be some dismay among the many people who see the new offence of vandalism surviving as clause 75 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that was published today? Many feel that it is a totally redundant piece of cosmetic window-dressing. Any offence that could be envisaged could be covered by existing offences such as malicious mischief and breach of the peace. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is a nasty example of the Conservative Government trying to give the impression that they are doing something about crime when they are merely putting on the statute book a piece of useless lumber?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is one of the many matters in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that will be greatly welcomed. I wish that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not continue to purvey dismay. Resentment at all attempts to prevent the hideousness of crime is anything but desirable.
    Mr. Sproat: As it is now estimated that vandalism is costing the country about £200 million a year, and as it inspires terror and misery, especially among the elderly, will my hon. and learned Friend accept that anything that the new Bill does to reduce vandalism will be widely welcomed throughout Scotland.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Vandalism is one of the most pernicious sores in our society, because it is so unlikely to be detected. Anything that can contribute to its eradication will, I am sure, be welcomed, even by those who vote Labour.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will the Solicitor-General apply his common sense, rather than his legal knowledge, and admit that the Government's policy of securing cutbacks in libraries, museums, leisure and recreation services will hardly reduce vandalism?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Probably the worst vandalism to occur for some time was the encouragement given by Labour Members to think that we were entitled to live beyond our means with money that we did not have.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: If the Solicitor-General is so concerned about detecting crimes of vandalism—we all have that concern—will he indicate how many acts of vandalism will be detected in future merely because the offence is called vandalism, as distinct from malicious mischief?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is more to crime than the mere detection of it. There is also the deterrence of it. If people are made conscious in public of the opprobrium that attaches to vandalism and the penalties that attach to it, they are infinitely less likely to commit it.

RHODESIA (BINGHAM REPORT)
The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In 1978 the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs referred the Bingham report to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether further inquiries should be undertaken with a view to possible criminal proceedings for breaches of the Southern Rhodesia sanctions order. Shortly thereafter leading and junior counsel were instructed by the Director to advise him whether, in the circumstances disclosed by the report, criminal offences appeared to have been committed and, if so, by whom. It will be appreciated that the Bingham inquiry was neither a police investigation nor a trial, and it was not, therefore, conducted within the constraints of the rules of evidence or procedure applicable in a court of law.
In February 1968, and again in February 1969, meetings took place between Her Majesty's Government and senior officers of Shell and BP. The outcome of those meetings—described extensively in the Bingham report—appeared to have been interpreted by the oil companies, rightly or wrongly, as giving them tacit, if not express, approval to operate what has become known as the "exchange" scheme, whereby oil and petroleum reached Southern Rhodesia. It was by no means clear whether and, if so, for precisely what length of time, the so-called "exchange" scheme was operated thereafter.
Against this background, the Director appreciated that much more factual information and research into the legal problems were required in order to particular rise offences, to identfy the principal persons acting on behalf of the oil companies and to collect the admissible evidence. Accordingly, a team of senior police officers was instructed to make further detailed inquiries, while counsel continued to review the material already available.
Steps were taken in April 1979 under schedule 1 to the 1968 sanctions order to require the oil companies to produce all the relevant documents in their possession or under their control.
628
It seems that there are over 20,000 files, of which at least 14,000are likely to be relevant. Bearing in mind the substantial amount of time and public money likely to be involved in analysing this mass of paper and investigating the evidentiary material available overseas, counsey were asked to give the DPP further advice. By the beginning of November 1979, in an opinion running to almost 50 pages, counsel advised the DPP of the great difficulties in the way of a successful prosecution.
The Director had to consider the following matters:

(1) The material disclosed by the Bingham investigation was wholly insufficient for the purposes of a criminal trial. Direct evidence by witnesses or from proved documents would be needed.

(2) There was abundant material in the report which showed that, in the period following the meetings in 1968 and 1969, oil and petroleum products had been supplied direct by railway wagon to Southern Rhodesia. The question which arose in an acute form, however, was whether it could be proved by the strict rules of evidence applied in the criminal courts of this country:

(a) which companies had in fact made these supplies;

(b) who, if any, among the officers, agents or employees of the companies during the relevant period were knowing parties to such supply.

It was also necessary to seek to determine whether these supplies had been made in contravention of the alleged "understanding" with Her Majesty's Government.
(3) Furthermore, it was material to have regard to the fact—emphasised in the Bingham report—that many of the companies and their officials were subject to the laws of States deeply hostile to the sanctions policy and were liable to penalties for any refusal or failure to supply oil on demand. There is no power to compel the attendance of witnesses from abroad.
The available material disclosed—and, indeed, the Bingham report investigation found—that many of the principal officials concerned in the contraventions of

629
the sanctions orders were not amenable to our jurisdiction. Some who appear to have been at the very centre of the operations had since died and others had retired. It was likely to prove difficult in the extreme to establish the complicity and knowledge of their successors.
Whilst the prosecution might confine criminal charges to the years 1971–77,the defence would investigate the entire history of events from 1966 onwards. Those events would cast their shadow over the whole case and this important factor would have a serious bearing on its outcome. Counsel were of the opinion that a jury might well be reluctant to convict if there appeared to be substance in the defence that those charged had acted in the belief that their conduct had the express or ostensible consent of the authorities.
Finally, it was apparent that as complex and prolonged an investigation as this would probably not reach the stage of a jury's trial in less than four years from now, particularly as the defence would be entitled to require full committal for trial proceedings and strict proof of the essential ingredients of the offences. Also, the trial itself might occupy a jury for as long as 12 months, with all the risks that attend such an extended hearing.
The Director has therefore reached the conclusion that further investigation and public expenditure would not be justified and the matter should proceed no further. I agree.
Mr. Russell Kerr: You want to pack it in, Michael.
Mr. John Morris: I am sure that the whole House, and the Opposition especially, will want to study with great care the important statement made by the Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with a matter of grave concern not only to the United Kingdom but to countries abroad, and to all those who have been concerned with clear breaches of law in this country. It is a matter of grave importance for those who are concerned with the rule of law—be it in our domestic matters or in international matters, and in the matters contained in the statement especially—that on the advice tendered to the Attorney-General it appears that we cannot now deal with these matters in the
630
proper way, which is in the courts. That is a matter of regret. Against that background we shall want further time to consider the issue.
How many companies and individuals have been prosecuted so far for breaches of sanctions, and what have been the penalties imposed? It there not a danger, as is manifest in the conclusions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has come, that the minnows have been dealt with and that it is not possible, for whatever reason, to deal with the big fish? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that the House resolved that there should be an inquiry into the whole affair and that a contrary view was taken by another place? What is the Government's view about a further inquiry?
The Attorney-General: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me when I say that I do not have with me the details of the other prosecutions. However, details have been given in a number of written answers in response to questions put to me by some of his hon. Friends. An inquiry is a matter for my right hon. Friends. I am unable to give the House any information.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Attorney-General aware that he has made an extraordinary statement? Surely the impression that he is leaving with the House is that justice and truth are commodities that we can no longer afford. That is not good enough. The Government have had months to consider this matter. That consideration has not been confined to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ministerial responsibility. There was a debate and a free vote in the House in February. The other place disagreed with this place, but that is not an excuse for dropping the matter.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the whole table reflects sadly on the political and business ethics of this country? The matter cannot be allowed to drop because of legal technicalities. If the Government have come to the conclusion that they should close the book on the whole sorry subject, let that be proclaimed as their political decision, and let it not be clouded by legal technicalities.
The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to appreciate the distinction. This is not a Government

631
decision; it is a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting within his proper duties. An inquiry, as I have said, is a matter for my right hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have had months to consider the matter. That is not so. Counsel's opinion was delivered to the Director of Public Prosecutions only at the beginning, or in the first week or so, of last month. Thereafter, he, in discussions with me, reached his conclusion. It is not fair to say that the Government should be in a position today, when I have just made this statement, to give a firm commitment, one way or the other, about an inquiry.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If I heard my right hon. and learned Friend aright, the Director of Public Prosecutions has enunciated what I understand to be an entirely new principle, namely, that if a malefactor has retired he is now to be immune from prosecution. The Attorney-General referred to people who "had died or retired".
I understand that people who are dead cannot be prosecuted, but is the same doctrine to apply to burglars if they have retired? This is a serious point. If retirement confers immunity from prosecution, is this to be a precedent across the whole field of criminal law?
The Attorney-General: I regret that my hon. Friend should treat what I consider a very serious matter in such a light-hearted manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh." When he reads my statement, I think that he will understand that the major problem is that many individuals are simply not within the jurisdiction and some of the others have died.
Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I join forces, for once, with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whose remarks go to the root of the problem and to the root of our fears on the Opposition side of the House. The rule of law is indivisible. The rule of law applies as much in this country as it does overseas. It is wrong for the Government party to be seen to be paying mere lip service to the rule of law.
Will the Attorney-General tell the House, for instance, what are the extraordinary factors that mean that this trial
632
could not be reached for something like four years? Will he also now publish the names of those persons listed in the Bingham report and the schedules thereto who, in the opinion of the authors, were vulnerable to criminal prosecution—both persons and companies?
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks why the matter would take four years. A huge amount of investigation would be necessary. Let us take, for example, Shell Mocambique. If one were to try to prove the movement of particular wagons of oil from Mozambique to Rhodesia it would be necessary to have the freight tickets and perhaps necessary to call some of the railwaymen. There is no power to enforce either the production of those documents or the attendance of those witnesses. I did tell the House in my statement that as a result of a request of the Director in April this year 14,000 files were obtained from the two oil companies. We are told that the number of documents in those files probably exceed a quarter of a million papers. All would have to be looked at.
Any lawyer in this House knows that the prosecution could not possibly go into court without having to consider, with a large team of lawyers and police officers, every one of those quarter of a million documents. It would simply not be right not to do that. That is only one of the grounds. I remind the House that the reasons that prompted the Director to come to the conclusion that he reached were the well known and recognised procedures involving the public interest aspect in prosecutions.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Coming on the heels of the Blunt affair, many people in the House now believe that had President Nixon been Head of State in the United Kingdom and shielded by the establishment here, he would have got off scot-free. Bearing in mind the honourable role played by the courts in that affair, will the Attorney-General say whether he has consulted the Lord Advocate on the subject?
If the Attorney-General is not prepared to accept responsibility in England for offences committed against the United Kingdom as a whole, will he ask the Lord Advocate in Scotland, where court proceedings are generally shorter, if he will undertake this investigation?
The Attorney-General: These matters were referred by the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is, therefore, a decision for the Director to take. He has taken it and, as I have told the House, I agree with him.
Mr. Stokes: Cannot there be a sense of realism in this matter? Is this report not out of date and superseded by events? Is not criticism of those concerned, who acted on political direction, futile humbug?
The Attorney-General: There is no doubt that one of the matters that the Director would have to consider, as in every prosecution, is how old the offences, if they can be proved, are. There is no doubt here that some of the matters that might be the subject of prosecution go back more than 10 years.
Dr. Bray: In considering the need for further inquiry, will the Attorney-General and his right hon. Friends bear in mind the need to give civil servants and retired civil servants, who are named in the Bingham report and in the subsequent debate, an opportunity to clarify their own roles in the breach of sanctions? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, in particular, of the statement that I made in the debate that Mr. Angus Beckett, under-secretary of the petroleum division at the time of the breach of sanctions, was offered jobs by major oil companies on his retirement, that he was refused permission to accept them by the head of the Civil Service and that he subsequently accepted appointment to a consulting firm employed by those major oil companies from which he now enjoys a very large income? Is that an appropriate state of affairs that should be allowed to continue without explanation?
The Attorney-General: This cannot arise out of the matters referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Any other matter that might be relevant to the question whether an inquiry is set up will certainly be considered.
Mr. Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the decision was that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Surely, by saying that he agreed with that decision, the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares responsibility for it—
634
or is he disclaiming any responsibility for the decision?
The Attorney-General: I hoped that I had made absolutely clear by the last two words of my statement, having said that it was the decision of the Director and adding "I agree", that I was accepting the responsibility, equally with him, and accepting my responsibility to answer in this House for his decision.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is there to be any reward to, or recognition of, those patriotic men who, through those difficult years, sustained the true British cause, all too often against British Governments.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Honorary traitors.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I remind the Attorney-General that Bingham was a lawyer, that he mounted in his report a very considerable case of conspiracy, not only by individuals but by companies, and that he based that report on his access to the records then available? Does it not happen that in many fraud cases one cannot prosecute the full compass of the fraud but selects specific ingredients that can be proved? On that basis, the judge is able to give an appropriate sentence.
The Attorney-General: Every case depends on its own effects. Having read Bingham with care, the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, will recognise that it was not a report based on evidence that one could produce in a court. In the end, what happens in every case is that, with the assistance of very experienced counsel who have spent a great deal of time on the matter, one has to examine the likely availability of evidence from overseas as well as domestically. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the difficulties that Bingham said that he found in trying to get any documentation from Mozambique.
Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard an Opposition Member below the Gangway call my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) an honorary traitor. Surely that cannot be in order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If that expression was used, the hon. Gentleman concerned will no doubt rise and agree that he said it.
Mr. Latham: It was the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) to whom I was referring.
Mr. Russell Kerr: I am afraid that there was some confusion. There was a general suggestion that people who had furthered the cause of Rhodesia in the recent squabble should get recognition in the House. I made what I hope was the helpful suggestion that they should have the title of honorary traitors.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the remark was not addressed to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).
Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Attorney-General not now made it clear that under British law the bigger the crime the more chance there is of getting off? Is this not a shameful end to a shabby episode in British history? What credit does one now give to the Prime Minister's call for an economic boycott of Iran?
The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I missed the last question posed by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall repeat it. However, I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would answer the first two questions. What credit can the world now give to the Prime Minister's call for an economic boycott of Iran?
The Attorney-General: Dealing with the last question, it must be made clear to the hon. Gentleman that this decision is remote and divorced from any decision of the Government. It is a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Any comment to the contrary is a direct and totally unjustified attack upon the integrity both of counsel and of the Director, who is totally impartial in these matters.
Mr. Dobson: Will the Attorney-General, in his new role as the Santa Claus of the Establishment, cast his mind back to the time when he was talking about the Clay Cross councillors and, as reported in The Times, said that no democracy could survive when people decided to obey only laws that suited them? Does he agree that the decision at which he and the Director of Public Prosecutions have arrived is a disgrace to our system of government, to our judicial system, and to himself?
The Attorney-General: The only consequence of that comment can be that the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have acted in a political rather than an impartial way. I totally reject it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call five more hon. Members.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Now that the decision has been taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney-General agrees with it, is it possible for the chapter in the Bingham report that was withheld from publication whilst the matter was being considered by the Director to be made available for publication?
The Attorney-General: That is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend, to whom the report was made.
Mr. Cryer: Does the Attorney-General accept that this is a totally disgraceful episode in the Government's history? Does he further accept that people outside will now believe that there are two standards, one for ordinary folk—the Conservative Government lose no opportunity legally to attack the trade unions when it suits their book—and another for people in high places? Will he confirm the clear fact from his statement that if the crime is big enough and complicated enough, and has sufficient documents, people in very high places and well connected either by marriage or relationship can get away with it?
The Attorney-General: Every case has to be approached by the Director, or any prosecuting authority, on the following bases: first, are the prospects for conviction more than 50–50? If not, it is rare for such a prosecution to be brought.
Secondly, in every case involving complexity, another matter to be considered is the huge expenditure of further public money with the strong likelihood, based on counsel's advice, that the end result would be an acquittal. In those circumstances, it is right that the expenditure involved should be a matter to which the Director should pay attention.
Mr. Rooker: Does the Attorney-General appreciate that the only reason given to the House for non-publication of the third appendix was that criminal

637
charges may follow? It is not good enough now, after his decision and that of the DPP, announced today, to say that publication of that third appendix is a matter for the Foreign Office. It should come automatically.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that following his statement it is abundantly clear that the instructions given to the DPP by my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary about the matters referred in the preface to the Bingham report regarding Castrol Limited were never followed through and that, therefore, those instructions were totally ignored by the civil servants?
The Attorney-General: As is obvious to the House, since the reference was made by the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the attention of the Director, counsel and the police officers engaged in the investigation was concentrated on the main matters in the Bingham report. Only at the conclusion of that investigation could any further considertion be given to other matters, such as the passing reference to Castrol at the beginning of the report. In view of the difficulties that I have explained to the House there will be no further investigation of the matters involved and referred to in the report.
Mr. Whitehead: Does the Attorney-General understand that the lesson drawn by the public from what has been said will be that anyone accused of conspiracy stands to be all right provided that he has 20,000 files and can be guaranteed to occupy a jury for a year? What cost can be too high for asserting the principle of respect for the rule of law and the elected Government of the day?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman simply refuses to listen to what has been said. I have now three times said that one of the matters that has to be considered by any prosecuting authority is the likelihood of conviction. On the advice of counsel and the Director, particularly bearing in mind the events of 1968 and 1969 and the shadow that they cast over what happened afterwards, it was decided that the likelihood of conviction was not such as to justify going on.
Mr. Dalyell: Has not the Attorney-General had his middle stump knocked
638
out by his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who asked how it was that retirement in some way grants immunity? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to us laymen why it is necessary for 14,000 documents to be examined? Is he saying that each of those 14,000 documents must be examined? Is he also, by way of example, saying that we would not get co-operation from Shell Mocambique if the Shell headquarters here and in the Netherlands did not ask for its co-operation? Is that the argument?
The Attorney-General: It is a matter not only of getting co-operation from Shell Mocambique but of getting the documents and the strict proof that I assume would be required of the actual movement of the vehicles from Mozambique into Rhodesia.
As for the 14,000 documents, if prosecuting counsel and his team did not go through all those documents, and if certain documents that were favourable to the defence were brought out for the first time by the defence in the middle of the trial—after six months—when they had been in the possession of the prosecution all the time, and such documents provided an entirely different aspect to the matter, just think how stupid the Crown would look.
Mr. Shore: Neither the House nor the country can accept the Attorney-General's statement as a fitting end to what has been a disgraceful and, indeed, damaging affair to the reputation of this country. Does the Attorney-General's statement mean that other cases now in the pipeline relating to sanctions are to be dropped? If they are not, how does the Attorney-General distinguish between those cases that will be prosecuted and those major offenders whom, apparently, it is too difficult to pursue further? Will he not agree that irrespective of the difficulties with prosecutions the situation enormously reinforces the case for the establishment of a joint special Committee of this House—such as was passed and voted upon on 1 February this year? Will the Attorney-General take this matter up with his right hon. Friend and make an early statement?
The Attorney-General: I made inquiries earlier this week to see how many other prosecutions were in the pipeline.

639
Many of them in the past have come through customs and excise, but there are no more from that source. There is one prosecution awaiting appeal and two others in the pipeline. What I said today covers only and exclusively the matters referred to in the Bingham report. Should an inquiry be necessary I shall make certain that what the right hon. Gentleman said is considered by my right hon. Friend.

MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely.
"the provision of facilities for Euro-Members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster."
I think that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will agree that this application is specific, since it concerns the 81 individual British Members of the European Parliament.
On the question of urgency, I draw two matters to your attention. The first one is that the European Members are likely to have to leave their present premises across the road from the House in a few weeks. The second issue of urgency relates to the other place. As you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, the other place has been giving this matter consideration for the past two years, and I understand that there is to be a debate on the third report of the House of Lords Offices Select Committee this afternoon. It is alleged that the report concludes that there should be urgent consultations between the other place and this place with a view to getting concerted action on the question of facilities for Euro-Members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster.
I believe that the matter is important for two reasons. Access to facilities in the House of Commons by Euro-Assemblymen raises big questions about the rights and privileges both of Parliament itself and British Members of Parliament. As the House knows, and you as the guardian of the privileges and rights of Euro-Members know only too
640
well, Mr. Speaker, the only people who have access at the moment are the people who serve Parliament, whether they be Officers of the House or secretaries. I believe that this positon could be usurped if Euro-Assemblymen have a right of access to the Palace of Westminster.
On the question of importance, my view is quite clear. If the Euro-Assemblymen wish to have facilities in London they should be provided by the European Commission or by the European Parliament. To underline that point, I believe that we are already paying enough to the Common Market and if further expenditure is required for European Members of Parliament it should be provided either by the Commission or by the Parliament.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you are convinced of the urgency, the importance and the specific nature of my request and that you will be able to accede to it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the provision of facilities for Euro-Members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made but I have to rule that they do not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice earlier of my point of order, but that was not possible under the circumstances. I refer to the facilities at Westminster for Members of the European Parliament. May we have an assurance that no decision will be taken during the recess and that no decision will be taken without a full debate in the House? Not only is accommodation of importance; an important constitutional question is involved. It would be unfortunate

641
if a decision were taken by the Services Committee during the recess without a full debate in the House.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take into consideration that in the past two years hon. Members have experienced growing difficulties when trying to book rooms for various parliamentary activities? Last week, for instance, the important Labour Party trade union group tried to arrange a meeting with a leader in the trade union movement. Normally the trade union group can guarantee finding a room somewhere. However, such is the pressure on all the rooms, despite there being one or two more available, that the group had to cancel its meeting at the last minute.
In the past few months, in particular, the use of many rooms and other facilities have been cancelled because of the pressure of activities by hon. Members. We are talking not only of the 81 Members of the European Parliament who will want to come here but of the many others who will be associated with them. After the thin end of the wedge we must think in terms of several hundred people requiring facilities on some occasions in premises in and around the House.
This is a big issue. I hope that no hurried decision will be taken. You, Mr. Speaker, carry considerable weight. During your long career as Speaker this may be one of the most important decisions that you will have to take. I hope that you will think carefully about any decision that you have to make with a view to ensuring that the already overloaded facilities in the House of Commons are not further overloaded by the Members of the European Parliament and their associates.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for the way in which they expressed their point of view. I can give the House an assurance. The Services Committee do not decide this matter. No decision will be taken during the recess. Of that I can give the House an assurance, so far as I am concerned.
I do not decide on the subjects for debates; that is a matter for somebody else. The House of Commons Commission has considerable responsibility. I feel cure that since we are to rise the
642
day after tomorrow—I hope—no decision on such an important matter will be taken during the recess. The hon. Member for Bolsover was kind enough to refer to my long career. It is half-way through.

BROADMOOR SPECIAL HOSPITAL
Mr. Race: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the very serious allegations which have been made today concerning the treatement of patients at Broadmoor special hospital."
These allegations have been made by nurses who until recently were employed at Broadmoor. They are specific because they relate to individual cases. They are important because they relate to a number of recent incidents at Broadmoor. The importance of them to the House, Mr. Speaker, can be judged by the nature of some of the allegations. They are that patients have been kicked and beaten unconscious by staff at the hospital on a number of occasions; that patients have been soaked alternately with very hot and very cold douches of water by staff in order to get compliance; that electro-convulsive treatment has been given to patients without their approval and without anaesthetics; that drugs, including major transqullisers, have been used by doctors to control patients without a therapeutic reason for doing so; and that solitary confinement has been used in order to ensure compliance with the regime at the hospital.
Lastly—the issue that I beleive is extremely important for this House—I believe that the nurses in question have been threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act by the Thames Valley police if they make these allegations public. These are all serious matters, which I believe that the House should debate as quickly as possible. That is why I referred these questions to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will consider them—I am sure that you have done so—in a reasonable and fair fashion.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjourn-

643
ment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the very serious allegations which have been made today cocerning the treatment of patients at Broadmoor special hospital."
The hon. Gentleman was also good enough to outline for me the camplaints that he has brought to the notice of the House this afternoon. Of the importance of the matter there can be no doubt, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said. However, my choice is strictly limited. I do not decide whether the House discusses this matter; I merely decide whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow night.
I have given very careful thought to the letter sent to me by the hon. Gentleman and to his application this afternoon. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's application does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

RHODESIA (BINGHAM REPORT)
Mr. English: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the statement this afternoon by Mr. Attorney-General."
The practice of giving traitors immunity is spreading. The House should discuss it, because the Attorney-General is the only Minister whose actions cannot be discussed before a Select Committee. His actions can be discussed only on the Floor of the House. I do not ask for a ruling today, Mr. Speaker. However, I ask you to consider this matter.
The real matter of importance is not that of immunity. It has just been said, in effect, that our processes of criminal investigation are so weak that we cannot do what the Americans can do in relation to a Head of State with 2 million employees, but we can for a multinational company with 200,000 em-
644
ployees. There is a need for an inquiry into our processes of criminal investigation. The matter is so important that it cannot wait.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the statement this afternoon by Mr. Attorney-General."
I listened carefully to the exchanges this afternoon and to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. As I said earlier, I do not decide whether this matter should be debated by the House. I have only to decide whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow.
After careful consideration of the hon. Gentleman's representations I have to rule that they do not fall within the provisons of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
FRIDAY 25 JANUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Jim Callaghan.

Mr. Ioan Evans.

Mr. Iain Mills.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. John Stanley and Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, presented a Bill to give security of tenure, and the right to buy their homes, to tenants of local authorities and other bodies; to make other provision with respect to those and other tenants; to amend the law about housing finance in the public sector; to make other provision with respect to housing; to restrict the discretion of the court in making orders for possession of land; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

  DUMPING OF WASTE (CONTROL)
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Raymond Ellis: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to consult parish councils prior to the dumping of toxic and/or hazardous waste.
  Is it not strange that when it is proposed to establish a gipsy site the parish council involved has the right to object? Is it not strange that when it is intended to sink a coal mine at Belvoir the parish council concerned has a right to object? Likewise, is it not strange that local councils have a right to object to the starting of a quarry or open-cast mining, the building of airports, motorways, and such simple measures as housing development, but that when it comes to the infinitely more dangerous practice of dumping toxic waste, local authorities not only do not have the right to object but do not even have the right to know?
  I cite as an example the experiences in North-East Derbyshire, in and around the small village of Morton. This was once a thriving coal mining area. The mine was worked out and permission was granted to mine the remaining coal by open-cast methods. Instructions were given with the planning permission that within a certain period the ground should be sealed and restored to agriculture. Only a certain amount of the ground could be open at any time.
  The conditions of that planning permission were broken time and again. Eventually there was a hole in the ground that would have held the entire Houses of Parliament 10 times over—and they would have been lost without trace. On top of that indignity we discovered that licence had been granted to dump toxic poisons without anybody in the local authorities being given any information. The shroud of M15 secrecy that surrounds that operation makes my constituents alarmed, anxious and angry.
  Almost daily at Morton one can see dead wildlife, dead herons and dead household pets, such as cats and dogs. Hon. Members will understand the feelings of my constituents.
  In an attempt to clarify the situation and to placate fears, last week I tabled a dozen or so questions to the Minister so that a reply could be given to the
  646
  questions of my constituents. However, the answers to the questions did not help. For instance, I asked whether any toxic waste or hazardous poisons were being imported, to be dumped in my constituency. The Minister replied that there was no restriction on the origin—only on the type.
  In recent months I monitored entry to the site of laden lorries that travelled from as far a field as Swansea, Preston, Port Talbot and Humberside, which are all located in or near coastal areas. My constituents tell me that North-East Derbyshire has become the toxic dustbin for the entire world. The Minister does not know—but somebody knows.
  That is why I now seek to put on the statute book legislation that will at least clear the air for future occasions. It is too late for Morton to be saved, because by the time the measure is on the statute book the devil's cauldron there will be brimming over.
  I am worried, because there were six clear-water streams and extensive coal mines in the area. When we try to seal off the area we shall discover a Pandora's box. It is my intention to assist other areas and to give parish councils the right to know what is going on at the bottom of their gardens.
  At the moment county authorities can fill any hole in the ground without prior leave or consultation. Although the Merseyside area is level ground, permission was given to store toxic waste there.
  In seeking permission to present a Bill to give parish councils the right to consultation prior to the dumping of toxic poisons within their areas, I refer to another answer that I received from the Minister to a question about a factory explosion that occurred a few years ago. It took place at a chemical factory in a constituency close to mine. Hon. Members may have heard of a recent similar occurence in Italy, when a poisonous gas cloud led to the evacuation of the affected area. Fortunately, on this occasion at the Coalite works at Bolsover there was no escape of poison gas into the outside air stream. However, there were fatal accidents. The explosion created dioxin poison similar to that in Italy. The entire factory walls and structures were so impregnated with the poison that the factory had to be demolished,

  647
  dismantled and dumped. I asked the Minister whether that factory poison had been dumped at Morton. He said that he did not know.
  I seek a small exercise in open government. I hope to obtain permission from the House to present a Bill to give parish councils the right to consultation prior to the dumping of toxic poisons. I am convinced that I am making a real and unambiguous attempt to return the powers of consultation to the parish councils at the grass roots.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Raymond Ellis.

  DUMPING OF WASTE (CONTROL)
  Mr. Raymond Ellis accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to consult parish councils prior to the dumping of toxic and/or hazardous waste: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 January and to be printed [Bill 111].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HEALTH SERVICSES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr. Speaker's intention is that from 7 o'clock the 10-minute rule will apply in this debate.
  4.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am sure that the House will be sorry to hear that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is unwell and that he will be unable to reply to the debate tonight. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, he hopes to wind up the debate and, of course, we shall deal with any questions that arise in the debate.
  The Second Reading of a Bill, by the custom of the House, need not be confined to the substance of the Bill itself, and I have no doubt that today's debate will be no exception. However, I think that it would be right for me at the outset of the debate to say that, although I cannot forecast the business of the House, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told me that he would give favourable consideration to providing time soon after Christmas for a general debate on the report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service and on the consultative paper recently issued by my Department and the Welsh Office. I make this clear so that hon. Members in all parts of the House, though of course entirely free to raise any points that are in order, may know that we may reasonably forecast that there will be this further opportunity to deal with more general matters covering the National Health Service than are comprehended within the clauses and schedules of the Bill.
  Of course, the first two clauses are not wholly unrelated to the proposals in the consultative paper. I therefore cannot possibly argue, nor indeed would I wish to argue, that this is not an appropriate occasion for putting forward views

  649
  on that paper. Nevertheless, I should like to make one point as clearly and unequivocally as I can. It is that nothing in the first two clauses of the Bill is intended to prejudge or prejudice in any way the outcome of the consultation son the consultative document. In our foreword my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I said this:
  "We believe that Ministers must now give a firm lead and this is what we are doing. We do however want the views of those concerned and we look forward to receiving these by the end of next April so that we can take final decisions and get the necessary changes moving from the middle of the year."
  We mean exactly what we have said.
  What, then, is the purpose of these two clauses? It is simply to give a permissive power to the Secretary of State to appoint district health authorities. They also allow a family practitioner committee to cover a different territorial area from that of a district or area health authority. In other words, these two clauses do no more than confer greater flexibility on Ministers in determining the most appropriate structure of the Health Service to suit the needs of the Service in different parts of the country. They do not commit anyone to any particular structure.
  It will be for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to decide what line to take in their own speeches. I hope that the House will understand if I say that I intend to reserve my comments on the report of the Royal Commission, and on the substance of the consultative paper, for a future occasion. I have said that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be very happy to deal with any points which right hon. or hon. Members may raise. I stress again that nothing in this Bill prejudges either any debates we may have or our consultations on the consultative paper, or the decisions which we may finally reach in the light of those consultations.
  I come to the part of the Bill which I imagine will prove to give rise to most argument, namely, part II, dealing with private practice. Those of us who took part in the debates on the subject of private practice during the last Parliament have no need to be reminded of the passions that were aroused, both inside and outside the House. I certainly do not want to rehearse in detail the events of those unhappy days, except to make the
  650
  point—which I do without rancour—that I believe some Members of the Labour Party, and in particular the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Barbara Castle, bear a heavy responsibility for fanning the flames of controversy. I also believe, however, that there are many on both sides of the House who will agree with the sentence in The Guardian leader of Monday 10 December in commenting on the Bill:
  "Compared to five years ago the mood is quite different."
  Our views on this side of the House can be briefly stated. We believe that it is a part of a free society that patients who wish to seek private medical treatment should be free to do so. We believe that doctors who wish to practise privately should have the right to do so. These views are shared by the overwhelming majority of the people.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Justify it.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman says "Justify it".
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The electricians.
  Mr. Jenkin: I will come to the electricians in a moment.
  A national opinion poll taken earlier this year showed that 6 out of 10 employees would be interested in having private medical cover as part of their terms of employment, and that included 63 per cent. of male manual workers. In the light of this, I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). It is hardly surprising that some unions are now beginning to include such cover in their negotiations with employers, and this must be welcomed.
  The poll showed two further things. Nearly three-quarters of the trade union members polled, including nearly 70 per cent. of National Health Service union members, believed either that their unions should support private medicine or that they should take a wholly neutral stance. Only 11 per cent. said that it was the job of their unions to oppose it. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite will listen to this one: the poll showed that even among Labour supporters nearly twice as many people believed that private prac-

  651
  tice helped the National Health Service as thought that it was a burden on it.
  Mr. David Ennals: I am not certain what the question was that was put, but, if the policy of any Government is to be determined by what opinion polls show, opinion polls show at present that the Government are extremely unpopular and the Labour Party should be in office. So opinion polls are not the way in which we should take sensible decisions.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not asking the House to take decisions on the basis of the opinion polls. I was seeking to answer the question of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who, when I said the overwhelming number of people supported our policy, said I should prove it. I believe that I have proved it.
  Mr. Reg Race: Will the Minister tell the House how the opinion poll which he has quoted differs from the many opinion polls which have been reported in newspapers over many years which show great opposition among the public both to private practice within National Health Service Hospitals and to the idea of private practice as a whole?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman, having asked for evidence of all the recent opinion polls that have covered this subject, that my Department was unable to find one which did not bear out what I have said.
  Let us take another matter. The presence of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals generates considerable revenue for the NHS. Private patients in those hospitals are expected to bring in over £35 million next year, and when National Health Service spending is under constraint it is folly to throw good money away. Perhaps I could ask the Opposition where else they think in these days that many of that kind is to come from.
  The poll showed that 60 per cent. of trade unionists believed that it would be wrong to give up this revenue, and I believe that they are right. So a clear majority favour retaining both private medicine and NHS pay beds.
  There is a practical argument to this, too. We need the geographical whole-time consultant. It must be possible for
  652
  a doctor to see his private and NHS patients in the same hospital. That was a point that was made by Mr. Bevan in a debate over 30 years ago, and it is as true today as it was when he said it.
  I recognise that there are many on the Opposition Benches who believe that there should be no independent medical practice at all or, if there has to be, that it should be totally separated. The right hon. Member for Norwich North (Mr. Ennals) shakes his head. He knows of the resolutions that have been passed at his party conferences, and he knows that they are represented on the Opposition Benches. But there are others who believe that there should be private practice but that it should be totally separate from the NHS. That is their view and they are entitled to express it. Nothing that I say will persuade them on the principle of the matter, but many I ask them to consider these further points?
  Whatever hon. Members opposite may have said, whatever they may have thought they voted for in the last Parliament, it is a fact that even without this Bill pay beds and private patients would have remained in much of the National Health Service indefinitely.
  Mr. Orme: That is the trouble.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is the trouble, but he does not deny that it is the fact. When it comes to legislating for real events involving real people in the real world, the gulf that divides the two sides on the issue of principle tends to narrow down to differences of emphasis, to changes in procedure and changes in timing. I ask the House to look at part II of the Bill very much in that light.
  Under the legislation passed by the Labour Government, there was apparently a commitment, first, to phase out pay beds entirely from the NHS and, secondly, to exercise a rigorous control over the development of the private sector. In practice, however, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, with relatively few exceptions the pay beds that have disappeared in the last few years were beds of a very low usage, and, moreover, the so-called Goodman compromise tacitly recognised that in many parts of the country, particularly in small towns and remote areas, pay beds would remain indefinitely in NHS hospitals.

  653
  It goes further than that. The Labour Government included in their legislation a clause which gave the Secretary of State power to authorise private practice in National Health Service hospitals for highly specialised treatment unlikely to be available in the private sector. No time limit was imposed on that clause and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North was at the time of the election actively engaged in consultations with the medical profession on how that clause might best be implemented. That clause envisages a permanent availability of private practice in National Health Service hospitals for the treatments covered by it. That is the fact, and that is the point from which we start.
  If one looks to the private sector outside the NHS, it is widely acknowledged that the last five years have seen the biggest expansion of the private sector since the war. Whether or not hon. Members opposite thought that that was what they were voting for, there can be no doubt whatever that that is what has happened. It is equally clear that even if existing legislation had remained in force this expension would continue. The trend is perhaps important because it points the way to the future. The trend in acute private practice has been for the more minor elective procedures to take place in the private sector outside the NHS while urgent or more specialised procedures remain in NHS hospitals. I believe that this trend is likely to continue, though it will not be universal. It seems to me, therefore, that it is right to set the provisions of the Bill not against the passionate denunciations of Labour politicians or against the uncompromising resolutions of Labour conferences but against the background of what was happening and would have happened under their legislation.
  In the chapter on private medicine in the report of the Royal Commission, it was said that private practice, both in and outside the NHS, was very small compared with the NHS, too small to have a significant impact on the National Health Service, except perhaps locally and temporarily. The Commission did not consider the presence or absence of pay beds in NHS hospitals to be significant at present from the point of view of the efficient functioning of the National Health Service.
  654
  It may be asked, therefore, perhaps by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, why the Government think it necessary to legislate at all. There are good reasons—quite apart from the issues of principle to which I referred.
  In the first place, it is rather silly, if pay beds are to remain indefinitely in the Health Service, that Parliament and the public should be invited to pretend otherwise. The Bill, therefore, repeals those provisions which would require—and I stress the word "require"—further progress towards phasing out. If there is no demand, the beds will go anyway. If there is demand, it should be met.
  Secondly, if it was right that a good many pay beds would have remained indefinitely, there seems no sense or logic to allow them only where they happened to be located at the time of the 1976 Act. It really is not sensible to preclude anyone from authorising pay beds in new hospitals or expanded hospitals, however great the demand might be. Our Bill, therefore, puts this right.
  Thirdly, the Labour Party's Bill placed the decision on whether pay beds should continue or be revoked on a body which was in no way answerable to this House. The Health Services Board had a duty to make proposals which neither my predecessor nor I could do anything about except to implement. I am sure that I am not alone in finding such a provision constitutionally offensive. As Secretary of State, I am answerable to this House for the National Health Service, and that includes the availability of pay beds. Yet, on that issue, the Act passed in the previous Parliament effectively stops the House having any say at all. The Bill, therefore, provides for the transfer from the Health Services Board to the Secretary of State of the power to authorise or revoke authorisations for pay beds, and it abolishes the board.
  In my view, the board carried out the duties imposed on it with scrupulous care. It was given a difficult task, and it has performed it admirably. I would like to express my thanks to Lord Wigoder and his colleagues, and to the Scottish and Welsh committees, for all the time and consideration that they devoted to their task.
  Those, then, are the changes we propose, and I suggest that they are modest.

  655
  At the same time, we are keeping and, indeed, improving the safeguards for the NHS. I share fully the concern of those who want to make sure that private practice in no way harms the interests of NHS patients. My overriding concern must always be for the NHS patient.
  The most important safeguard is that contained in section 62 of the 1977 Act, that the powers may be exercised only if I am satisfied that anything which I propose to do or allow under those powers
  "will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance
  of my duty to the National Health Service and National Health Service patients, and
  "will not to a significant extent operate to the disadvantage of"
  National Health Service patients. This is a clear legislative safeguard. It remains unchanged both in intent and language.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister for Health issued a consultative paper last June about our proposals, he made it quite clear that arrangements for private practice in National Health Service hospitals should operate, and be seen to operate, fairly. We are, therefore, going further than our predecessors ever did in seeking to make this effective.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that this is a question of fairness, does he agree that queue-jumping is unfair? That is how I have found the pay bed system to be in my area.
  Mr. Jenkin: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch the eye of the Chair, but I am about to deal with that point because I share his concern about that issue.
  The House will remember that the 1976 Act imposed a duty on the Health Services Board to make proposals about common waiting lists. This reflected the concern that was then felt, and is still felt, that private practice can lead to queue-jumping. The report published in May 1977 recommended that there should be common waiting lists for every category of patient, though it made the very important statement that complete responsibility for admitting patients from waiting lists should remain with the consultants.
  656
  In the event, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North, was unable to go the whole way with the Health Services Board. He introduced common waiting lists only for urgent cases and the seriously ill. It is true that he asked health authorities to enter into discussions about extending common waiting lists to all patients, but, so far as I can ascertain, little progress was ever made in those discussions. The position, therefore, when we came into office remained as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North left it—that common waiting lists existed only for urgent cases and the seriously ill.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt Mr. Laurie Pavitt(Brent, South) rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps I can develop my argument, and then I shall give way.
  It did not seem to us that that went far enough to implement our pledge that private practice in the Health Service should not prejudice the interests of National Health Service patients. We, therefore, approached the medical profession with a number of more far-reaching proposals, and I am happy to say that we have reached agreement with it on six "principles of private practice", which have been endorsed publicly by the BMA and which it will, at the appropriate time, draw to the attention of all consultants practising in the National Health Service.
  The first principle restates the under taking that private practice should not significantly prejudice non-paying patients. That is in the Bill. It will be in the Act.
  Secondly, subject to clinical considerations, earlier private consultation should not lead to earlier National Health Service admission or to earlier access to NHS diagnostic procedures. What this means is that it is now clearly recognised by the profession as an abuse of the system to use a private consultation as a device to gain earlier admission to hospital as an NHS patient. That. I believe, by itself will remove one of the major grounds for complaint that has existed in the past.
  Thirdly, common waiting lists should be used, as at present, for all urgent and seriously ill cases, but they should be extended to cover highly specialised diagnosis and treatment. The principle adds that

  657
  the same criteria should be used for categorising paying and non-paying patients.
  Fourthly, after admission, access by all patients to diagnostic and treatment facilities should be governed by clinical considerations. This principle is qualified only to the extent that it does not exclude earlier access by private patients to facilities specially arranged for them if these are provided without prejudice to National Health Service patients and without extra expense to the NHS.
  Fifthly, standards of clinical care and services provided by the hospital should be the same for all patients. Again, this principle does not affect the provision, on separate payment, of extra amenities, nor the practice of the day-to-day care of private patients usually being undertaken by the consultant engaged by them.
  Together, the fourth and fifth principles in effect mean that clinical considerations alone will govern the availability of treatment and care after admission to hospital for NHS and private patients alike.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to state the sixth principle, and then I shall give way. The last principle says that single rooms should not be held vacant for potential private use longer than the usual time between NHS patient admissions.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I point out that that is supposed to be the set of principles under which the consultants in the NHS have been operating since the inception of the Service. Indeed, is it not a measure of the disgraceful stage that we have reached that the Secretary of State needs to spell out those principles?
  Mr. Jenkin: All I can say is that we have gone further on this and have got a clear statement of the principles as well as a clearer commitment from the medical profession than any previous Secretaries of State. I think that that is something that the House should welcome.
  Mr. Orme: We shall obviously want to look at the proposals in some detail in Committee. However, what about social conditions? What about the woman with a large number of children who needs to be admitted urgently? What about ortho-
  658
  paedic cases, such as the one of the elderly lady in my constituency? Will they be admitted on an equal basis?
  Mr. Jenkin: I hope that this point will be examined in Committee, because it is very important. But what the right hon. Gentleman has said, particularly in his first example with regard to social conditions, makes it abundantly clear that in the management of waiting lists—this point is clearly brought out in the report of the Health Services Board—one simply cannot automatically arrange people in orders of clinical importance. There are many other factors that must be taken into account. I am glad to note the support of my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North. That is why the board and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North rightly decided that those matters must rest in the hands of the consultants. There is no alternative.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: That is the point that I wish to make. My right hon. Friend said that payment should not lead to earlier admission. Do not people who pay for private medicine often wish to delay treatment until their other commitments enable them to go into hospital? It is not that they try to jump the queue; they often go back down the queue.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is quite right. Payment gives a measure of flexibility. It does not necessarily operate to the detriment of National Health Service patients.
  Mr. Michael Meacher Mr. Michael Meacher(Oldham, West) rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I must go on; I have given way a lot.
  There are good arguments, to which I have frequently referred, for treating private patients separately from NHS patients in the same hospital, where that is practicable. However, it can, and sometimes does, give rise to avoidable difficulties because the same nurses and the same ward staff are concerned with private and National Health Service patients. Many hospital authorities recognise those difficulties and do their best to provide for private patients in order to avoid difficulties and embarrassment on that score. However, that is not always possible. The advice that I shall give the health authorities will press that point further.

  659
  I believe that these principles will go a very long way indeed to reassuring the public and staff in hospitals that there will be fairness between private and National Health Service patients. But this must work both ways. I hope that staff for their part will realise that all patients in National Health Service hospitals, private or NHS, must be treated in the same way and that there should be no reverse discrimination against private patients. I believe that the overwhelming majority of staff, including union members, will want to take a sensible line on that.
  I turn to the provisions of the Bill dealing with the private sector outside the National Health Service.
  First, clause 14 and schedule 4 propose certain amendments to the nursing homes and mental nursing homes legislation under which private homes and hospitals have to register with the Secretary of State. In practice, they register with the area health authority. These controls are concerned with standards of accommodation and non-clinical care. The Bill proposes to relax the residency requirement for the person in charge and also to bring private day care within the scope of the Act. I believe these are sensible measures which will be welcomed by everyone.
  More important are provisions in the Bill covering controls over the development of the private sector. Here I will be frank with the House. I had hoped that we might have found it possible substantially to modify the existing controls. Some people would see no reason why anyone who wants to build and run a hospital should be in any different position from someone who wants to build and run, say, a hotel. But we all recognise that it is not as easy as that. It is a fact that, although on the Continent there are a number of different health care systems, there is not one country that allows a completely free rein to hospital development.
  Although the private sector rightly offers a measure of choice to the people of this country, it cannot be said to do so under normal competitive conditions. In particular, the National Health Ser-
  660
  vice is inevitably constrained in what it can provide by the availability of clinical manpower. In these circumstances, it is not difficult to envisage private sector developments which could—although not necessarily—locally operate to the detriment of a National Health Service hospital. I believe we are right, therefore, to retain a measure of control. However, the Bill significantly simplifies procedures of control and makes some substantive changes. Clauses 10 and 11 make three amendments.
  The threshold for authorisation is raised to 120 beds across the country, rather than the present 100 in Greater London and 75 elsewhere. There will also be an exemption for increases in the number of beds over this level, where the increase is less that 20 per cent. in a three-year period. Those two changes relax the controls modestly. The third change tightens control. There will be a new reserve power whereby the Secretary of State would be enabled to designate by regulation areas or parts of areas where all private hospital developments would have to be authorised. This is to meet the point raised by the Royal Commission, which argued that an aggregate of small hospitals could in some places be just as detrimental to NHS interests as a single large one. I see this control very much as a long-stop. The Bill provides that such a control should apply only if a health authority specifically requests it and only for a specified period.
  However, with the private sector outside the NHS, just as in the case of pay beds in the NHS, we are anxious to remove any legitimate cause for criticism due to abuse of the system, so with the private sector we are anxious to meet the criticism that has been made that, although it is called independent, it is not truly independent because it depends on the National Health Service for its trained staff. In one sense, of course, the argument is bogus. The public sector education system trains a great many professions, many of them expressly for service in the private sector—one thinks of accountants, lawyers, even clergymen. There is nothing sacrosanct. One does not have to work in the public sector because one was trained in it.
  Mr. Orme: Why do they not?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman really must contain his impatience. I shall get to that point in a moment.
  However, why should it be different for doctors and nurses?
  In another sense, the argument may have some force. If the main reason for putting a quantitative control on private hospital development is that it could threaten shortages of skilled clinical manpower for adjacent NHS hospitals, should not the private sector itself do more to contribute to the pool of trained people? I believe that it should and that it could, and I am greatly encouraged to find that this is a view widely held in the private sector itself. Of course, some private hospitals have for years contributed to nurse training. I mention the arrangements which the Royal Masonic hospital has had with Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton. I have now initiated talks with a number of other private hospitals with a view to their making a contribution to nurse training.
  Of course, any such arrangements would have to secure the approval of the appropriate authorities, particularly the General Nursing Council. I am sure there is scope for training nurses and perhaps other professions in the private sector, and it is excellent that the private sector has accepted my challenge to do more.
  Clause 4 gives health authorities a power to raise money from voluntary sources to supplement their funds. I am bound to say that I am surprised and a little saddened by the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench to this proposal. Health authorities have always been free to accept voluntary contributions and to hold and administer trust funds, but they have been precluded from being involved directly in fund raising.
  Mr. J. W. Rooker: Turning people out on to the streets.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have always understood that the reason for this was that, when the National Health Service was set up, Mr. Bevan wanted, quite reasonably perhaps, to break down the demarcation between the old voluntary hospitals and the municipal hospitals. Therefore, he intro-
  662
  duced the rule that no hospital should appeal for funds.
  I believe that today the restriction is unnecessary and unreasonable. We all recognise that the Health Service is unable to meet all the demands made upon it. All Governments in recent years have found and every Secretary of State has had to make speeches explaining that there are waiting lists and that important projects must wait and why there is not enough money available. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North had to do that and I must do it. At the same time, there is undoubtedly great public concern about the well-being of local hospital services, and there are welcome signs that more people want to do something about it. Of course, leagues of friends and other similar bodies can raise substantial sums and channel them into the Health Service. But it really seems absurd that health authorities themselves should not have power to appeal for funds to supplement what they get from my Department.
  The proposals in the Bill are modest and scarcely justify the hysterical reaction of the right hon. Member for Salford, West. He talked about running casinos and implied that the clause spelt the end of a Health Service free at the point of use. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is absolute rubbish. Clause 4 does not give any power to run casinos, which he would have discovered had he devoted time to reading it before delivering his outburst. Moreover, there is a reserve power to forbid any activity that the Secretary of State thinks unsuitable. The power to raise funds no more undermines the principle of a National Health Service free at the point of use than does its present powers to accept voluntary gifts.
  What are we looking for here? If a small local hospital is threatened with closure because resources are needed to finance the commissioning of a modern new hospital—and I am sure that we can all think of examples of that—is it unreasonable that the health authority could indicate that, if voluntary funds were forthcoming to meet the whole or part of the cost of keeping that small hospital open, it would be happy to make an arrangement to do just that?
  Is it really obscene—to use the right hon. Gentleman's word—that if a health authority ands that it does not have the

  663
  money to modernise a nursing home, as is the case in my constituency at present, upgrade an old ward or install a sophisticated piece of equipment it should make such projects known to the public and appeal for funds?
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do themselves no credit at all by their absurd reaction to this clause. I believe that the public will fully understand its purpose, and I hope that they will respond generously when appeals are made. I am convinced that a hospital will best serve the community if it can be persuaded to look outwards towards the community rather than for ever upwards to the hand that feeds it.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but what kind of undertaking can he give to health authorities that allocations made to them will not be subsequently reduced because of voluntary cntributions that have been received?
  Mr. Jenkin: That matter is dealt with in the Bill and can, no doubt, be examined and elaborated in Committee. Between £10 million and £15 million is currently paid voluntarily to the Health Service, and that contribution makes no difference to the allocation to the authorities. Those sums are additions, and that is what people want. I am sure that our hospital services will thrive to the extent that they look outward to the community and the community responds. They should not constantly have to appeal to me for more and more money.
  Mr. David Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any case every major London hospital has a substantial capital fund yielding substantial income, which is used for the benefit of all patients? The proposal is only the extension of a long-established practice.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but that point applies not only to London but to hospitals all over the country which have trust funds. We want to seek to increase that sort of finance.
  Clause 5 brings up to date the provisions for the financial control of health authorities. Under existing procedures, I am under a duty to advance sums to meet whatever a given approval of ex-
  664
  penditure might require. The House will recognise that that duty, as worded, is now totally incompatible with the system of cash limits instituted by the Labour Government. It is necessary to change that duty to give health authorities advances not exceeding a predetermined sum which is compatible with the Department's cash limits. Secretaries of State, as my predecessor, the hon. Member for Norwich, North, will recognise, cannot be in the position of having a duty to advance more money than is available.
  Clause 5 also places a duty on health authorities to contain their expenditure within the cash limit allotted to them, together with any other sums that they receive—for instance, by way of pay bed revenue. It was, I think, the absence of any such clear statutory duty that contributed to the unfortunate events in the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham area health authority in recent years. In view of pending litigation, I cannot say more about that today. I believe that this clause is necessary to put beyond doubt a duty that successive Governments—and I have read all the correspondence of my predecessor—have certainly expected health authorities to fulfil.
  The Bill contains a sensible, moderate package of reform, which should attract support from all sensible, moderate opinion. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to scrutinise the details carefully in Committee, and that is as it should be.
  At the last election, the Conservative Party undertook to simplify and decentralise the National Health Service and cut back bureaucracy. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill give us the power to do just that, if the consultations on "Patients First" endorse our proposals. The right of health authorities to appeal for funds will once again enable local communities to demonstrate practical support for their hospital.
  In our manifesto we also undertook to allow pay beds to be provided where there is a demand for them and to end Labour's vendetta against the private health sector. Part II of the Bill implements that pledge in a reasonable and balanced way. The undertakings given by the medical profession demonstrate

  665
  its commitment to the belief that the right to practise privately carries with it corresponding responsibilities. The six principles to which it has agreed go further in that direction than ever before and meet all the real objections to private practice in the National Health Service.
  These are all commonsense measures, and as such I commend them to the House.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about a debate on the report of the Royal Commission, and I assume that it will be early in the new year. There are wider aspects than those covered in the Bill that we want to discuss.
  This Bill will not help the National Health Service. We recognise that there are problems in the Service. The developments that have taken place in its 31 years of existence—increased technology, improved conditions and earnings for those working in the Health Service, the demographic change for the elderly—will create problems that as a nation we shall have to face, and we need a National Health Service that can cope with them. We should therefore look at the Bill to see whether it takes us along that road.
  The Secretary of State talked of Conservative philosophy and the question of principle. We agree that the Bill is not so much about technology but about philosophy and general approach. The right hon. Gentleman should not be under any illusion. We disagree vehemently with the general direction of the Bill.
  This is the first step by this Government down the road towards a two-tier Health Service, and it amounts to a private patients' charter. It is an important step away from local democracy, accountability, and the principles of health care free at the point of use. We have already seen the Government's emphasis on charging and the increased prescription charges. It is also an important step along the road to financing the National Health Service—and I want to say more about clause 5, which is extremely important—through raffles, bazaars, and so forth. I repeat that it is obscene that people's health should depend on such practices.
  The right hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to quote Aneurin Bevan on the National Health Service. When the
  666
  National Health Service was created, it was intended to be free at the time of use to everybody and to be financed through direct taxation of the community as a whole. We do not deviate from that basic principle.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In that case, why, under the previous Labour Government and, indeed, under every Labour Government since the war, have voluntary funds been cheerfully accepted? The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), my predecessor, praised the giving of voluntary funds whenever the matter was referred to. What is so different about accepting voluntary funds in addition and appealing for voluntary funds? The right hon. Gentleman is being foolish on this point.
  Mr. Orme: There is a world of difference between the friends of a hospital raising money to provide a television set, chairs or amenities and nurses on the street with collecting boxes.
  I should like to deal with four main points in relation to the Bill: the Health Service reorganisation, the powers of the health authorities to engage in voluntary fund raising, financial matters and private medicine, both within and outside the National Health Service.
  We are all in favour of better service and getting rid of bureaucracy. On the question of reorganisation, we should look in some detail at the proposals to get rid of the third tier within the NHS. I remind the House that the present Secretary of State for Industry put in that third tier. His reorganisation—the 1973 Bill—was based on the Kinsey report that was commissioned by the Government of the day—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: McKinsey report.
  Mr. Orme: Not Saatchi and Saatchi, of course.
  The question of reorganisation raises some basic principles about democracy. In the Bill, the regional and area health authorities are greatly strengthened. They are given more powers, including the right to determine boundaries. Alongside those powers, the consultative document, which, for a document of its sort, contains many firm proposals, states in paragraph 23—on the subject of the membership of the new boards and whether the present one-third local

  667
  authority membership is necessary—that there should be four local authority representatives on district health authorities. That is a reduction of local health representatives on all bodies. At the moment, bodies with 20 such members will have that membership reduced to six or seven, while a membership of 30 will be reduced to 10.
  That input of local authority representation is the only indirect democratic link, as opposed to appointment within the area health authorities. If hon. Members or local councillors in their wards went on to the street and took a poll, they would find out how many people knew who their representatives were on district or area health authorities—very few. It is a fundamental matter which we should like to examine in detail.
  I notice that the Royal Commission report referred to the question of local authority representation and whether the NHS should be devolved to local government. In paragraph 20.61, the report states:
  "We concluded in Chapter 16 that the NHS should not be transferred to local government at the present time but that the question should be looked at again if regional government became a possibility in England."
  It rightly posed the possibility that there is something wrong in the democratic structure of the NHS. We should take account of that fact.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), when he was Secretary of State, put forward proposals for industrial democracy and trade union representation of those working in the NHS. Those proposals have now been dropped and there has been no reference to them by the Secretary of State. If we take into account that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Royal Commission recommendation that family practitioner committees should be brought within the district or area health authorities, that is another block against the extension of democracy.
  The problem of the community health councils cannot be excluded. I found it strange that the consultative document called "Patients First" should refer in paragraph 26 to community health councils—themselves representative bodies—representing patients. The latter part of paragraph 26 states:
  668
  "The need for separate consumer representation in these circumstances is less clear; next year the councils will cost over £4 million. The Government will welcome views on whether community health councils should be retained when the new district health authority structure has been implemented."
  I see that as the death knell for the CHCs, which have played an important role and which have often been a thorn in the flesh of the AHAs and RHAs.
  Mr. Ennals: That is why the right hon. Gentleman is doing it.
  Mr. Orme: The CHCs did a good job. The report on the difficulties experienced at Normansfield mental hospital commended the CHCs. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State concurs with that commendation. They did not give up, like others did, in the attempt to get the scandals publicised, recognised and dealt with.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman said that paragraph 26 sounded the death knell of the CHCs. I should like to state publicly that the Government's mind on this point is absolutely open. Paragraph 26 makes that clear. Whether or not the CHCs will stay depends greatly on representations that may be made to us between now and next April. I should like that fact to be understood. I have made no decision on the matter.
  Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State's words are rather different from those used in the consultative document.
  Mr. David Atkinson: Is it not reasonable to suggest that, once the new district health authorities have been established, including, as they will, local councillors, there may not be a case for community health councils to continue in existence? The local view will already be represented on the district health authorities.
  Mr. Orme: The CHCs will still represent large numbers of people. There is insufficient democracy in the NHS, and I believe that we must explore ways of trying to achieve sufficient democracy. I have no easy answer to that—it is a difficult question. Many of my hon. Friends would like to keep open the question of putting the NHS into the local authority ambit. However, there are difficulties for the regional health authorities and I recognise that fact. If education and other

  669
  services can be carried out on a local basis, why not health services?
  Mr. Race: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important functions that the community health councils have—and one of the powers that they have—is an ability to refer to the Minister any hospital closure decision made by an area health authority? Does he agree, therefore, that if a proposal to abolish the CHCs was accepted by the Government it would be fair to ask who, if anybody, would then exercise the power to object to closures by area health authorities? Does not this reflect on the essential nature of moving away from democratic accountability by CHCs?
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), who has great experience of the National Health Service, has gone straight to the point. Without wearying the House, I shall refer to the speech by the Secretary of State in March 1973, when the new structure was proposed, in which he said:
  "the consumer's voice is clearly taken into account via the new community health councils."—[Official Report, 26 March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 925.]
  I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say, and I shall weigh his words and watch his actions during the coming months. The Royal Commission recommended the strengthening of the CHCs. We support that and will probably say more about it when we debate the Royal Commission report.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I should like my right hon. Friend to agree that we, as public representatives, have found the CHCs helpful when dealing with all National Health Service problems. This is the one point at which public representatives come into play. I have an excellent CHC in my area. That CHC owes some gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who used to be its chairman. My hon. Friend ran that CHC well, and it is the kind of organisation we should maintain.
  Mr. Orme: I thank my right hon. Friend. My right hon and hon. Friends have underlined the importance of the CHCs. When one is a Minister, CHCs can often be a nuisance; they can be
  670
  critical and raise questions. But that is what CHCs are for in a democracy. Ministers should be accountable. It appears that the Government—there is a further example in the Bill—are placing all the power in the hands of the Secretary of State, and we are opposed to that.
  Mr. David Crouch: There are only two members of regional health authorities in the House, and I am one. We should not confuse the function of the CHCs as representing public opinion—which is important and which should continue—with participation in the management of the National Health Service. There seems to have been some confusion during the last five minutes about where CHCs fit in. The role of CHCs is to represent the public concern about health care through the NHS.
  Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) for his constructive point. I believe in strengthening the CHCs. They are often the poor relation in the Health Service structure. From what has been said to me by area and regional health administrators, I understand that they would like to see the back of the CHCs, and for that reason I want to maintain them.
  I turn now to private practice, which the right hon. Gentleman made a central point of his contribution.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: The right hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the CHCs. Does he believe that there should be no deletion of any tier?
  Mr. Orme: No. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) misunderstood me. I said that we were in favour of improving the Health Service. If this measure will improve the Health Service, we will not oppose it. But we believe that three tiers are too many. What we are concerned about is what happens to democracy and representation. I am not opposed to looking at the basic structure as such.
  The second major proposal in the Bill deals with private practice, both within and outside the Health Service. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill recommends the abolition of the Health Services Board, the reversal of the phasing out of pay beds and an increase in the number of private hospitals before

  671
  Government clearance to go ahead is obtained. The number of private beds authorised will be 120 throughout the country as opposed to the present 75 in the provinces and 100 in London.
  I recognise that the Bill contains a small measure of tightening up in the private sector. As I read the Bill, that will affect the abortion clinics. We believe that these three provisons amount to a positive step by the Government to encourage the private sector and allow it to flourish and develop.
  There is a fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government. In principle, we should like to see a National Health Service with no private sector. However, we accept that a private sector exists, and no doubt we shall have a private sector in one form or another for some time. But the basic principle from which we start, and upon which the Health Service was founded, is to provide a service for the whole community. As with education, once people are allowed to buy themselves out, the pressure to improve the service is weakened.
  Mr. F. A. Burden Mr. F. A. Burden(Gillingham) rose—
  Mr. Orme: I must develop this point.
  I find it odd that we have to argue about the issue of common waiting lists. If a person needs to go into hospital—not necessarily urgently—he should not have to compete with the private sector. I raised this point with the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not answer. I pointed out the problems that would flow from having to compete with the private sector. Often the consultants are not prepared to take non-urgent cases into account. In many instances the consultant makes only a clinical judgment. We feel extremely strongly about this proposition.
  Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman stated that the private sector, because of its advantages, would depress the public sector. Surely the opposite is true. If we have something that is better than that which is generally available for everyone, there is a pressure from those below, who do not receive those advantages, for higher standards. That happens in every walk of life.
  Mr. Orme: Health should not be dependent on payment. That is the moral point from which I start.
  The House knows that it was the desire of Aneurin Bevan to bring the whole medical profession into the National Health Service on a salary basis. That was unacceptable at that time to the medical profession. To launch the National Health Service, he had to concede that point. He recognised that he could not persuade the medical profession to accept what he was advocating. Thirty-one years later, I still think that that basic argument is right and I re-emphasise it.
  The Government are to abolish the Health Services Board. This is an independent body, yet the Tories still cannot trust it so they abolish it. The Secretary of State takes powers unto himself—and tomorrow in the Social Security Bill he will take more powers unto himself—and abolishes independent bodies which are appointed to perform a service for the community. Their abolition is all tied up with this word "quango" Apparently, because they are called quangos, they must be wrong. We do not accept that attitude. In fairness to the Secretary of State, he paid tribute to the people who have worked on the Health Services Board, and, of course, he has just reappointed them—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That is an example of what I was referring to. The board is in no way answerable to this House, and therefore I have no option under the existing Act but to reappoint the members until this Bill becomes law. I should have thought that accountability to the House of Commons was something that the right hon. Member, as a House of Commons man, would appreciate. Surely there is some merit in accountability—a merit which he has not recognised.
  Mr. Orme: I do not accept that interpretation of accountability. Everything cannot be accountable. Personal cases cannot be accountable. Of course, the Secretary of State has given us an incentive. The longer we keep this Bill in Committee and elsewhere, the longer he will have to wait for the abolition of the Health Services Board.
  I come to the serious point that the Secretary of State made about industrial

  673
  relations in relation to the phasing back in of pay beds and the abolition of the Health Services Board. He keeps on about industrial relations. He keeps referring to last winter and the problems that arose then. In abolishing the independent board and phasing pay beds back into the NHS, the right hon. Gentleman will do more harm to Health Service industrial relations than he could have done by any other single measure. We shall see a return to queue-jumping at the taxpayers' expense. I have never understood how this could be justified. The green light to private hospitals will further undermine the National Health Service. It is already difficult to attract staff at all levels, and now more personnel will be siphoned off. Nowhere is there a duty laid down to assess private sector development in the interests of NHS patients, who form the vast majority.
  How long will it be before the Secretary of State's much-vaunted insurance proposals, which would take us further down the road to the destruction of the NHS, see the light of day? What views does the Secretary of State have on the effect of these on the size of the administration? He often speaks of the insurance principle. Perhaps he has seen the recent lecture of Professor Brian Abel-Smith, who made this point:
  "The only problem which a switch to health insurance could help to resolve would be that of unemployment. If we followed the French or German examples it would mean creating some 150,000 to 200,000 extra bureaucratic jobs to collect…contributions and bills.…The elimination of separate billing is one of the largest economies from having a National Health Service."
  That is a central point. When the Royal Commission examined overseas health services, it came to the view that the administration costs of the NHS were possibly the lowest in any modern developed society.
  I turn to the question of voluntary fund-raising, which is not unconnected with the previous point. I do not take back one word that I have said on this issue. Earlier I quoted what Aneurin Bevan said in 1948 when he was appointed Minister of Health. If there was one thing that he wanted, it was to stop the practice whereby nurses had to go around with collecting boxes two or three times a year to subsidise or help finance their local hospital. This is absolutely
  674
  different from the question of raising money to improve a room or buy a chair or television set.
  In principle, there are objections to voluntary fund-raising. It favours the popular hospitals. It favours richer districts where money is easy to raise and this increases inequality between the rich and the disadvantaged. No doubt the Secretary of State has seen what the Royal Commission said about the under-privileged areas in the inner cities. This is one aspect on which I criticise the Royal Commission because, while it refers to this matter, it does not take on board the seriousness of the situation. I represent an inner city area, and I know the problems. Fund-raising also leads to unhelpful annual variations in revenue and may encourage last-minute cuts. It favours popular specialities, such as cancer, at the expense of the mentally ill or geriatrics.
  Let us take the example of the "Blue Peter" campaign on Kampuchea. The voluntary organisations have complained that this campaign has sucked away from them the moneys which would otherwise have come to them. We have the classic example of the fund-raising case in the North-West. I believe that this is a bizarre way to apportion money.
  Clause 4(3) says:
  "The activities authorised by this section include public appeals or collections and competitions, entertainments, bazaars, sales of produce or other goods and other similar activities, and the activities may involve the use of land, premises or other property held by or for the benefit of the health authority or the Board exercising the power."
  The Secretary of State said that he was taking powers of control. He said that there would not be casinos. But I wonder whether he will allow nurses to raise collections. Will he issue a code of guidance on this matter to area or regional health authorities?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. First, he says that fund-raising provides chairs and television sets and then he goes on indirectly to attack the Pat Seed cancer campaign in the North-West which has raised money for specialised equipment in dealing with cancer. Fund-raising goes far beyond that. It provides kidney machines and, in my own hospital, it has provided apparatus in the Intensive care unit. This equipment would not have

  675
  been provided with the money supplied by the previous Government.
  Mr. Orme: I give credit to the magnificent work done by Mrs. Pat Seed, but, quite frankly, it should not have been her responsibility to raise £1,750,000. That is a question of financing, and if equipment is so essential and needed so badly it should be provided by the State. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he could stop certain things and allow certain things. We are entitled to know what they are.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The words "casinos" and "lotteries", as I understand it, do not come within the clause. They would be the subject of legislation from another Department. My control would be exercised through the opening words of clause 4(3):
  "Subject to any directions of the Secretary of State excluding specified descriptions of activity".
  Mr. Orme: It becomes more confusing. We shall examine the clause in Committee and consider any further proposals put forward by the Home Office.
  In the financial provisions in clause 5, the sections on financial duties are ridiculously rigid. They confer vast powers on the DHSS and the regional health authorities to order around district authorities, and make it a legal duty to remain within cash limits. At a time of unexpected changes in inflation rates, it seems unfair and impracticable to set out that sort of duty, especially as the Government are creating the inflation. It only increases the pressure to make large panic cuts, leading to gross under spending. Funding would be reduced by the Treasury.
  We shall wish to examine that clause in great detail. It provides powers to remove authorities which do not carry out the Secretary of State's wishes or which he feels have failed to carry out their statutory obligations as laid down in the Bill. In Lambeth and Southwark he has suspended the authorities, but he cannot remove them. It is important to note that in the Bill he takes powers to sack authorities if he so desires.
  I shall put many questions to the right hon. Gentleman. If he is unable to answer them, we shall await consideration of them in Committee. Would the
  676
  money that the Government expect to save from the reorganisation be added to the Health Service Vote or would it go into the Treasury coffers? How much would be saved?
  I regret that the Minister for Health is not present. I hope that he soon recovers from his indisposition. He is on record as saying that the reorganisation would save £30 million. I have never known any reorganisation that has saved money. There has been local government reorganisation and Health Service reorganisation, and both have cost money. Will the Secretary of State spell out from where the £30 million would come? It could come only from salaries and job losses, because those are the real changes that are to be made.
  What powers of direction does the Secretary of State intend to take over the health authorities which spend over their cash limits? Would health authorities continue to be allowed the opportunity that we gave them to carry over to the next financial year 1 per cent. of underspending? Is that flexibility to remain?
  Does the Secretary of State agree that the interests of National Health Service patients must be the major criterion in deciding whether to allow further expansion of private medicine? The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that he has reappointed the Health Services Board. Would it be able to carry on phasing out pay beds? It is a statutorily legally appointed board.
  Clause 15 amends section 2 of the National Health Service Act 1966, which
  "enables the General Practice Finance Corporation to make loans to medical practitioners providing general medical services for the provision of premises and to acquire and lease to such practitioners sites required for such services".
  Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out whether that means that there will be basic changes?
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands how difficult, indeed almost impossible, it is for general practitioners to find premises in view of the high cost of property in London and other central areas. I believe that that is the reasoning behind the clause.
  Mr. Orme: I note that point, but we wish to know the intentions of the Secretary of State.

  677
  This is a thoroughly bad Bill that attacks the fundamentals of the Health Service. We oppose it and we shall fight it. I restate the Royal Commission's endorsement that the National Health Service should be free at the point of use for all and paid for by the community through direct taxation. I re-emphasise that, and I shall continue to do so.
  The National Health Service, with all its problems, is a credit to the nation, yet it is under central attack. We regard it as an outstanding post-war achievement. I assure the Government that they will have a major fight on their hands. We are defending something which we created and in which we believe. We shall continue to fight for it.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Much of the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was taken up with fears that have been based on myth and his imagination. He sought skeletons in cupboards that do not exist. During the course of my remarks I shall refer to some of the issues that he raised.
  I say at the outset, especially as I shall be making some fairly critical comments on the reorganisation, that I am in complete agreement with the objectives of the Bill. Undoubtedly there is a need for changes in the administration of the National Health Service. From the beginning, some of us feared that the present structure would be too bureaucratic. Regrettably, our fears have proved well founded.
  The previous Government's Health Services Act 1976 was based on dogma and not on common sense. It did not have any regard to the growing public demand for private medicine, not least from the trade unions, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already referred.
  Phasing out pay beds is contrary to public demand. It removes from the National Health Service a source of income. It divides private and public medicine and unnecessarily complicates the lives of doctors and consultants, some of whom have been tempted to opt out of the National Health Service altogether.
  Providing health authorities with the powers to raise money by appeals and collections is good not only in that it
  678
  provides a small source of extra funds but because it should have the effect of stimulating community involvement and interest in local Health Service provisions. Thus, money-raising could be one more way of keeping the Health Service authorities in touch with, and making them responsive to, public opinion. The right hon. Member for Salford, West utters ridiculous nonsense when he says that it is a bizarre way of allocating money. Such remarks demonstrate the opposition of Labour Members to any form of personal choice.
  I shall address most of my remarks to the method of rationalising the structure of the NHS administration. I was especially glad when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that no conclusions have yet been drawn about the future organisation of the Health Service. It may not be popular to say so, but the simple truth is that the bulk of part I of the Bill is before us because we made nonsense of reorganisation in 1974. I suspect that the reason was much too much theory and not enough practical thought given to reorganisation. I have a nasty feeling that unless we are careful the same may prove true again.
  My first plea to the Secretary of State is that he should bear in mind constantly the emphasis in the Royal Commission's report on variety and flexibility of organisation. Every time that my right hon. Friend draws a conclusion about the Health Service organisation in one area, he should turn to page 324 of the report and remind himself of the contents of paragraph 20.48, which states:
  "The NHS is not a tidy construction and it still bears the marks of the haphazard growth of health services before 1948."
  The sentence that I wish to emphasise reads:
  "Arrangements which suit one part of the United Kingdom well will be wholly unsuited to another."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will keep that paragraph before him throughout his consideration of the future Health Service organisation. That is one of many paragraphs that stress the need for variety. Again and again, the Royal Commission stresses the need for flexibility.
  That stated, I shall produce a little theory of my own. I ask the House to consider the pyramid of Health Service administration. At the top is the Depart-

  679
  ment. Underneath are the regional health authorities, the area health authorities, the existing district health authorities, and the community health councils. My right hon. Friend correctly wishes to remove one tier. It seems clear that the nearer the base of the pyramid from which the tier is removed, the greater the size of the bureaucracy which may be involved and the greater potential, therefore, for saving administration costs. However, that is not what my right hon. Friend seems to be proposing in the lead that he has given in his consultative paper.
  The consultative paper tells us that my right hon. Friend would like to get rid of area health authorities and build up district health authorities. That seems rather odd. First, it means that for most area health authority quangos now in existence there will be several district health authority quangos in future. I know that there is a view that there are not enough quangos to go round to meet the demand for places on them, but I understand that that is a view that is repudiated by the Conservative Party and by the Government.
  Secondly, every quango generates its own bureaucracy and costs. Quangos have done so in the past, whatever responsibilities they have had. Miracles happen, but not very often. I fear that, if district health councils are established, the expected saving of £30 million on bureaucracy will prove meaningless. I shall give two small examples to illustrate my argument. There are currently 17 members of the Wiltshire area health authority. If each of the three districts within that authority becomes an authority in itself, there could be a total of 60 appointed members. The consultative paper suggests that there could be up to 20 members of each district health authority. If there are 60 in total in Wiltshire, the cost of travel and of servicing the 60 will not be inconsiderable.
  At present the Wiltshire county council deals with one area health authority. In future its actions may have to be tripled. The extra time that may be taken by officers will not be inexpensive. The Association of County Councils is much exercised on that score. It believes that area health authorities should be coterminous with county councils.
  680
  My third argument refers to the natural evolution of the Health Service since it has been reorganised. In his speech to the Conservative conference at Black pool this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health praised the Somerset area health authority for saving over £200,000 by simplifying its administration. It did so by abolishing two health districts and centralising on the area, not by doing the reverse. Furthermore, I believe that 39 of the 90 area health authorities are now single district areas. On the tenth page of the consultative paper, which is entitled "Patients First", it is suggested that single district area authorities should not be changed unless there are substantial advantages. Thus, in that context it seems that my right hon. Friend recognises the value of centralising at area level.
  That value can be proved in a number of ways. I shall take one example from my own experience. The Wiltshire area health authority has decided to centralise its stores. That will save £100,000 a year. However, that decision has been made in the teeth of opposition from districts. I think that my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will know of that opposition because representations were made to one or other of them from one or more of the districts.
  Fourthly, I put a question to the Minister who is to reply. In calculating the saving of £30 million, has account been taken of the fact that, under the currently prevailing Whitley council regulations, if a district management team becomes a district health authority all chief officers and some of their staff will be upgraded and, as a consequence, salary costs will rise?
  Fifthly, the implication of what has been said about the reorganisation—this is the implication of the consultative document as I read it—is that all area health authority responsibilities will go to district health authorities. Is that really so? I have no doubt that many duties which are above district level will go to regional health authorities. If I am right, decision-making will be taken further away from the community. At present, Chippenham, which is the headquarters of the Wiltshire area healthauthority—an area represented so ably here by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham)—has

  681
  liaison with the districts of Bath, Swindon and Salisbury. In future, distant Winchester, the headquarters of the regional health authority, could be telling those districts what to do.
  The Government are looking to the regional health authorities to review the structure of the National Health Service. If they continue to look in that direction, they can be certain of the conclusions before they are reached and forwarded back to the Government. It is a matter of human nature. People like power. By getting rid of area health authorities, the regional health authorities will increase their own power and will be in the position of being able to divide and rule the districts. I have no doubt whatever about that.
  The Association of County Councils has advocated the abolition of the regional health authorities. It makes the point—not an unfair one—that education is adequately dealt with at county level. Counties are directly responsible to the Department of Education and Science. Why, therefore, could not the Health Service be organised on similar lines?
  I refer again to the consultative paper entitled "Patients First". We all applaud that sentiment, but we must remember also that prevention is better than cure. I fear that that will be forgotten at the district level, where opinion is likely to be more subjective than at area level at present.
  Those are only some of the reasons why I doubt the wisdom of a wholesale slaughter of area health authorities. I should like reassurance—which I fear will not be forthcoming—before I am convinced otherwise.
  It is a not uninteresting fact that in their short existence every health district within the Wiltshire area health authority has overspent its budget in one year or another. Who has to get the district back on the rails? Who, in effect, has to discipline the district authorities? It is the area health authority. In doing so, it has incurred, not surprisingly, some unpopularity with districts and doctors. That is one reason why many doctors support the abolition of the area health authority. Should district health authorities be established, will their budgeting be any better, particularly in the face of the highly articulate advocacy of doctors and
  682
  consultants, whose voices will be even stronger at district level than at area level?
  The Secretary of State, rightly, has attached great importance to good mangement, particularly in hospitals. I fear that much of the best hospital management was dissipated by the 1974 reorganisation. Good management must be attracted back to hospitals. There is a shortage of good management in hospitals, as in many other spheres in the United Kingdom. Is it wise to spread the available management talent even more thinly than it is spread today by increasing the number of health authorities?
  Many existing area staff are worried that if areas are abolished they will not be offered service with district health authorities, which will make automatic appointments from among existing district staff. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure current employees of area health authorities on that point. Clearly, the best management must be employed, but that may not always be from among those currently holding the jobs.
  I have long held the view that advisory committees, of whatever variety, have a limited useful life. If district health authorities are established, I believe that community health councils can be abolished. If there is centralisation at area level, it may be worth retaining community health councils, but only on the basis of the appointment of a representative from each community health council to the authority at area level. The longer the community health councils are left standing shouting on the sidelines, the less attention the players—the medical staff and administrators—will pay to them. At present, community health councils have no real power or responsibility. If they are to continue to exist, they must be given a small measure of both. If they are abolished and district health authorities are formed, the knowledge of many existing community health council members can be put to good use on district health authorities.
  Some of my remarks may have sounded a little harsh. I realise that in any Health Service organisation the Secretary of State deals with many matters on which the conclusions are often contradictory. Nevertheless, I hope that during the passage of the Bill through the House, and as he sets about the subse-

  683
  quent reorganisation of the Health Service, he will not forget my comments. Should he forget, above all, the need for flexibility and variety of organisation, the taxpayer and the user of the Health Service—not the Secretary of State, because he will have moved on by then—will live to regret it.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, he made some harsh remarks about me. I did not object to that. I start with a harsh remark about the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to hear it. In the seven months during which he has been Secretary of State, he has done his job as if he were still a Treasury Minister. He has not shown the compassion which must inspire anyone with responsibility for a Department which is concerned with the sick, the disabled, the infirm and the weak in our society. He fulfils his function as if he were still a Treasury Minister.
  The right hon. Gentleman proved that in a letter he wrote to the director of MIND, in which he said that
  "where we differ from previous governments is not in our policies for the mentally ill and for the mentally handicapped but in our overriding determination to secure substantial retrenchment in public expenditure…I…accept that this retrenchment will have an adverse effect on progress towards the new patterns of services which we would all like to see."
  I emphasise the phrase
  "overriding determination to secure substantial retrenchment in public expenditure."
  That is the objective set by the Secretary of State, and I believe that it is an unworthy objective. He shows an excessive concern—as he did when he was on the Opposition Benches—for the private sector of medicine at the expense of the National Health Service.
  I have three main points to make. I want first to speak about the private sector and the pay beds issue; secondly, about local democracy; and, thirdly, about the financing of health authorities.
  In looking, first, at the private sector, it is important for us to realise what a very small sector we are talking about. It can be seen from the Royal Com-
  684
  mission's report, page 289, paragraph 18.22, that
  "The overall scale of private practice in relation to the NHS is small. In England about 2 per cent. of all acute hospital beds and 6 per cent. of all hospital beds are in private hospitals and nursing homes"
  As the report states,
  "The private sector accounted for about 3 per cent. of total expenditure on health care in the United Kingdom in that year.".
  That was 1976. So we are talking of a very small sector of health provision. Of course there are advantages in a private sector. Those who can afford it, and think it ethical, can jump the queue.
  I was very interested to hear the assurances that have been given by the medical profession to the Secretary of State. I should like to analyse them and to look at one or two of the qualifying terms, to see whether the assurances really mean anything at all. I hope that they do. I hope that they are built on the foundations that I tried to lay for common waiting lists. The private sector provides a supplementary income to those consultants who work in the NHS and also in private practice. On average, as the Royal Commission reports, there is about £6,000 per year in additional income for those who work in the NHS and who are also in private practice.
  On the other hand, the private sector acts as a drain on the NHS in many ways. First, it lives off the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) mentioned earlier that the private sector does not incur the expense of training its own doctors, nurses or other staff, and the Secretary of State quite rightly recognised this.
  Secondly, in some areas the private sector can suck into its orbit doctors and nurses who are needed by the NHS. This is why we established the Health Services Board. The Secretary of State has decided to expand the private sector, and I believe that this will take away doctors and nurses who are needed to run our National Health Service, which, of course, services the health needs of 98 per cent. of the nation.
  Thirdly, there is a degree of subsidy, because the capital element is not always adequately covered. That is a criticism of myself, perhaps—that we did not set the figure for pay beds high enough.

  685
  When we look at what the Royal Commission recommended, we see that the Secretary of State is straying very far away from it. He drew upon the Royal Commission's report in a number of cases. The Royal Commission concludes on page 298, paragraph 18.43(b), that
  "the capital element of pay beds charges should cover both the interest and depreciation costs of the capital investment in pay beds."
  More important still, it states that
  "the Health Services Board should be given power"—
  that men as additional power—
  "to control, and a responsibility to consider, the aggregate of beds in private hospitals and nursing homes when any new private development is considered in a locality".
  The Royal Commission's report mentions the strong emotion that is created by the pay beds issue among those who work within the National Health Service. As it states on page 294, in paragraph 18.40,
  "Pay beds arouse strong emotions…health service workers, including some junior doctors, resent both the additional work they claim is imposed by private patients and what they see as the purchase of privilege by a small minority within a public service. When the controversy is raging, patients suffer."
  Not "Patients First", but "patients suffer".
  Paragraph 18.42 states:
  "From the point of view of the NHS the main importance of pay beds lies in the passions aroused and the consequential dislocation of work which then occurs. The establishment of the Health Services Board led to a welcome respite from discussion of this emotional subject."
  Why stir the trouble up again? That is the question I want to put to the Government. Why should they now, at a time when they and all people who care about the National Health Service want to see an improvement in industrial relations, hit the NHS on an issue which they know is wounding to so many who work within it?
  I was involved in putting on the statute book the measure that the Bill seeks virtually to repeal. My aim was to try to cool troubled waters. Of course, the waters were not always cool, but in this sense they were. The great issue of private practice and pay beds was, in a sense, put before an independent board instead of being made the decision of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State
  686
  has decided to take it back to himself. I believe that he is very wise in doing so.
  The Health Services Board is to be abolished eventually. The phasing out of pay beds is to be put into reverse, and the control of private hospital development is to be decreased. This is quite wrong at a time when more and more doctors are needed in the NHS and when an increasing proportion of the doctors are opting to work full-time with the NHS. We ought to be encouraging that trend, not discouraging it.
  We are not today discussing the details of "Patients First", although the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) referred to it in his speech. But the Bill gives powers to the Government to implement proposals contained in "Patients First". As has been recognised, at least the document acknowledges the mess that was made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when he was Secretary of State. It broadly accepts the management recommendations of the Royal Commission and it gives the stamp of approval to my own work to create single district authorities.
  It happened to be my decision, taken by me as Secretary of State, which led to the creation of a single district area. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will give some details. Is it to be assumed that over five years £30 million has been wasted each year, making an accumulation of £150 million? Where does this figure come from? Was it just plucked from the air? Our experience was that the creation of a single district area produced a saving of about £100,000. I hope that we shall get some answers.
  What about the consumers' interest? What is all this about "Patients First"? I said last week that it was a little cheeky of the Government to call the document "Patients First" when they were cutting down patients' services as a result of public expenditure cuts, and when they were putting up patients' charges as a result of their absolute determination—using the Secretary of State's own words—to reduce public expenditure.
  Will the Government's proposal for more local health authorities lessen the bureaucracy? That question was also asked by the hon. Member for Devizes. I cannot see that it will. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West. I believe that paragraph

  687
  26 of the consultation document spells out the death knell of the community health councils. Certainly it must have done when the Secretary of State approved it. It may be that he is now changing his opinion. It may be that pressure is being brought to bear upon him, that perhaps £4 million is not everything, and that perhaps the views of the public on the running of the National Health Service matter a little.
  Community health councils took a few months—and in some cases a few years—to get under way, but they spoke up for the patient and for the community. It would be a tragedy if they were to be lost.
  I agree also with my right hon. Friend's criticism of the reduction in the number of representatives of local authorities. I very much doubt whether, in the sort of structure that we have here, we shall find our new health authorities being more responsive to the consumer. There will be fewer local authority representatives. There will be no elected representatives of staff interests, to which the previous Government were committed and which play a vitally important part in industrial democracy. As my right hon. Friend has said, regional health authorities are given greatly increased powers. The watchdog role of the community health councils is in danger of being seriously stifled by the Government. The Government have abolished bodies that criticise them. They may want to abolish the community health councils because the councils sometimes speak out critically. The job of the councils is to be critical and to speak up for the people.
  The Government have abolished the personal social services council largely, in my view, because it was critical of what is happening to the social services as a result of decisions taken by the Government.
  Clause 4 would give powers to the new health authorities to raise their own money by appeals and collections. We have run through the list. The Secretary of State has given an assurance that the list will not include casinos. I do not know the reason for his decision. Are there to be regulations stipulating that no casinos will be allowed? The right hon. Gentleman has decided against lotteries. Why should lotteries be excluded? Lot-
  688
  teries are one of the best methods of raising money. My local Labour Party is doing marvellously in every way, but especially in raising money through lotteries.
  What about jumble sales? Every time we put these suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman—it is a pity he is not present—he leaps up and says "We are not going to do that." The right hon. Gentleman is telling health authorities to raise their own money but not to raise it in ways that he, as Secretary of State, does not like. That seems to be arrogating to himself powers that no Secretary of State should seek to take.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Ennals: I have not given way. I may give way in a moment. I believe that the hon. Lady will try hard to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I would not like to miss a word that she has to say.
  I am not opposed to leagues of friends and efforts to raise money for television sets, curtains and other items for hospitals. I am fully in favour of the voluntary effort that goes into hospitals. As Secretary of State, I did more probably than any other Secretary of State to put money, resources and encouragement into the voluntary spirit. One aspect was the "Good neighbour" campaign which the Secretary of State decided to abolish by merely signing a letter without hearing the views of the advisory committee.
  The work that can be done by leagues of friends is good. I am not opposed to local mayors setting up an appeal for a kidney machine or some equipment that the health authority does not possess. There are all sorts of voluntary activity. I believe that local people should be proud of their hospitals and should feel that they want to give. Some people, who know that their lives have been saved by the treatment they received in hospital, may want to make a donation.
  The Secretary of State said that over £10 million was contributed to health authorities last year simply through the good will of people who said that they wanted to put something back personally. That is fine. But it is a different matter to make health authorities dependent, or even partly dependent, upon public fundraising. As my right hon. Friend said, that is wrong in principle in a service that, for a long time, has been, and, I

  689
  hope, will continue to be, basically a tax-financed service.
  What is to stop some crafty Chancellor of the Exchequer or some Secretary of State with experience in the Treasury, simply because of the success of fund-raising, from reducing the public funds available? The right hon. Gentleman said that a clause in the Bill made this impossible. If there is such a clause, I have not seen it. I do not understand it. I doubt whether the Secretary of State understands it. I do not think it exists.
  What happens in practice? In Southport, one can raise the money; in Stepney, one cannot. In Bournemouth, one can raise the money; in Brixton, it is much more difficult.
  Mr. David Atkinson Mr. David Atkinson rose—
  Mr. Ennals: It may be easy. If the hon. Gentleman represents Brixton, I would like to hear.
  Mr. Atkinson: Bournemouth.
  Mr. Ennals: If the hon. Gentleman says Bournemouth, I give way.
  Mr. Atkinson: I wish to dispel once and for all the myth that Bournemouth is as rich as it is often made out to be.
  Mr. Ennals: I gave way only because I knew that the hon. Gentleman would make the point for me. His right hon. Friend is saying that the new health authority responsible for Bournemouth will have the right and the opportunity to raise money itself in order to do its work without any assurance that Exchequer finance will not be reduced as a result of the generosity—or the meanness—of the population of Bournemouth. I am sure that the people of Bournemouth are generous. However, to put this responsibility on a health authority is wrong.
  Those are my reasons—delivered, I fear, at remarkable speed; for I, like you, Mr. Speaker, do not believe in long speeches, and I hope to catch your eye again tomorrow—why I shall vote against the Bill and campaign against many of its proposals with great enthusiasm.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: When I first came to this House in 1973, I made my maiden speech on the subject of the National Health Service. That speech was a plea that reorganisation should not go ahead. It was not a particularly original plea but at least it was
  690
  right. I believe that that was proved by events.
  The first clause of the Bill demonstrates that the starting point of the Bill is the failure of the reorganisation that took place in 1974. The first clause gives the Secretary of State power to make changes in the local administration of the Health Service in England and Wales. Those structures proved a disaster. They were too extensive and too numerous. The administration proliferated. Jobs were created on a massive scale on the administrative side. There were ministerial appointments galore. A great many political appointments were made of a kind that the Conservative Party now seems to be questioning.
  People felt increasingly remote from the organisations that had been created. The whole affair was a disaster. It is fascinating to see how the Conservative Party and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) now view the matter. There is a certain honesty about their attitude. One should pay tribute to that. They admit that it was a disaster. What worries me is that when the right hon. Gentleman believes he is right, his eyes blaze and he goes into things with a clap of thunder. No one is allowed to criticise him. It is written on tablets of stone.
  When he is wrong, the right hon. Gentleman is the frankest of all people in admitting it. That has been seen in practice. How are we to view the different pronouncements that the right hon. Gentleman is making as Secretary of State for Industry? This is not a subject that hon. Members can discuss today. But one worries about the situation.
  The Government have recognised that they have to take action over what was created in 1974. I welcome their decision. There are too many tiers in many parts of the country. It is right to try to remove one of those tiers in such a way that power goes down and not up. That must be a guiding principle of a removal of a tier from the Service.
  Many areas, including the county of Northumberland, part of which I represent, are single district areas. They have experienced the full extent of what this part of the Bill is likely to achieve, although not perhaps in identical form, for most areas. Where one tier has been removed, that has not proved enough.

  691
  Many of the problems that arose from reorganisation still exist.
  It should not be supposed that simply by removing a tier we shall solve more than some of the problems. Many more will remain. Those trying to work in the Health Service, at local hospital level or in local general practice, however much they may favour removing one tier, will not be satisfied. The mere shuffling around of administrative responsibilities a long way up the line will not help them sufficiently in their day-to-day affairs. They want to be able to make decisions or get decisions taken within the local hospital or within the local area of general practice. They do not want to wait upon decisions made 50 miles or 200 miles away in order to get a ward painted or arrangements and facilities within a hospital altered. They want those decisions made locally. When they had the hospital management committee, they could get decisions made locally.
  Most people in the Health Service whose memories go back to the hospital management committees are unanimous in their opinion that they could get decisions taken quickly and, on the basis of their own advice, much more readily in those days than they can now. Therefore, it is important that, as well as removing a tier from the Health Service, we pull power back to the level of the local communities and hospitals. That will not be done by taking out an administrative level. It requires a rethinking of the way that the Service is conducted at district level as well.
  That brings me to the question of community health councils. There is no doubt that in the consultative document they are damned with faint praise. That is perhaps the kindest construction that one can put on that paragraph. We must keep the community health councils because they are the nearest we can get to a democratic element in the administration of the Health Service. The Health Service is severely deficient in this respect.
  I should be happy to see the community health councils go in only one set of circumstances—namely, when we have a significant elected element in the running of the Health Service. In those circumstances a purely advisory health council may be less important, but, while the Health Service is dominated by
  692
  appointed members and is organised in such large areas, the community health council is essential. Indeed, many community health councils have demonstrated what a good job they do.
  Although I am critical of private medicine and am in no way enthusiastic to see it grow again—it has grown under the legislation now being discussed—the Health Service could well do without another row about private medicine. I feel that the Government are making a wrong move in getting rid of the Health Services Board. The board has helped to take some of the party political steam out of the controversy. People hold genuinely different opinions about private medicine. However, I hope that we can establish agreement about the fundamental point that private medicine should not be allowed to impede the conduct of the Health Service or be used as a means of queue-jumping within it.
  When we have covered that point, we enter a different area in which we can have a much more open difference of opinion. I hope that we do not disagree on that fundamental point. But let us not get involved in another massive row about it now. It is relatively marginal to the Health Service as a whole as regards the money involved and the number of points at which it impinges on the Health Service. Let us not allow this matter to take over the attention of Ministers and democratic bodies, such as Parliament, or lead to arguments within hospitals and to the souring of relations between management and unions in the way that it has done in the past. Whatever our individual views, that should be the dominant consideration.
  The Government will arouse false expectations if they imply that many of the fundamental problems of the Health Service will be solved by the provisions in the Bill. Very few of those problems can be solved in an atmosphere of massive public expenditure cuts. Therefore, I wonder what will happen on some fronts. What can the National Health Service do about the closure of pharmacies and the lack of dental services in many areas? What will the NHS be able to do, in the atmosphere of cuts, about long waiting lists which still exist for some operations?
  What can the NHS do about the disadvantage of travel that we find in many rural areas? For people in many parts

  693
  of my constituency to go for a regular check-up is an expensive business unless they happen to be on supplementary benefit. If that is the case, they can take advantage of schemes that help with travel expenses. But a low wage earner in a rural area, such as Northumberland, may have to pay £3 or £4 every time he goes for a monthly or quarterly checkup if he is suffering from a recurrent complaint. The Health Service has not yet solved that problem by any adequate means-tested benefit for people who have to travel long distances to hospital. We shall not be able to do anything about that problem if cuts continue to be the dominating factor in the Health Service. These matters are worrying to many people. If we can save money by simplifying the structure of the Health Service, let us do so and put it to uses such as that.
  6.35 pm
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I start by declaring the fact that I have no direct interest in the Bill, although perhaps an indirect one. As a part-time employee of one of the London teaching hospitals, I am under the University Grants Committee, not the DHSS. Of course, with my office in the hospital and as I teach medical students, I obviously have considerable interest in the Bill's provisions in addition to my interest as a constituency Member.
  I welcome the first two clauses, which indicate that before long there will be a change in the structure of the NHS. As has been recognised on both sides of the House, reorganisation was not an unqualified success. The Opposition sought to lay the blame on my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), but the difference is that, while they recognised that it was not a success and did nothing about it, we are now trying to put it right.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: No.
  Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is apparently not giving way. Therefore, hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I recognise that administration per se is not bad. There is a tendency these days to blame administrators willy-nilly. That is not right. Administration is both too much and too remote. We shall want to know from the Secretary of State that any reorganisation means a slimmed-down administration, not for financial reasons but because the decision-making processes in the NHS have become bogged down. Doctors are spending too much time on committees, to the detriment of their patients.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that morale in the NHS was rapidly going down because it took such a long time for decisions to be taken. They are not being taken locally. They are being referred up the system and back down the system. We simply cannot operate when decisions cannot be taken locally.
  There is a decreased commitment on the part of all who work in the NHS because of the anonymity of the system. If no decision-making is available locally in respect of industrial disputes, for example, they are inclined to get out of hand because no one has the authority to say "Yea" or "Nay" or to negotiate meaningfully.
  For all those reasons, I welcome clauses 1 and 2 and look forward to considerable advantages accruing as a result of the changes which should be made.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right when he said that the decisions must come much closer to the ground. For that reason, I welcome any proposal that will do away with the area health authorities. There is a need for an overall structure at regional level. Equally, there is a need for decisions to be made close to the ground, and that must be at district level.
  I welcome the moves to retain private practice within the NHS. It has already been acknowledged that this right was part of the original Act. It may not have been the desire of all Opposition Members. Nevertheless, it was enshrined in the original Act, and it should remain, for a number of reasons.
  The Royal Commission stated:
  "The difference in scale of the private and public healthcare sector suggests that private practice could have at most a marginal and local effect on the National Health Service."

  695
  Yet it has an important effect, for the Royal Commission also noted that just under half of all NHS consultants worked part-time. It is said that the majority do so in order to have a private practice. General practitioners are free to take private practice. The numbers in group private insurance schemes have been rising. There is obviously a desire on the part of those who practice and of those who benefit that there should be a private contribution.
  There are three reasons why that should be so. First—and it is no good Labour Members pooh-poohing the idea—there is a desire for an element of freedom by both doctors and patients. That desire should not be allowed to undermine the structure of the NHS, as has been suggested from both sides of the House, but there should be an element of choice. That element is manifestly desired, and the Bill will preserve it.
  Secondly, the Royal Commission says that the strongest argument in favour of retaining private practise within the NHS is the employment of the geographical whole-time or full-time consultant. It is nonsense to have parallel systems whereby those who practice privately in the NHS have sometimes to travel considerable distances between their two practices. This is disadvantageous, wastes time and money and cuts down the time available to doctors to practice their art. I declare an interest. Such a system adversely affects medical education, and if it continues it will have an increasingly detrimental effect.
  I believe that it costs £40,000 to educate a medical student during the five years of his course, which involves exposure to the whole gamut of medicine. It is not in the interests of the student nor in the long-term interests of the patient if the student's experience is restricted because certain types of medicine are increasingly practised only in private clinics and hospitals which are not located near the teaching hospitals.
  Dr. Roger Thomas: Is it not the practice on most medical rounds that when the consultant visits his private patients the medical students are excluded from that part of the round?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the consultants about
  696
  that. There is a need for geographical full-time consultants rather than those who have to commute between two locations. The third reason why that is important—I make no apology for returning to the point—is underlined in the report of the Royal Commission in paragraph 18.27. The report says:
  "we were told that private practice contributed towards the funds available for medical research. Academic staff holding honorary NHS contracts may not normally benefit personally from any private practice they undertake. The arrangement is that such fees are paid over to the university department and used for research purposes. The amounts involved are likely to be a small proportion of the total funds available for medical research, although they may be significant for some medical schools."
  It seems silly that funds for medical research, which will eventually benefit all of us, should be denied. It is unquestionably true that the amount of money which has been paid in private practice within the NHS—primarily to consultants—has been a bone of contention. I would like to see fees made available to all those who participate in the practice of private medicine within the NHS and not simply to the doctors.
  I believe that the Royal Commission is right when it says that we should look carefully at local services in the private sector. We may well be able to learn of the deficiencies in the NHS which cause patients to turn to the private sector in those localities.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Royal Commission several times. I take it that he does not doubt that the Royal Commission, having weighed up the advantages and disadvantages, reached the conclusion, in its wisdom, that the Health Services Board should be retained and that pay beds should continue to be phased out in the NHS.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I will come to the Royal Commission's conclusion shortly. If the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was so opposed to the Secretary of State taking powers and abolishing the Health Services Board he might care to give a commitment to the House that, if and when a Labour Administration are next returned to power, they will repeal that legislation. I shall listen with interest to his views on that.

  697
  I remind the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) that private medicine within the NHS has tended to be an up-market activity; that is, it has tended to be for those who want specialist treatment. There is a genuine problem facing the National Health Service which is recognised on both sides of the House. There is a commitment to try to retain the cottage hospitals and emphasise their importance to the local communities. Nevertheless, it is also recognised that cottage hospitals are expensive to administer. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider the possibility of introducing private beds at NHS cottage hospitals, so that these establishments can be preserved? Such a move might extend the commitment of local communities to their cottage hospitals and would be a useful and important step in safeguarding that which all of us believe to be important.
  The Conservative Medical Society issued a statement yesterday in which it welcomed the retention of private practice within the NHS. It said:
  "we call upon the Government to honour their Manifesto commitment to restore income tax relief on employer/employee medical insurance schemes."
  I shall be interested to hear the reaction of the Minister to that suggestion.
  I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and once more quote the Royal Commission report:
  "There is no doubt that the private sector contributes to the health care of the nation, albeit on a small scale…It would be virtually impossible to establish how far health workers are diverted from employment in the NHS. We have reached no conclusions about the overall balance of advantage or disadvantage to the NHS of the existence of a private sector, therefore, but it is clear that whichever way it lies it is small as matters now stand."
  That gives the lie to the statement from the Opposition Front Bench that this is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is not. The Opposition cannot turn to the Royal Commission for support for their spurious claims. As has been said, this is a moderate, sensible and anti-doctrinaire proposal. It helps to preserve that which the majority of the people of this country would like and will benefit patients who support that view. For that reason, I am happy to support the Bill.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I could not disagree more with 99.9 per cent. of what has been said by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). My hon. Friends and I will demolish most of his case in Committee, though I would like to take up one or two of his points. From the Conservative Benches there has been universal condemnation of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973. However, no one seems to have condemned the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) for his part in it, nor for the £250,000 that was paid to American consultants for wrong advice. This Bill reflects very much the same thinking and philosophy.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough should do more research before accusing the Labour Members of doing nothing about that abominable Act. The Act came into operation on 1 April 1974 and we won the election in the February. We voted against the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. When the Bill came into operation, we immediately made changes so that more local authority councillors could sit on the area committees. We strengthened the hands of the community health councils and established a national association.
  The Bill is abominable and thoroughly bad. It is half-baked. It has come out of the wash without adequate thought. It displays an abysmal ignorance of the history and development of the National Health Service. Even more important, it is irrelevant to the real and urgent problems which the Health Service now faces. We require positive new steps, and many of us could advise the Government about what they should be. No such steps are contained in the Bill.
  The Tory Government's economic policies are reminiscent of the 1930s. They are using the same type of remedies for unemployment. In their proposals for the Health service they are going back to 1911 and the Lloyd George Act. The Bill is so antiquated in its approach that I wonder whether the Conservates have learnt anything in the last 70 years.
  The House is insulted by the way in which the Government have presented the Bill. It is a hotch-potch. We have been

  699
  unable to consider the Royal Commission's report, the consultative document, "Patients First", the annual reports from the Health Services Board and reports from the Health Services Council. Instead of debating those documents first and reaching conclusions from them, the Government have presented us with an enabling Bill which gives carte blanche permission for regional health authorities to do what they like. We shall oppose the Bill tooth and nail at all stages.
  The move towards local administration would be a step in the right direction had it been better thought out and if it had provided a greater democratic element. Throughout the debates on the original reorganisation Act, hon. Members argued in favour of shedding a tier. If the area authorities go, the Minister estimates that there will be savings of £30 million. I predict that when that change takes place there will be no saving whatsoever in the administrative costs of running the Health Service.
  I go further. We are talking about a Bill to alter the present provisions of the Health Service, which costs £9,000 million a year. Even if we concede the estimated saving of £30 million, this is only 0·33 per cent. of the total expenditure. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) called trying to collect the candle ends. That is typical of this Government's approach. The Government recently imposed some mean and Scrooge-like savings the like of which I have not seen in my 20 years in Parliament. In particular, the Government have increased by £5 the "season ticket" for medication needed by the chronic sick. In their attempt to cut public expenditure, the Government could not leave alone those who are permanently in need of medication, such as those who have had a coronary thrombosis.
  The structure proposed is similar to the system which existed before reorganisation. Group hospital management committees will now have a new name. As my late right hon. Friend Dick Crossman said, business men and "self-perpetuation oligarchies" will be in charge, divorced from local pressures, especially if community health councils are to be abolished, as has been hinted.
  Primary care is our main need. The switch from hospital to domiciliary care
  700
  is most urgent. However, the Bill consolidates the power base in the hospital service. It is nonsense not to take this opportunity to move towards a democratic structure. If the community health council watchdogs go, the Health Service will experience a period of unease, there will be problems with those employed and in sound organisation, especially at community level, and there will be problems in the relationship between the local authority social services and the Health Service.
  In the care of the elderly and in mental health, there is a divorce between what is done in the locality and what is done in the Health Service. The Bill does nothing to bridge that gap.
  I turn to the question of the dissolution of the Central Health Services Council in clause 6. Paragraph 11 of the 1978 report, headed
  "Prevention of Handicap and Perinatal Mortality",
  states:
  "One of the Council's members, Mrs. Peggy Jay, raised the subject of policies aimed at preventing handicap of perinatal origin, and referred to experience in France that financial investment in a prevention programme to reduce the number of children born with a handicap could be substantially less than the cost of providing continuing care for handicapped children."
  That is an important issue. For the sake of £127,000 the reports that we have had on this subject and, for example, on rubella and deafness will go by the board. That is an example of the Government's penny-pinching approach, for this council's work was a good source of advice and information for Back-Bench Members.
  Under the Bill, dental consultants in hospitals may use pharmaceutical facilities outside hospital. That conceals the fact that pharmaceutical services in hospitals have been run down to such an extent that they can no longer provide a proper service. That is because of public expenditure cuts. As a result of that provision, prescriptions will cost more and that will lead to greater—not less—public expenditure. We shall pursue this matter in Committee.
  The centrepiece of the Bill is that which deals with private practice. We started off at the time of the 1976 Act with 4,444 hospital pay beds out of a total of 500,000 in our hospitals. Now there are only 2,533. One of the Tory myths

  701
  is that the private sector can bring money into the Health Service. According to the figures, if the three major health insurance companies—BUPA, PPP and WPA—double their take-up of paying patients, the Health Service will gain by less than 1 per cent. of its total resources. The Bill is irrelevant to the problem.
  The urgent need is to discover a practical way whereby, on the present basis of 84 per cent. of NHS total income coming from taxation, we can finance the Service properly and not by flag days and other peripheral methods contained in the Bill. Between 7·5 per cent. and 8 per cent. of the GNP should be devoted to the Health Service.
  The Bill is a queue-jumper's charter. I shall bore the House with my own experience. There is no problem of waiting when the clinical need is urgent. I had a recent operation for cancer and there was no waiting; I went into hospital immediately. I am pleased to report to my hon. Friends that I am as fit as I am ever likely to be. My only health problems in future are likely to be in growing toe nails or corns. There is no waiting list for serious surgical necessities. However, there is a problem for non-urgent attention like gynaecology. A lady who is in acute discomfort but who will not die from it can be relieved of that discomfort under the Bill by jumping the queue and paying a consultant. That means that another case with the same clinical diagnosis goes to the rear of the queue.
  Hon. Members will know that it is in treatment for hernias, varicose veins and gynaecological problems that the money is made by the private practice consultant, and there is a financial incentive to prolong waiting time.
  I shall reserve for Committee my major arguments. I remind the House of what my late colleague Nye Bevan said when he resigned:
  "Those who live their lives in mountainous and rugged countries are always afraid of avalanches, and they know that avalanches start with the movement of a very small stone. First, the stone starts on a ridge between two valleys—one valley desolate and the other valley populous. The pebble starts, but nobody bothers about the pebble until it gains way, and soon the whole valley is overwhelmed. That is how the avalanche starts, that is the logic of the present situation."—[Official Report, 23 April 1951: Vol. 487, c. 42.]
  That is the logic of the inroad made 30 years ago and is the logic that remains
  702
  true of this Bill. This is the start of the avalanche which will result, if it is allowed to continue, in the complete destruction of all that is best in our National Health Service. Nye Bevan was a great House of Commons man. He was right then to insist upon the retention of the humanitarian and compassionate reasons for the first National Health Service legislation.
  I cay to the Government and to the financial insurance profiteers and to that small percentage of hospital consultants who put pay before patients that the next Labour Government will restore our Health Service. They will make it democratically responsible to the people whom it is supposed to serve. It is there for the patients, not for the doctors. A Labour Government will make the Service what it used to be, a system under which we shall be "Members one of another" and the healthy continue to take responsibility for caring for the sick and the disabled.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I wish to indicate that the 10-minute rule will apply between now and 9 o'clock. I hope that hon. Members will limit their speeches, to save the Chain from having to intervene.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: I shall do my best. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) realises that he was not so limited, although he voluntarily limited his speech. I was glad to hear him speaking with such vigour, as I know about the illness from which he suffered and to which he referred. It is a pleasure for the House to hear him speaking with vigour on a subject about which he is a considerable expert. For many years I have followed him in these debates on health matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
  I have a dual interest in health, not only in keeping fit—and keeping the National Health Service fit and improving it—but as a director of a pharmaceutical company and a member of a regional authority.
  Having fulfilled that little duty, I say this to the Opposition. They are working themselves up into a lather about the Bill. They have almost a synthetic indignation about the aims of the Bill. I

  703
  understand how they feel about pay beds. They go back to Nye Bevan on this question and they take notice of their consciences and feelings about the morality of pay beds. However, the Bill is not about that. It aims to improve the management of the Health Service. The guts of the Bill are designed to bring management closer to the patient. It is a move in the right direction.
  As a member of a regional health authority, I am involved in the Health Service. I am glad that the area authorities, not the regional authorities, will go. I do not say that in my own interest. I would welcome not having to do additional work. The area health authorities are an unnecessary tier in the management structure. There was a mistake in the structure when those authorities were set up. They seemed to feel themselves primus inter pares with the regional health authorities. They felt that they had direct access to the Secretary of State and could go over the head of the regional authority. That has not made for successful management. In fact, it has impeded good management. It slowed management decisions and produced frustration.
  I confess that I am happy to hear that pay beds are not now to go. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who spoke for the Liberal Party. I hope that none of us in the House makes this the main issue on the Bill. It will only sour our discussion and consideration of the real issue.
  It is worth trying to raise money by voluntary means. I see nothing wrong with that. It happens at the moment for the various cancer funds. Considerable amounts of money are raised. Such appeals are emotional. It is an emotional aspect of health. I believe that considerable amounts of money could be raised on a local, rather than a national, basis to support the Health Service and particular hospital needs.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), a former Secretary of State, said that he would not mind money being raised for specialist equipment lacking in a hospital because it had not been provided from National Health Service funds.
  704
  I question the possible value, or advantage, of the voluntary recruitment of money as it might distort the best pattern of health service that we could produce. For example, it could be decided by a district health authority, under the new arrangements, to close a hospital—shall we say a small maternity hospital that was little more than a Victorian house with a dozen or 20 beds in it, which contained little equipment for modern maternity provision and care? Voluntary recruitment of money might distort the proper closure of such a place, as there could be an emotional appeal to keep that place open. When the money is raised, it might be used for something that could be against the best interests of good health care. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that this move could produce the wrong result.
  I now refer to the duties, as I see them, of members of health authorities. I have served on one for so long. There is a certain art about being a member of such a body. Officials propose and members decide. That is the structure of management. Members decide after discussion. The debate is always better when the members, or some of them, know what they are talking about, have looked into the problems, and have taken the trouble to find out what it is that they are being asked to consider. It is preferable when they know the medical, regional and local views, or the views of general practitioners, nurses, consultants, ancillary workers or radiographers, and understand what the patients and public think of the problems.
  That is important for those who take part in the decision-making process. The members should know about those views. They should get about more and not concern themselves only with budget considerations. They must share among themselves the responsibility of finding things out, so that they may, as a team, cover the whole area of responsibility. It is here that the public interest can best be safeguarded. I want to see the public interest safeguarded in the management of the National Health Service.
  Mention was made of the community health councils. I have always been an advocate of the CHC. Hansard records my willing acceptance and blessing of the introduction of the idea of CHCs. I have lectured on them at King's College. I have supported them through

  705
  thick and thin. When CHCs become politically motivated and directed—from whichever side of the political spectrum—they become a disaster and render a disservice to the interests of patients.
  I refer next to the choice and selection of those who serve on health authorities. They should be health-motivated and health-interested persons rather than politically-motivated persons. It is a disaster for management when politics comes in and the political football is introduced. At this point, the professional men in NHS management become frustrated.
  The community health councils have an important function as a focus for public inquiry and interest. However, I do not think that they should be used as a device to frustrate and slow up management. By all means there should be inquiry. Their members have a right to be present and to be heard when a case is being put, but they are not there to frustrate and delay.
  I am sorry that there is no clause in the Bill to make a special case for London, for the 12 teaching hospitals. In some ways there should be a special case for all teaching hospitals, because I would like to insulate them from the problems of short-term patient care. I do not want to see them swamped by the general problems of the NHS that exist around them. This applies particularly in London, where there are 12 such hospitals. London's 12 teaching hospitals are like a special unit in the Army, a special corps that is kept slightly separate, with a separate management, related of course to the Health Service—not divorced from it in any way but completely related and integrated. They deserve special provisions in the general management.
  The chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Alec Merrison, said in the concluding part of that great report that there would be no blinding revelations in his report, and there are not. Neither does the Bill offer an immediate cure. But 1 would leave with the House the thought that, no matter how much we improve the management and the democracy, we shall still be deficient in one major element in producing better health care in this country—we shall not have enough money in the National Health
  706
  Service. One day—I pray it will be soon—we shall earn enough in this country again to feed the right amount of money from the State into the NHS, so as to deliver a much better health service in this country.
  7.10 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said that the Bill was about improving the management of the National Health Service. Frankly, it is about nothing of the kind. It is about giving a specific boost to private practice and it is also specifically involved with the nostalgia and the dogma of the Tory Party. When we make that clear, we know what we are actually talking about. After all, how can it seriously be suggested that we intend to improve the National Health Service and the management structure of it if there are the kind of comments that have been made by the Minister of State? He has suggested—and this has already been revealed—that he believes he will save £30 million by these changes.
  What the Minister does not say is how—if one tier is removed and, for example, we get lid of 30 area health authorities and create in their place 200 district hospital authorities—we improve the service. How shall we improve the structure? If we have different boundaries and retain existing private practitioner committees, and if they are operating on boundaries different from the district boundaries, how shall we improve the management structure in relation to primary health care? How shall we manage the district nurses and the associated health service workers? We cannot do so.
  What we are talking about, as we have seen in so many Bills since this Government came to power, is an attempt to tinker cosmetically with the overall effect, not to do anything which will fundamentally change and improve the Service.
  The NHS is desperately in need of improvement. particularly in the whole realm of industrial relations. What is so very depressing about the Bill is that there is not even any suggestion that there should be elected representatives of the staff working in the Health Service. That is actually ruled out of order. Last winter proved conclusively that we cannot treat

  707
  Health Service workers as if they are different from ordinary workers. We have to listen to their problems and try to find solutions. Most of them work at lower wage rates—and I am talking not about the medical profession but about the ordinary ancillary workers. The very fact that most of them work at lower wage rates than they could get elsewhere should be the reason for our being more aware of their industrial problems and more anxious to help them, not put them in a position where they are less advantaged than workers in other fields. The Bill does nothing to change that situation.
  I am extremely sorry that the Minister of State is not here today because I should like to have said to him that I regard his remarks about a specific instance at Charing Cross as extremely unhelpful, coming from a Minister with responsibility for industrial relations. We really cannot have a situation where people ride their political hobby horses at the expense of the National Health Service, and that is what he was doing in no uncertain terms.
  If, in the short time left to me, I say what I would like to have seen done in the Bill, it is because I believe the Conservative Government are not genuinely looking for the kind of changes that they say they want. I will give the Minister a little help. If he really wants to save the National Health Service a great deal of money, why does he not ask his Government to put a total ban on the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products? Why does he not ask them to find time to discuss my Private Member's Bill? The amount of money spent by the National Health Service, not only on carcinoma and its treatment, and deaths from carcinoma, but on related diseases, is very much larger than the £30 million that he is suggesting he will save by these marginal changes in the Health Service.
  There is the suggestion that we should change the method of raising money. If the Government are really serious about wanting the district health authorities to have the right to raise money, why not give them the same powers as are available to local authorities? We do not really raise the amount of money needed for health care by putting our nurses out on to the streets with collecting-boxes. There is no constructive way in a modern society, with a rising cost of health care,
  708
  by which we can possibly get enough money. All we do is pander to the nostalgia of those people who think that flag days are days when they are operating effectively. We are bringing the "lady of the manor" mentality into the Health Service.
  I have no doubt in my mind that the timetable which is suggested, which is very vague, will make it impossible to consult all of the relevant parties in the NHS. There is no evidence that there will be a proper consultative procedure. That, after all, should be one of the things included in the Bill. There is already a very considerable planning blight inside the NHS, and the loss of morale is directly connected with this kind of shilly-shallying and change at Government level. There is the danger that we shall lose many of the best of our NHS staff. A further reorganisation will not affect health care at all.
  The problems that we have in this country of an ageing population and of certain specialties which have become Cinderella specialties will not be altered at all by the Bill. People will go on getting older. We shall need more money spent on the NHS. It has become very obvious that we are one of the countries which spends even less money than many other comparable countries in the Community. This Bill is really a gesture, and a rather nasty gesture, in the direction of one aspect of health care—private practice.
  When I was recently in Lesotho I noticed that in the hospitals there, which were very reminiscent of hospitals before the National Health Service was created, a very large and formidable black matron was going round and collecting sixpences from the patients as they sat up in bed. I am sorry to say that I believe that the Conservative Goverment are saying in the Bill that that is the situation they want to see created in this country once again.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome the Bill and, in particular, the intention to streamline the administrative structure of the NHS and the provisions to remove the shackles which the previous Administration placed on private practice and to encourage local fundraising. There is a sombre background

  709
  to this debate. First, there is the waiting list in National Health Service hospitals, which increased by no less than one-fourth during the period of the last Administration and now stands at the highest figure ever.
  The right hon. Members for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who were at the Department concerned, should be hanging their heads in shame at the waiting list which now exists. This Christmas there will be many more people than ever before who will be suffering the anxiety, inconvenience and pain of waiting for hospital treatment. Part of the responsibility was the appalling disruption in the health services that was carried out by a small militant minority of employees during last winter.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the circular that he has issued, which gives guidance to local health authorities on dealing with disputes. But what a commentary that circular is on the failure of the previous Government to give a lead in maintaining discipline in the observance of contracts and in putting patients first. It is quite extraordinary that my right hon. Friend has had to remind health authorities that they will have his support in enforcing the basic conditions of work—namely, that strikers should not be paid and should not receive bonus or overtime payments that have not been earned, and that working to rule and blacking certain work are usually breaches of contract.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will go further and try to ensure that no-strike agreements are negotiated within the NHS. There is no place for strike action when caring for the sick. Using patients as hostages, as happened last year, is abhorrent to any fair-minded person. Indeed, it is wholly contrary to the calling of medicine and nursing.
  Mr. Race: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dean: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because of the limitation on time. I hope that he will forgive me.
  Against that sober and sombre background, I wish to mention two particular points with regard to the Bill. The first concerns administration. At Question
  710
  Time the other day, my right hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when he told us of a comment that had been made to him by a head porter in the Health Service—that there was too much administration and not enough management. That, indeed, is the reform that we want to see. Above all, it means that decision-making must be as close to the patient as possible.
  I share the doubts of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) about whether getting rid of one tier of management will necessarily improve administration and bring it closer to the patient, which is what we desire. I hope that the Government will maintain flexibility in any proposals that they eventually bring forward. For example, what is right for the county of Avon, with its heavy concentration of teaching hospitals, is not necessarily right for Wiltshire or Somerset. I hope that we shall avoid getting into the position that occurred last time of imposing the same provision throughout the whole country when conditions vary considerably. I also query, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, whether it is right in every case to abolish the area health authorities.
  The second point to which I shall refer briefly relates to the provisions in regard to private practice. Here I declare an interest in health insurance. I believe that the proposals as my right hon. Friend has described them constitute a sensible, moderate and balanced package. I welcome the restoration of the power to allow private practice in NHS hospitals. That will mean much-needed additional money going to the Service. It will facilitate what the medical profession calls the "geographically whole-time principle", which will enable consultants to work on the same premises and to be available constantly to meet the needs of all their patients, both NHS and private. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not attempt to unscramble the omelette and restore all the pay beds that were abolished by Labour. Let us start where we are now and try to ensure that in the future pay beds are available where there is a demand for them and where they can be used and staffed effectively.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will also take into account, as I am sure he will, that the attack on private practice by the previous Administration has given

  711
  a new lease of life to the independent sector. More people are now insuring than ever before, including many trade unionists. Much more independent hospital building is now taking place than ever before. In my view, we now need to forge new links in the light of the expansion of the independent sector between the NHS and private practice.
  For example, BUPA has carried out some valuable pioneering work in diagnosis and preventive medicne. There has been a rapid development in that area. I hope that the NHS will be able to make use of the pioneering work that has been done in the private sector. That is one of many ways in which the growing private sector can help the NHS. There are ample opportunities for partnership between the two sectors. That partnership need not be limited to pay beds.
  I also accept that Ministers are right—as, indeed, the Royal Commission recommended—to maintain some control over the private sector. It is sensible and practicable to have that reserve power. However, I share the concern of the independent hospital group about the likely effects of clause 10. That clause will allow independent hospitals of 119 beds to be built without the authority of the Secretary of State. That compares with the present figures of 100 beds in London and 75 elsewhere. That may appear to be an improvement on the present position. In practice, it could well prove to be more onerous because of the provisions in the clause relating to the aggregate number of beds in an area. In other words, the freedom of clause 10(1) could be neutralised by the restriction in subsection (2). Any figure is bound to be arbitrary, but I doubt whether it is right to have the same figure in London and for country areas. I believe that we need a more flexible criterion than is in the Bill at present, and I urge the Government to consider this matter again in the light of the representations that have been made by the private sector.
  I am running out of time. I merely conclude by saying that I welcome the Bill as a sensible, practicable measure which I believe will be effective both in strengthening the NHS and in encouraging the private sector.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) began his speech by deploring the length of waiting lists. I agree with him that that is tragic. However, he ought to think carefully about how far those long waiting lists reflect a lack of resources within the Health Service and how far they reflect a policy by some consultants deliberately to make the waiting list long, either to boost private practice or merely as a matter of internal politicking within their own hospitals to improve and increase the resources that they receive. I have a suspicion that some consultants use the waiting lists as a means of boosting the whole concept of private health insurance. Therefore, we must be very careful about reading too much into the waiting lists.
  The Bill is disappointing to all who use or work in the Health Service. The Service is looking for bold and imaginative leadership, yet all that the Bill does is to tinker and patch. It is even worse than that, because it reveals an attitude of despair in its approach to private medicine. Basically, the Government are saying that we cannot provide a good enough NHS to satisfy the rich and the vocal, so rather than improve the whole Service their aim is to buy off that criticism by giving privilege and preference to those who have the money to pay. We should throw out the Bill, but I suspect that the majority in the House will not do that, and there is therefore a strong necessity to modify the provisions regarding private medicine, which feeds like a parasite on the National Health Service.
  If the extra provisions for private practice are enacted, any doctor, nurse or ancillary worker who has been trained in the Health Service and goes into private practice should have to make a contribution to the National Health Service from the money they earn to pay for the training that they have received. The Health Service should not continue to subsidise the private sector in that way. The provisions on private medicine make the Bill unacceptable, but it is also unacceptable because of an omission.
  The Bill makes no mention of preventive medicine. Why will not the Government take on the question of ill health resulting from cigarette smoking? If the Minister really made an effort, far

  713
  greater savings could be made and more resources would be available to the Health Service than any of the administrative changes suggested would provide. Why do not the Government tackle the question of road accidents, which are, often an almost direct result of people driving when they have had too much to drink? That would make more resources available to the Health Service than will come from these administrative changes.
  Why will not the Government tackle the problem of those children who are born with physical and mental handicaps because of the lack of perinatal care? Why does not the Minister improve screening services to ensure that those who suffer from an illness get early treatment at a lower cost? If the Minister wants to offer a lead to the country, he should make a major contribution to preventive medicine. We will get a far better return if we invest money in prevention rather than in cure.
  The Bill does nothing to deal with the scandal of small private hotels that have a specialist clientele comprising the elderly. Those elderly people are often in exactly the same conditions as those who are in old people's homes or in psycho-geriatric wards of hospitals. However, some of those hotels manage to avoid all the regulations that apply to old people's homes. In many cases they exploit and damage those old people in an unacceptable manner. The Minister should legislate for that and should make sure that anyone who is responsible for looking after old people meets minimum standards.
  There is an overwhelming case for making the Health Service responsible to a democratically appointed body. No such measure has been taken in the legislation. Indeed, we are going backwards because we are reducing the number of elected people involved at a local level. It places the chairman of an area health authority or the chairman of a regional health authority and many of his colleagues who are appointed by the Minister in an impossible position. If they kick up a fuss and demand extra resources, the chances are that they will not be reappointed. That is unacceptable.
  Those authorities must have a mandate and be responsible to someone other than the Minister if they are to fight for and
  714
  demand extra resources. The Minister is going even further. Instead of giving democratic backing, he is saying that he will appoint officials. Bearing in mind the financial provisions of the Bill, the Minister will turn those officials into little more than rubber stamps. It is vital that everyone on the area health authority and on the regional health authority should be democratically elected and responsible to an electorate. That will give them power to say to the Minister that the Health Service must have more resources.
  The Bill is a totally bad one, and I hope that it will make no further progress.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I welcome the Bill, especially clauses 7, 8 and 9, which amend section 65 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
  I wish to draw attention to an area of substantial abuse that has been un-quantified in terms of numbers or of cost. Much attention centred during the summer on the problems faced by unfortunate holidaymakers who suffer illness or accidents in foreign countries and do not receive the facilities available to them at home under the National Health Service. That publicity served to highlight the anomaly whereby nationals of those countries with which we do not have reciprocal arrangements for free treatment are not paying for treatment in the United Kingdom, although British citizens who go to their countries are required to foot any bills incurred.
  We have reciprocal agreements only with the other eight EEC States, New Zealand and some of the Warsaw Pact countries, but anyone from another State can obtain free treatment under the NHS for accident or illness. The relevant instruction of the Department of Health and Society Security was outlined earlier this year before the general election. It stated that visitors
  "should be allowed emergency treatment in accordance with the 'Good Samaritan' policy"
  and that
  "an approach should be made to the appropriate Embassy for a guarantee of payment."
  From the correspondence that I have received, it is clear that that is something of a comic performance. In addition, no

  715
  treatment for a pre-existing condition should be given, except
  "sufficient to enable them to return home"
  The key point is that
  "only hospitals which are authorised under Section 65 of the NHS Act 1977 may admit private patients".
  As a result of the Labour Government's policy, hospitals with the necessary pay beds have become few and far between. In practice, a great many emergency or casualty cases end up in hospital without section 65 sanction, and the ruling of the DHSS is quite clear:
  "Neither the hospital nor the consultant who treated the patient would have any authority to charge the patient."
  It is especially ludicrous that foreign nationals have offered to pay the whole or part of the cost of their treatment, only to be refused under the ridiculous section 65. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that a small but consistent number of people arrive in the United Kingdom suffering from the early symptoms of communicable or infectious disease, such as polio or tuberculosis. Those people are taken to NHS hospitals, isolation or otherwise, for treatment. One does not know to what extent there is any danger of infection to those on board the aircraft or ship or to officials at the point of entry that would otherwise not be present or he present to a lesser degree.
  What can be done about this clearly inequitable state of affairs? The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), wrote in a letter dated September 1978:
  "I do not consider it likely, therefore, that the improper use of the NHS by foreign visitors is as large a problem as my correspondent believes or that there is abuse on a massive scale."
  However, according to a letter from the DHSS only a month later, in October 1978, the Department could not
  "authorise new pay beds…nor can it approve temporary additions to the number of pay beds already authorised."
  It refers to section 121, which embodies the substance of section 17 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1948,
  "empowering Ministers to make regulations whereby charges could be levied on persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain…No such regulations however have been made."
  Powers exist under the Immigration Act 1971 to charge the carrier of a foreign
  716
  national who has been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom for expenses incurred in hospital care. That is particularly relevant if it is not possible for that person to be deported immediately because of his medical condition. How often are those provisions exercised? The guidance from the DHSS suggests that consideration was given to extending those powers but that it was never followed through. Accordingly,
  "the only possible answer is to provide NHS treatment in these cases."
  A number of people have written to me—and the Minister will doubtless comment on these matters in his reply—with suggestions as to how the problem could be solved. Mention has been made of the medical levy whereby tourists coming into this country pay, say, £10 for six months' emergency cover and of various other schemes involving stamping of passports.
  This problem was first brought to my attention purely coincidentally, when my 3-year-old daughter was in hospital, by a friend who was a practising hospital doctor. Since then I have received the most incredible amount of correspondence. I have a file full of letters from doctors, nurses and others working in the National Health Service, all of which draw attention to various abuses that have been brought to their attention. I shall briefly quote some of them.
  For example, a doctor in Sheffield writes:
  "I have, however, personal experience of a patient presenting himself at Heathrow from Hong Kong without having had a chest X-ray and was found on X-ray at Heathrow to have open tuberculosis. He was immediately admitted to an NHS hospital, and subsequently treated at great expense for the next two years."
  Another doctor says in reference to an American tourist:
  "At a dinner party…a guest who loathed 'socialised medicine' did admit that when he crashed his car on the M1 his care at the Luton and Dunstable Hospital was 'great'—yet they never sent him a bill!"
  Another doctor writes:
  "I was closely connected to a situation where a Portuguese resident was brought to this district with serious leg trouble, which I believe was gangrene. He was admitted to the National Health Hospital, locally, had a leg amputation and a temporary artificial leg fitted and duly returned home. Some months later, again he visited this area on holiday and had a final artificial leg fitted, again under the National Health Service."

  717
  Another doctor from Harley Street writes:
  "Two years ago I wrote to the last Minister of Health, and pointed out that certain Language Schools advertised free medical treatment in their brochures, and that 'Tent City in South London told campers that we had a marvellous free health system here."
  They were therefore not to worry.
  That doctor also comments that Britons travelling abroad are charged for treatment. Officially the money can be claimed back, using a form E111, but, as he said:
  "It just isn't worth it. Firstly you only receive a percentage…and secondly"
  it takes longer than six months to get the money claimed.
  I have here a letter from a consultant at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases who has made a great study of this problem. I shall not quote his detailed letter drawing attention to many examples of abuses of the system by tourists, but he says:
  "It is far easier to stay in the U.K. as a sick immigrant than a healthy one. I will send you many case histories."
  The most incredible example I have is a quote from the Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. A gentleman who writes regularly in those columns draws attention to a man who had tooth trouble. It was suggested that he hopped on a flight to London, costing him $568, to have his tooth fixed under the National Health Service at an expenditure of some $50, leaving him at least $132 for accommodation and souvenirs from the $750 that he was quoted in Australia. The writer of the column says:
  "That's a good one, eh? Terry, who has British citizenship, thought so too. He's booked himself into a hospital south of London to have the work done next month."
  Everywhere one looks, there is abuse of the health system. I have written to Ministers in various Departments, who had the grace to comment on a number of the points raised, and I have already mentioned the comments of the Under-Secretary. Many of the questions that I have raised are dealt with in clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill, which amend section 65 of the National Health Service Act 1977.
  However, the Bill does not go far enough. The cost is enormous, although it has not been quantified to the extent that I wish. I hope that in Committee
  718
  the Government will bring forward amendments to deal with these problems. There is need for early action to remedy the clearly unfavourable bias directed at Britons travelling abroad, not to mention the cost to the British taxpayer remaining at home. Greater attention than ever before is being paid to cuts in public expenditure, and in this area of the National Health Service careful scrutiny and fair charges could restore some measure of equity and save money.
  I welcome the Bill, particularly clauses 7, 8 and 9. I hope that the Minister will comment on these abuses and the expenditure involved.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Some hon. Members have had experience of the National Health Service. I have carefully read the Bill, and I agree with some measures contained in it.
  Since the reorganisation of the National Health Service, I have been saying that we should get rid of area health authorities, which are costing the National Health Service a great deal of money, but the proposals in the Bill do not provide the right answers. Are the Government thinking of merely transferring bodies down to district level, which appears to be the case? I cannot see how else they can do it, unless they are taking a further step to increase unemployment, which has been growing since 3 May, when I became a Member of this House.
  I compliment the previous Secretary of State for Social Services, who tried hard to reduce the cost of administering the National Health Service. I am an ex-chairman of a community health council and used regularly to attend the area health authority meetings. Those authorities said that they would see whether they could cut out waste, and the previous Secretary of State suggested about a 5 per cent. reduction over a period. The authority that I attended rejected the proposals entirely, and it was no wonder, because all its members were Conservatives. They rejected the suggestion of cutting out waste in the public sector that this Government are now pushing not only for the Health Service but in other areas. That authority made all sorts of excuses why it could not cut down on manning.

  719
  I believe that the great man from South Wales who created the National Health Service did so because there was a great need for it and it was necessary to be fair to all. As the years have passed, it has not been fair to all because of the private sector that has grown within the Health Service. I shall give some classic examples of private beds living off the National Health Service.
  The original fairness has disappeared and we have inequalities. People have to wait at the end of a long list for service, but if they went to see the consultant privately they could have treatment the following day. I know of a gentleman aged 70 years in my area who needed to see an orthopaedic surgeon, and he waited 42 weeks. When he got there, the surgeon said that he needed an operation on both legs but that he would have to take his turn in a long list unless he was prepared to pay £200, when he could come in in a fortnight. That elderly gentleman knew of an empty bed on a ward and mentioned that fact. He was told by the consultant "I am sorry. We cannot afford to staff it and that is why it is empty." However, for £200 he could have taken that bed, and that is the immoral proposal that is continued in the Bill.
  In the future, people will be able to buy their way into receiving medical treatment at the expense of those who cannot pay even more than they do now. Let us remember that not so long ago many people got a great deal of money from the Government at the expense of those who provided it. The same thing will apply. The poorer people will have to wait at the end of the queue for an NHS that is being run down. Make no mistake about it. Money will not be collected from the streets, as is being suggested. The policies of the Secretary of State for Industry have been mentioned a number of times during the debate. Not only will we be faced with raffles, bazaars and jumble sales but we shall need the begging bowl as well to run the NHS. It will be like the 1930s, when unemployed people begged on street corners.
  I was on a radio programme last Friday afternoon. The programme received several telephone calls from listeners. One gentleman asked me to men-
  720
  tion his point if I was called to speak in the debate today. He told me that a consultant had taken out a second mortgage on his house to raise funds for equipment he needs—not a television or curtains, but equipment to provide proper services to patients.
  I do not understand the Government's proposals. They will hit at the people who will really feel them—the people Conservative Goverments always hit, those without the necessary finance in their pockets. It is obvious that private beds exist for jumping the queue.
  Another representation was made to me by a person who made inquiries about a private operation. He was quoted a figure but could afford to pay only part of the amount. The consultant said, "Okay, three days in the private unit and two days in an NHS bed". That is the sort of fiddle that goes on, and if the Bill passes matters will become a damned sight worse than that.
  Reference has been made to the pharmaceutical industry. There is a real problem for the community in a lack of pharmacies. Most of them are private and they are closing down right, left and centre.
  Where will the proposals in the Bill take us? The Bill is in the interests of a certain section of the nation and not of us all.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: We must be quite honest and say that the reorganisation of the NHS in 1974 was a disaster and that with hindsight no Government—neither Labour nor Conservative—would do the same again. The NHS became cumbersome and heavily administered, and its patient contact with those in need by those who made the decisions was exactly nil.
  I was a member of an area health authority for some years. Without disrespect to my colleagues who worked with me there over the years, I can honestly say that, apart from the time that I spent on the regional economic planning council, my time on the AHA was the least useful that I have spent in several years of public life. Mounds of paper passed to and fro. Structure plans were expensively produced and chewed over while budgets were agonised over. Yet the positive decision-making where

  721
  patient care could be identified was rare. I hope that I do no injustice to my colleagues on the AHA when I say that.
  The amount of paper that was generated was horrific. Few members read it thoroughly, and those who did were not much wiser at the end of the day. The amount of administrative time taken up in preparing the reports was considerable. Here I pay tribute to the work of the administrators in the NHS. It is fashionable to say that the NHS is over-administered—it is. Nevertheless, administrators are carrying out the job that the Government have asked them to do. Most of them spend long hours, often beyond the call of duty, in their thankless jobs. It is the committees and the passing of papers between the RHAs, the AHAs, the CHCs and the DHSS that take up the time of so many of these dedicated men and women.
  The proposal to cut out one of the tiers will enable those people to administer more effectively. I hope that the new district health authorities will take over and complement the excellent work of the CHCs. I know of the working of only two CHCs—Bassetlaw and central Nottinghamshire CHCs. The outstanding benefit of the 1974 reorganisation was the formation of the CHCs. Nearly all the members are involved in closely monitoring local services. They do a valuable service by calling attention to the deficiencies that they discover. If, in their new guise as DHAs, we give them power to act as well as comment, we shall have gone a long way towards making patient contact with those who make decisions positive and effective.
  The people who are best able to judge local needs will be able to do something about those needs. In addition, they must have the power and the authority to tackle and expose the actions of such militants as are employed in the Service. At the moment, however outrageous may be the actions or behaviour of the militants, the chain of command is so remote that nobody has the effective authority there and then to stand up to those people. Still building on the work of the CHCs, it is essential, when the DHAs are appointed, that the local authority members should be appointed by the local authorities and not by the State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  722
  Fortunately, the old aldermanic system was got rid of in another reorganisation in 1974. In the old days, the hospital management committee was served largely by the most aged alderman—the one with the time to do the job. He was never thought fit to be replaced by a new change of blood. It was a self-perpetuating oligarchy that had little contact with the local community and patient needs. The 1974 reorganisation did away with that.
  Above all, the Bill, when enacted, will bring management back into the hospitals. The existing area catering officers, area nursing officers, engineers, and treasurers, to whom any major decision must be referred, will go. The person with authority will be the person at hospital or, at the very least, district health authority level. It will be local control over local issues if the Bill goes through. Do we need regional health authorities? Could they not go while we are about it despite the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)? I have read the minutes of meetings of my regional health authority for some years, and I sometimes wonder whether the journey of those who attended was really necessary. Decisions involving money are made by the Department of Health and Social Security. There is virtually no democratic representation on regional health authorities, so the need for them on democratic grounds has not been made out. Those authorities are merely another tier for passing paper to and fro. Perhaps when the Bill goes to Standing Committee consideration may also be given to phasing out regional health authorities, too.
  I make a plea for consideration to be given to the training of more ancillary specialists, who are so vital to the National Health Service. We are short of speech therapists, yet we are producing sociologists, economists and psychologists from our universities. People who want to train for these ancillary specialties find it difficult to get a place to train.
  In all seriousness, I say to the House that nothing in the reorganisation of the National Health Service would please the nation and the nursing profession more than if we were to scrap the title "nursing officer" and once more call a hospital matron "matron". It would bring

  723
  back a human touch to our hospitals, which is what the Bill is all about. I give the Bill a warm welcome.
  8.2 pm
  Dr. Roger Thomas: If one is a doctor and a prospective parliamentary candidate, one is lucky to get away at the end of a meeting without being asked for one's views on private medicine. There is no doubt that within the Labour Party, including the Parliamentary Labour Party, there is an emotive objection to, even an abhorrence of, private medicine. It is felt to be distasteful that money can buy preferential treatment. Sometimes money can buy treatment and care for which there are many disturbing delays within the National Health Service. The reaction, at all levels of the Labour Party, of wanting to ban private and independent medicine is a phenomenon that we as a party have to live with and tolerate.
  If an individual wishes to spend his own money on the care and health welfare of his family, he should be allowed to do so. However, he should be restrained from pursuing that freedom unless the medical treatment has been provided totally by the private, independent sector and no State facilities have been impinged upon or used to the detriment of similar cases on NHS waiting lists.
  As was emphasised during a similar debate in the autumn of 1976, private medicine has often used back-up facilities that were available only within the NHS. There is little evidence to show that such practices are not still as extensive as ever. It would be unfair to say that the majority of consultants are guilty of such practices. Only a minority is involved. However, undoubtedly pressure is used within NHS departments to manipulate waiting lists for essential pathological or radiological treatment. The original consultation is carried out on a strictly private basis, but from that moment things change and there is a fair amount of queue-jumping.
  In the autumn of 1976, the present Secretary of State said that there was no support within the NHS unions for removing NHS hospital beds. He suggested that we should wait until the Royal Commission had reported on Health Service finance and manpower. We now know what precious little
  724
  attention the Minister and his team intend to give to the parts of the Royal Commission report that do not fit snugly into their own future plans for an emasculated NHS.
  Major problems confront the NHS and many of the important decisions within it and the main hospitals cannot be remedied unless adequate finance is provided. When I qualified, I served at various hospitals. At the head of the hospital there was a medical person. It would be good for the NHS if a medical person was once again in charge of our district and general hospitals.
  Hospital porters who notice consultant surgeons leaving much of the morning's surgical work to an able registrar immediately come to the conclusion that the consultant in question may have left to operate on a private patient elsewhere. I have heard that said often. The truth is that it is only a minority who indulge such dubious practices. However, it gives the whole profession an undeserved reputation.
  Twenty-five years in family practice have taught me that, on the whole, the middle classes have received, and will continue to insist they should receive, better and more prompt medical care than the lower classes. It is sad but inevitable that the educated middle classes are often responsible for keeping the primary care team on their mettle. More and more people, when told of long waiting lists, ask why they should pay for private care when they have already paid into the NHS.
  The cuts in 1976, which the present Secretary of State described as symptomatic of a system in despair, were not dissimilar to the cuts of 1979. They deserve the same vivid adjectives. I do not see in what subtle way ward closures under a Labour Government lead to low morale and callous unrest while financial restrictions under the Tories are expected to be accepted as part of a belt-tightening exercise that will help to bring us all to our senses.
  During the debate on the Health Service in 1976, the term "medical apartheid" was coined. The originator of that phrase thought that the Bill then being debated would bring about dual standards. The hon. Member who used that phrase was three years ahead of his time. It is clauses 7, 8 and 9 of this Bill which

  725
  possess all the ingredients for bringing about dual standards in the National Health Service.
  Even three years ago a vigorous, efficient and well-equipped private sector was being forecast. So was a growth in the methods of providing funds through costly insurance schemes. An increase was also forecast in the extras and perks which come with managerial and similar positions. But dual standards in medical care in this country, predicted three years ago, did not come about. The standards in the overwhelming majority of our hospitals, be they acute, general, community-oriented, chronic or geriatric, have been stoutly maintained and the better type of medical attendants, from consultants down to unqualified personnel, have not deserted the Health Service for the predicted greener and more lucrative pastures of private medicine.
  The British Medical Association waited long and patiently for the return of the Tory Government. The gestation period has been only eight months and the end product has been an acute disappointment to the BMA. This month's "News Review" emphasises that the present draconian cuts do little to dispel anxiety. They are producing a lack of confidence and a feeling of fear among members of the general public.
  In reality, the National Health Service has never been adequately financed, particularly in relation to building capital. But now cash limits are affecting the running costs, with the non-productive administrative sectors tending to run riot. Unfortunately, staff care is standing still.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose the Bill.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I wish to make a general point about part I of the Bill and then comment on clause 10. On part I, it is recognised on all sides of the House that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present administrative structure. It is costly, and there are criticisms about its bureaucracy and delays in decision-making. However, I do not believe that structural changes in themselves, such as the elimination of one tier—however desirable that may be—will solve the deep-seated problems of management and resource utilisa-
  726
  tion in the NHS. At present there is something of a crisis of morale among the front-line troops—nurses and the doctors—about the effect on them of the bureacracy.
  I draw to the Minister's attention a recent series of articles and comments in the British Medical Journal. A consultant pathologist claims that there is too much so-called democracy in the National Health Service which is causing major problems. He says that hardly any decisions, even comparatively trivial ones, can be made without reference to the recommendations of umpteen committees. A nursing officer writes about carelessness, wastefulness and irresponsibility, all of which have increased. According to a consultant physician, every department in his hospital is overstaffed and he spends half his time on administrative work. His feelings have not been helped by the discovery about his cleaners. For many years he had one cleaner to clean his room. Now he has two, one for the windows and one for the doors. However, there is a demarcation dispute and no one actually cleans his window sills. His feelings were not helped either when he discovered that there was to be a training school for cleaners and that a room was to be set aside, filled with rows of unconnected lavatories and strips of different kinds of carpet. Teaching staff were to be allocated. The mind boggles at the thought of trainee cleaners pushing brushes up and down lavatory pans under skilled supervision. This is perhaps a trivial problem, but it exemplifies a serious crisis. There is a lot of qualitative evidence that resources are not being utilised effectively and that there is a serious crisis of morale among the frontline staff.
  I comment briefly on clause 10. Opening the debate, the Secretary of State put both the philosophical and practical cases for the independent private sector. This has expanded enormously from 500,000 in the mid-1950s to 2·5 million now. I believe that it will continue to expand. Labour Members talk about the adequacy of resources for the NHS, but there is a fundamental problem that, in a service that is substantially one of zero price, demand will inevitably exceed supply. No Government, however sympathetic, will ever supply sufficient resources to meet all possible demands.

  727
  Also, the private sector is helpful as an indicator of patients' needs. As the Royal Commission said, the private sector probably responds much more directly to patients' demands for service than the NHS. Therefore, the private sector provided a useful pointer to areas in which the NHS was defective.
  On the provisions in clause 10, there is a case in theory for asking why there should be any restrictions at all on the private sector. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) is important. On practical grounds, the magic figure of 120 may be insufficiently flexible. I hope that it can be looked at again, particularly as different considerations may apply in different parts of the country.
  Of course the private sector has a limited role, but I hope that it will expand, not only in London but in the regions. We have some excellent facilities already in Scotland. I hope that eventually Labour Members and the TUC will recognise practical reality and realise that an increase in the demand for private medical services is inevitable and that the private sector has a small but important and effective part to play in the total provision of health services in this country.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) represents, as I do, a Scottish constituency. I hope that, with me, he will object to the way in which Scotland has been hooked into this Bill. The Scottish Health Service is differently organised—we have our own separate legislation and our own problems. We have very little private health provision in Scotland compared with England. As a result of this linking, we will be lucky to have more than one Scottish Labour Member on the Standing Committee on the Bill. In view of the fact that we took more than 40 seats out of 70 in Scotland in the election, this is an insult to the Scottish Labour movement generally and it will not be appreciated.
  It is humbug for the Government to pretend that the purposes of the Bill are to benefit the patient. To link the Bill with the White Paper on patients, as it
  728
  the sole objective of the legislation was to benefit those patients exclusively, is utter nonsense. Indeed, the Bill hardly touches on the fundamental problems of the Health Service. Indeed, it will probably make them worse.
  The Minister referred in a fairly superficial manner to the key clause in the Bill—clause 5, which deals with cash limits. It is clear that the Government will slow down the development of the Health Service. It has been slow in developing for long enough. In fact, the basic difficulty over the last few years has been the eroding effect of inflation and the very poor performance of the economy as a whole. The Bill does absolutely nothing to tackle the fundamental problems. The Health Service will suffer equally with, or to a greater extent than, the other social services from the public expenditure cuts imposed by the Government.
  The main purposes of the Bill are, first, to undo the damage done to the administration machinery by the previous Tory Government. We welcome that as far as it goes, but it needs careful consideration in Committee. Secondly, it seeks to switch limited resources—personnel and finance—increasingly to the private sector of medicine. Thirdly, it proposes to freeze or reduce the resources available to the National Health Service from national taxation.
  The detailed provisions of the Bill are properly dealt with in Committee. I shall make two or three general propositions that will not meet with the approval of the Government, but I believe that it is important to state them. First, medical facilities should be provided for all sections of the community on the exclusive basis of need and not greed. Secondly, the element of competitive rivalry is incompatible with health care. Above all, the law of the market place must not be allowed to govern the quality of the Health Service.
  The main case against private medicine is fundamentally one of political morality. That was the basis on which Nye Bevan acted when the Health Service was introduced, and that basis has been steadily eroded by successive Governments. It is precisely because we still live in a predominantly capitalist society, in which the market place is sovereign, that we hold strongly that the Socialist oasis—that is

  729
  what the Health Service is—must be safeguarded from the ravages of cruel and heartless market forces.
  We are told repeatedly that the role of the private sector in medical care is a minor one. Whenever there is a scandal, we are told to forget about it because the private sector is too small. The size and scope of the private sector in health provision is a threat to the egalitarian, humane nature of the Health Service. The greatest danger to our health comes from the intrusion of the market place and the profit motive—whether it be drugs or private medicine. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) spoke of those who came to Britain and filched services from the Health Service. That is grossly exaggerated. I hope that the Minister, either today or in Committee, will give details. It is a grossly exaggerated abuse. It is on a smaller scale than the scandals exposed in the report produced some years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on the private sector of the Health Service, where evidence was given of consultants and surgeons taking on loan expensive equipment from the Health Service and forgetting to return it. If we are to talk of scandals and waste, that side of it must also be considered. It is also known that private patients are jumping the queues and refusing to pay their bills. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are outstanding in bad debts.
  The Government gave hand-outs to the wealthy section of the community in the June Budget. They are finding now that they must retrieve that money through higher prescription charges and a reduced quality of service in the National Health Service. They say that people prefer to have money in their pockets to spend in their own way. If they wish to spend money on health, why should they not? They might spend more money on tins of pork, or whatever. That is the thinking that governs the Government's actions.
  To reduce that to an absurdity, we have what I call the flag day and raffles clause. The mind boggles. The title of the clause is:
  "Power of health authorities, etc. to raise money, etc., by appeals, collections, etc."
  That might mean that the nurses could make jam and sell it at the entrance to
  730
  the wards. When the visitors are round the beds, they might hand out raffle tickets. There is no reason why the nurses should not run a football pool.
  That sort of behaviour is completely alien to the fundamental principles on which the National Health Service was built. It shows the contempt of the Tory Party for those principles. It believes that the market place can solve the problems of the National Health Service.
  Some years ago, the present Secretary of State for Industry said that we should have two Health Services, one to deal with the mentally ill and the geriatrics and the other in the private sector dealing with the more sophisticated and romantic problems, such as heart transplants. The Tory Government stand for first and second-class citizens, and that is why we shall oppose the Bill tooth and nail in Committee.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the Bill and believe that it is in the best interests of all who are concerned with the National Health Service, not least the patients, the professional staff and the taxpayer.
  I refer to three aspects of the Bill. The first is the proposed structural reorganisation referred to in the consultative document. From the debate this evening there appears to exist a widespread acceptance of the elimination of the area tier. It has proved to be too remote and to have encouraged the practice of buck-passing between various tiers—district, area and regional—and in consequence an avoidance of responsibility.
  The Bill suggests the emergence of a new, dynamic, powerful district authority with a membership reduced to around 20. It will have its work cut out if it wishes to be aware of and to satisfy local needs in the Health Service. It will mean full-time members, especially those who are already members of local authorities, and others with another job. I hope that they will be adequately compensated for loss of earnings. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that aspect in his reply.
  Paragraph 23 of the consultative document refers to four local authority members representing the district authority. I echo the remark of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)

  731
  when he asked "Is that enough?" I also pose that question. Considering that the new district health authorities will probably cover a number of district councils as well as the social service authority, which is the county council, will four local authority representatives be enough?
  Paragraph 24 refers to retaining joint consultative committees. That is a reference to bringing together representatives of the social service authorities and the health authority. The terms of reference will prove to be all-important to the success or otherwise of the new joint consultative committees. The terms of reference should ensure the avoidance of talking shop committees, ivory towers, or semi-prestigious bodies for long-service worthies, as has often been the case in the past. They should be unique representative bodies concerned with health in the widest sense in the area with which they are concerned.
  We should recognise—it is no secret—that doctors have resented the establishment of separate social service authorities following the Seebohm recommendations in the early 1970s. We must recognise that on the part of general practitioners there exists widespread suspicion and dissatisfaction with social service departments. They feel—I do not necessarily share their feelings—that there is too much talk in the social service departments, too much desk work, too many case conferences and not enough field work in support of patients. The new joint consultative committees should recognise that. They should work towards a closer relationship between the general practitioner and the social services department.
  A suggestion that has been made on a number of occasions in the past is that each general practice should have attached to it its own social worker under the direction of the doctor.
  Paragraph 26 of the consultative document refers to the future of the community councils. As a past member of a community health council, I believe that such bodies have a useful role to play in highlighting the shortcomings of the Health Service in the areas that they represent and in voicing the complaints of patients.
  732
  The Community Councils represent good value for the £4 million that is spent annually on their behalf. They should remain—at least for the time being—until the new district health authorities have gained experience, bearing in mind that they will include local authority councillors, who in due course may find that they can replace the community health councils by taking up the complaints of patients and voicing the views of the local community.
  I turn to the part of the Bill that is concerned with the financing of the NHS. It is the part which is aimed at reversing the previous Government's policy of phasing out pay beds and private practice generally. We must recognise a number of factors. First, the NHS has suffered from a serious underfunding for a number of years. It will continue so to suffer. If the Government mean what they say and are determined that there have to be more public expenditure cuts, the NHS should not be excluded from these cuts. We cannot look to other countries to continue to pay for our National Health Service. We must look to the private sector to help to fund any expansion of the NHS if expansion is to take place.
  We must also recognise that attitudes have changed towards the NHS. When the Beveridge proposals were first introduced, they were based on conditions in the 1930s. They were implemented by Bevan in the 1940s. They may not necessarily be what people want in the 1980s, nearly 50 years later. I understand that the Labour Party is to include in its new song book the song entitled "Times they are a-changing". That is a theme that we need to apply to the NHS.
  The Government's annual publication "Social Trends" indicates that people are better clothed, better housed and better fed than they were 30 years ago. Real personal disposable income has doubled in that time. People want the right to choose between providing for the health needs of their family and spending their money on other things—holidays, a new television set, a new car, bingo, and so on.
  Mr. Race: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of abolishing the National Health Service?
  Mr. Atkinson: I have not said that. They also want a choice between a "free" National Health Service, paid for by the taxpayers themselves, and a better service, for which they are prepared to pay extra, over and above the taxes they pay. That has been borne out—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening the debate—by successive opinion polls.
  Recently, I conducted a poll of opinion in my constituency, using my local Young Conservative organisation. We polled 855 people whose views would apply nationally as well as locally. We put the question "Should the Government encourage people to supplement the National Health Service by providing health schemes?" Five hundred and ten people—approximately 60 per cent.—said "Yes."
  Our National Health Service was once the best in the world. Now, as stated by the Royal Commission, it is no longer the envy of the world. In many ways we have been overtaken by other European
  734
  countries, which rely partly on private financing and partly on a system whereby a fee is paid.
  I welcome the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that a feasibility study of a State health insurance system is to be set up. I hope that the Bill will herald the start of a greater contribution to the National Health Service from the private sector than ever before, by offering incentives—perhaps in the form of tax relief—for the acceptance of greater responsibility. In that way, everyone wins. People who insure against illness, the so-called private patients, will get what they pay for—a better service. The National Health Service patient will get a better deal, because he will benefit from a better-funded Service.
  I turn, finally, to the matter of a better relationship—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he has had his 10 minutes.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Frank McElhone: I emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in resenting that Scottish health legislation has been lumped into a United Kingdom Bill. The Secretary of State for Social Services is amending, among other Acts, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. The Government are following the same practice with the education, local government, and industry Bills. I am sure that that will be resented by National Health Service staff in Scotland.
  I wish to comment on clauses 3, 4, 8 and 15. In the interests of other hon. Members, I shall be as brief as possible.
  Clause 3 covers joint financing between Health Service and local authority social work departments. As I understand, that system is already operating in Scotland. I do not understand the reference to it in clause 3, where it is stated that the "joint financing" arrangements in England and Wales will be statutory. As I understand, that is the case in Scotland. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will correct me. The previous Labour Government provided extra money for local authorities—especially in the Strathclyde region—to finance the building of 30 hospitals for the mentally handicapped. Will the Minister indicate that that will continue, either through increased aid through the Health Service, or through the joint financing experiments practised under the previous Government?
  I endorse the resentment expressed by my hon. Friends, especially that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) of the "flag day" society mentality reflected in clause 4. That will also be resented. I hope that the Bill will be amended to indicate that there will be no compulsion or undue persuasion on the staff—nurses or others—to ensure that they raise funds for health services.
  Clause 15 deals with the power to make loans to general practitioners. In what way will this practice be amended? I tell the Minister that in the deprived areas, especially in large housing estates and in some rural parts of Scotland, it is extremely difficult at present to get general practitioners. The main reason is that these areas tend to be those from which
  736
  the young families have migrated to new towns, so that they are left with the chronically sick, the elderly and the unemployed—the people who most regularly visit the GP's surgery. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that clause 15 will not be amended in a way that will affect the provision of greatly improved facilities in such areas.
  If there is any clause in the Bill which makes me feel very angry, it is clause 8, which seeks to amend the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. That Act gave powers to the Secretary of State to allow the use of National Health Service accommodation and services for the treatment privately of patients. I tell the Minister that in my constituency, in the Victoria infirmary on the south side of Glasgow, and the related hospital in Mearnskirk, there has for a long time been a long waiting list, especially for orthopaedic surgery. Some old people in my constituency are suffering grievously from severe arthritis and rheumatic diseases. They are trapped in their homes. However, anyone who has the money can see certain consultants privately in their homes and surgeries, thereby jumping the queue. Clause 8 will be welcomed by that minority. I am second to none in my admiration of the doctors in the Victoria infirmary and in all other hospitals in Scotland, but a small minority of doctors are waxing rich, notwithstanding the misery of the poor people who cannot afford to pay substantial fees for private treatment.
  This is a bad Bill. It is a re-enactment of Cronin's book "The Citadel" and all the misery that was endured in the 1930s by the poor and deprived people in my constituency and in the rest of Scotland. It will be opposed with all the force that the Opposition can command, and I hope that it will be rejected.
  8.43 pm
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have the honour to represent a city which has for centuries been the focal point of medical care for a very wide area of north Lancashire, spilling over into Cumbria. It is no exaggeration to call ours a hospital city, since the National Health Service is the largest employer of men and women alike, and service often goes on in an unbroken line from generation to generation. It may well be that it is for this reason that

  737
  industrial relations in our hospitals are extremely good.
  We were fortunate in obtaining a new maternity unit three years ago. Within the money available, our structure is sound, and very old-fashioned mental and subnormality hospitals are being steadily brought up to date. Large wards are being subdivided, antiquated toilet and bath facilities are being updated, and facilities are being provided for the basic domestic and industrial training for the mentally subnormal who can, with such training, go out into the community. I was talking to a number of such people the other day. As low-dependency mentally subnormal patients, they are already going out to do part-time work.
  But, like other health authorities, we could always do with more money. The planning of improvements is very carefully phased, but clearly, if more money were available, modernisation plans would be speeded up. We desperately need a new theatre suite at the Royal Lancaster infirmary. Proposals for this were agreed two years ago, but the money has not been available, and the work is not now expected to be completed until 1987. Clearly, if more money were available, that date could be brought forward or temporary improvements effected.
  That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill to enable local health authorities to raise their own funds and to put them to whatever purposes they choose. I am not suggesting that they could raise enough money for the full scheme, but they might very well raise enough to provide temporary facilities which would tide us over until the full scheme is completed.
  I also welcome the reversal of the Labour Government's determination to get rid of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. My constituency is by no means a wealthy area. There will never be a demand for private beds comparable with that in the South-East. But, even in Lancaster, the phasing out of pay beds will cost about £60,000.
  The question of private medicine goes beyond that issue. On a national basis, no less than £30 million comes from pay
  738
  bed revenue. We in the North-West have long complained that the amount spent on health care has been consistently lower than that spent in the South-East. Every pound that is spent on private health care in the wealthier South-East reduces the demands on the National Health Service funds and leaves more for less wealthy areas such as the North-West.
  There is clear and growing demand for private medical treatment. There has been an increase in the number in private health insurance from 500,000 in 1955 to nearly 2·5 million in 1978. The number is going up at an accelerating rate all the time. It is a demand that is not by any means confined, as Opposition Members would like to imply, to the rich. Trade unions are increasingly including private health treatment in their pay bargaining. Shop stewards, members of the Transport and General Workers Union, negotiated private medical treatment for their 1,300 members at Bass Mitchell's, while 40,000 members of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, under the enlightened and modern leadership of Mr. Chapple, did likewise.
  Private medical treatment provides easily the biggest potential input of funds to health care and the best way of reducing waiting lists. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) that putting beds into cottage hospitals may save some of these popular places from closure, as could the raising of funds by people who wish to keep open a small hospital, as suggested by the Secretary of State in his speech.
  It is an interesting fact that the most consistently Socialist state in the Western world, Sweden, forbids private beds outside public hospitals so that doctors do not waste time travelling from one hospital to another.
  It is absurd for the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) to describe the Bill as a queue-jumpers' charter. National Health hospital waiting lists will continue to be common. But encouragement of the growth of private hospitals, particularly as they have agreed to play their part in nurse training, will take potential patients off the waiting lists, which grew by 250,000 under Labour, the largest

  739
  increase in our history. This is, indeed, cruel and heartless, to quote the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read speeches to the House?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is indeed in the interests—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order. It is not in order for hon. Members to read speeches. It is in order for hon. Members to make liberal use of notes but not to read absolutely from them.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: This is the only way in which hon. Members can keep within the time allotted. I am seeking to do that for the benefit of Opposition Members, some of whom rarely join in debates, particularly those affecting their own areas.
  It is cruel and heartless that waiting lists should have gone up by 250,000, or no less than 50 per cent., under Labour.
  Clauses 1 and 2 confer on the Secretary of State the power to make changes in the structure of the National Health Service. But the Secretary of State has stated categorically that this will not prejudge consultation on the consultative document "Patients First", an excellent document which I trust all hon. Members have read. The document emphasises that people, not organisations, should be responsible for the care and cure of patients. There is no rigid blueprint that will serve for all time. Flexibility is vital, nowhere more so than in that part of the world from which I come, where patient flows cross county boundaries.
  That is an argument for another day. For the present, I welcome the Bill. It will expedite decision-taking and give back the degree of flexibility to the Health Service that it lacks.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: The Bill will do nothing about the main weakness affecting the National Health Service, because successive Governments have starved it of funds. We are getting a National Heatlh Service on the cheap. From the Royal Commission's report we see that, whether looked at in terms of
  740
  expenditure per head or as a percentage of gross domestic product, we are near the bottom of the league. We are endeavouring to get too much out of too small a pot. The Government's suggestion that devices that I remember from my childhood, such as a hospital Saturday fund, will help to correct the problem is completely misconceived.
  I regret that the debate on the Royal Commission's report and on "Patients First" is to be held in the new year. It would seem logical to debate those two documents before the Second Reading of the Bill.
  I turn briefly to the question of democracy in the Health Service, because it is fundamental to those two documents and to the Bill. I was for some time a local council member of an area health authority. In "Patients First" the Government talk about the balance of district health authority members appointed by regional health authorities for the individual contributions that they can make. I question whether it is valid to have the NHS run by people who make only individual contributions. In my experience, almost all decisions that were taken on the area health authority on which I served had to reconcile conflicting interests and pressures. People representing different areas—be they local councillors, doctors or nurses—were accountable to some group within the area health authority. But individual members accountable to no one had no place there, because they could take no sensible part in decisions and in trying to balance conflicting interests. They were not accountable to anybody in the sense that, as a councillor, I always felt that I was answerable to my constituents for the decisions that I made on the area health authority.
  If our National Health Service is to be improved, the key decision is one of democracy and accountability, not a matter of reducing the democratic element by cutting down the numbers of councillors and talking only of members who serve as individuals.
  I wonder about the motives of those who want to go into private practice and of those who argue for these clauses in the Bill. The motive, first and foremost, seems to be money. Doctors want more money and the institutions that provide the basic services for private practice are also after money.

  741
  What are the patients after? I suggest that the majority want quicker treatment or to have treatment when it suits them, never mind others who are waiting for NHS treatment.
  Those motives are reprehensible and damaging to what the NHS was set up to achieve and is about. Thus, the Opposition reject them utterly.
  Several hon. Members referred to public opinion polls as evidence that people want private practice. It depends on how the question is phrased. If one asks "Do you think that more private medical care would not be a bad thing?" most people will probably say "Yes". If the question is put in real terms "Do you think that an expansion of private practice is desirable, even if it means, as inevitably it will, damaging the National Health Service?" I suggest that most people will say "No". That is the only honest way to put the question.
  About 60 per cent. of NHS expenditure goes on children, the elderly, the mentally ill and the handicapped. Not many private health schemes cover those groups. The private schemes take the fashionable, the easy, acute illnesses, and seek to leave to the NHS those groups of people who are most vulnerable and in need of real help. Therefore, those who argue for an expansion of private practice must do so in the knowledge that they are advocating double standards and do not mind how much damage they do to the basic National Health Service.
  The NHS is a compromise in the sense that, when it was started, we had to have some private practice. It is accepted that some private practice exists. The question is to what extent it will expand before it does serious damage to the principle of the NHS. This Bill encourages that sort of damage.
  Though some parts of the Bill are unwelcome, the suggestion for a simplified management structure is welcome. But, even when these changes are made, major problems will remain, especially in the London area where the problems of NHS organisation are more complex than elsewhere. What will happen to the postgraduate teaching hospitals? Will they become part of the main system or remain separate so that decisions on medical services will not take their particular activities into account?
  742
  Will anything be done to compensate for the wrongs done to the undergraduate teaching hospitals which are being deprived of their just share of resources? No formula yet worked out compensates them for the cost of treating the large number of patients taken from areas outside London.
  In their consultative document the Government say that they do not intend to change the boundaries of the Thames regional authorities. I regret that. Change there might have made NHS organisational problems in London more manageable.
  Various Government documents refer to the difficult problem of links with local authorities. I do not suggest that relations are totally bad or that they do not work at all, but the relationship between the local authorities and the NHS is a particularly difficult one and more thought is required in order to establish better relationships than in the past.
  With the exception of the provision for changes in management structures, this is a bad Bill. The Bill's bad features outweigh the good. It represents a backward step for the NHS.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. A. P. Costain: I have seldom heard a more inane argument advanced against a Bill than that put forward by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). He seems to object to the fact that money needs to be raised for hospitals. He sees the raising of money as nurses rattling tin cans on street corners. I wish that he would come to my constituency, to Etchinghill hospital. Each year 3,000 local people turn out to support that hospital. It is the event of the year. If I were to say that we were against raising money in this way, local children would be completely disgusted. The annual fund raising for the hospital is an event to which the whole village looks forward. It is looked on as a good afternoon's entertainment and we raise about £3,000.
  We made an appeal for the Royal Victoria hospital at Folkestone. One of the nursing sisters there thought that the hospital should have special apparatus to help people suffering from heart disease. Within two days £3,000 was raised.
  An hon. Member indicated that money for hospitals could be raised only in rich

  743
  areas. Let me tell him that the apparatus to which I referred and which cost £4,000 was paid for in two days because the hospital sister went round two of the local establishments, one of which was Dungeness power station. She raised £1,000 in two hours because people like to be associated with raising money for hospitals.
  The difference in approach to this question since the Government took office has created a new attitude in the medical profession. Doctors now look forward to co-operating with the Department of Health and Social Security and helping to carry matters forward. They do not look backwards. Opposition Members have not admitted that the hospital service was not up to proper standards when they were in power.
  Mr. Race: If the hon. Member had listened to the debate, he would have realised that many hon. Members have drawn attention to the serious inadequacies in the National Health Service under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
  Mr. Costain: That is an unfair comment. I have listened to much of the debate. I have been doing other work in the House but I have listened to most hon. Members.
  My time is up. I welcome the Bill and look forward to its quick passage through the House.
  9 pm
  Mr. Roland Moyle: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) that we accept the Royal Commission's recommendation that there should be an inquiry into the London health service. I hope that the Secretary of State will convey our condolences to the Minister for Health, who has been a vigorous contributor to our debates on the Health Service for many years. We miss him. We wish that he were here tonight, if only to answer for some of his misdeeds. I hope that he will be back with us soon.
  The Bill is like the curate's egg—good in parts. Anybody who has ever tried to eat the good parts of a bad egg and leave the bad parts will know that it cannot be done. For that reason we reject the Bill and we shall vote against it.
  744
  Clause 1 deals with administrative changes in the Health Service. We welcome the opportunities in that clause. Accord between the two sides of the House is greatest on that part of the Bill. I congratulate the Government on their obvious repentance in view of the damage which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) did to the NHS when he was Secretary of State between 1970 and 1974. We are pleased to see that the Government intend to avoid using management consultants. I congratulate the Government on following the Royal Commission's recommendations on advice.
  I note in passing that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East plans to bring to the leadership of Rolls-Royce the personal qualities that he brought to the leadership of the National Health Service. As an ex-Health Minister I wish Rolls-Royce the best of British luck.
  I commend the Royal Commission's report to the Secretary of State almost in its entirety. That view will emerge even more strongly when we debate the report. I urge the Secretary of State to follow that report wherever possible. If he does that, he will not go far wrong. However, clause 1 does not reorganise the National Health Service. It merely provides the opportunity to reorganise it. The administrative principles set out in "Patients First" appear to be sound, and the idea of substituting district health authorities for a general tier of area health authorities is sound. However, we shall watch the way in which the Secretary of State carries out the reorganisation because his party's track record on reorganisations, particularly of water, local authorities and health services, is not particularly good.
  The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and Newark (Mr. Alexander) made a number of helpful suggestions about the way in which the reorganisation might be carried out and the problems that must be faced. Those suggestions should be considered. My right hon. and hon. Friends will fight hard for the retention of the community health councils. I was glad to see that many Tory Members supported that view.
  I wish to make one or two comments on the reorganisation. The Minister for Health thinks that reorganisation will save the Health Service £30 million over

  745
  two years. That is the original figure. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) is too generous in saying that it will save 0·3 per cent. of the Health Service budget in each of those years. It will save only 0·15 per cent. of the budget. In times past the record of Conservative Governments has been that their reorganisations have cost money—not saved it.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: May I make clear what is the figure of £30 million? This is a target saving that represents approximately 10 per cent. of the present administrative costs of the National Health Service. We have set ourselves that target. Subject to consultation and acceptance of the proposals, we shall seek to enforce it on the Health Service—but not over two years. It is difficult to put a time scale on it. We hope that that will be achieved when the simplification of the structure and the tightening of the management have been completed and given a chance to work.
  Mr. Moyle: In that case even my estimate of 0·15 per cent. of the health budget saved per year will be a gross overestimate of the savings.
  The argument for reorganising the Health Service is based on the introduction of flexibility, simplicity and decentralisation. At the end of the day, I doubt very much whether anyone in the National Health Service will notice any financial saving.
  On the subject of the family practitioners committees, the Secretary of State, having started by accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, has now tended to backtrack. However, I am pleased that everything in the consultative document is up for discussion and possible decision thereafter, as the Minister makes a pretty strong case for those committees. That is in direct contrast to what the Royal Commission said. At paragraph 20.57, page 327, it said:
  "We recommend the abolition of FPCs in England and Wales and the assumption of their functions by health authorities as a step towards integration."
  It thought that family practitioner committees were an obstacle to health authorities from the point of view of influencing the distribution and quality of surgeries, achieving a balance between
  746
  hospital and community care, moving staff across institutional boundaries. It noted that family practitioner committees were superflous in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a Minister who held some responsibility for Northern Ireland, I found that in no way were the family practitioner services there inferior to those in England and Wales.
  We oppose the Bill and the consultative document that strengthens it. With the benefit of only six months' office, and without public discussion, the Government are giving the impression of supinely deciding to nail their colours to the family practitioner committee mast. I am glad that this afternoon the Secretary of State was able to resile a little from that.
  I should like to know why joint finance is being made legal under clause 3. We never felt the need to do that. The Royal Commission never recommended it. It seems to be a bit superfluous.
  I should very much like to know why the General Practice Finance Corporation is being given powers to lease premises. I am worried that that may lead to an even greater weakening of control by health authorities over the family practitioner services. I should like that query cleared up.
  We shall raise other issues in Committee. We shall probe them, so I shall not mention them here. I pass on to some of the more contentious clauses. Clause 4 is certainly one of those.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), along with many of my hon. Friends, has given voice to the deep sense of moral indignation over the idea of a Government trying to ensure that a substantial portion of Health Service money is raised in these haphazard fashions. It is a very badly conceived clause. We are not talking about extra money for the Health Service raised by voluntary local effort, as I understand it, but about a substantial contribution to the funding of the National Health Service, because the appropriate provisions already exist for the kind of thing that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) was talking about; that is an irrelevance.
  The only assumption that we can make is that Tory Members are thinking that a large portion of the NHS budget will

  747
  come into the National Health Service by these various nefarious means. Quite simply, it means first, that the richer the area, the more money it will raise and the poorer the area, the less money it will raise. In London they will be going down to their friends in the City and raising their £250,000 without any trouble, to add to the substantial, well-equipped teaching and postgraduate hospitals that already exist there. In Sandwell they will have nurses standing on the street corners hoping with a bit of luck to be able to raise £500. That is not good enough.
  This provision will increase the geographical distortion which is already one of the major problems of the Health Service. It will lead to the public going, as is always the practice, for the glamorous acute medicine sector of the NHS, the kidney machines, the EMI-scanners and things of that kind which will attract the money, but not enough to meet the running costs of those things. That will not be glamorous enough. One cannot very easily organise an appeal on that. It will be the geriatrics, the mentally handicapped and others of that kind who will be neglected.
  Finally, the object of this clause is presented as a way of raising more money for the National Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) hit that firmly on the head, because, as the right hon. Gentleman should know better than anybody, the moment that the Treasury realises that substantial sums of money are being raised for the Health Service by these means, at that stage not just a sharp Chancellor of the Exchequer but any Chancellor of the Exchequer will start cutting the central subvention to the NHS. That will be the position. There is no way in which this clause will raise more money for the NHS. All it will do will be to raise the money in a more haphazard, more erratic and less just manner than that in which it is raised now.
  We turn to the clause on statutory cash limits—because that is what it deals with. It seems to me to be a ridiculous clause. It converts an administrative tool into a centralised, legal, rigid despotism. The Secretary of State, during all the time he was in Opposition, during the General Election and in his early months in
  748
  office, stood before the public and the House talking of the need to decentralise decision-making. What he does is come to the House on joint financing and cash limits and impose rigid shackles from the centre on every health authority in the country. That strikes me as being a direct contradiction of all things that he said in Opposition and in his earlier week in office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and myself managed to run the system even under the ramshackle regime of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East without the assistance of these draconian measures and I see no need for anything of this kind.
  Now we turn to what the right hon. Gentleman has made the central part of his Bill. Others may think that he might have made reorganisation the central part. There are far more benefits to be obtained from that course than from that upon which he is embarked; but it was a press statement from the right hon. Gentleman's own Department when the Bill was published which started it. The statement said:
  "Health Services Bill fulfils pledge on private practice".
  That is supposed to be the central feature of this Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must not complain if that is where we mount our greatest opposition to the Bill. We on this side of the House have a totally different moral approach to the Health Service from that of Tory Members.
  If ever we want a clear, pristine comment on the philosophy of the Conservative Party, without any shilly-shallying and with great integrity, we can always rely upon the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who during the debate in 1976 said about our Bill:
  "The Bill circumscribes how people may offer their services and how other people may buy them."—[Official Report, 27 April 1976; Vol. 910, c. 260.]
  I commend that as a clear statement of the philosophy of the Government and their supporters in these matters. It puts the consultant who offers his services to cure human bodies in exactly the same position as the auctioneer who offers his services to buy and sell cattle in the market place. There is no difference at all. I could reduce it even from that to colour television

  749
  sets, bingo, champagne bottles and the rest. It is the philosophy of the market place.
  Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) and Brent, South, referred to that moral difference. We believe that it is not right for a person's medical care to be at the mercy of the fees that he pays. Neither should a person have his medical care postponed because another person pays for his. Broadly speaking, that is the position that we take.
  Most of the consultants in the hospitals declare that they treat their NHS patients in exactly the same manner as they treat their private patients. I personally believe that. If one wants privacy on the NHS, one can get it by going to an amenity bed. Therefore, the only justification for the private bed is that of queue-jumping. That problem will not be solved by the six principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
  One of the significant omissions from those six principles was the recommendation of the Health Services Board that social factors should be taken into account in compiling the common waiting lists. Nowhere was that mentioned in any of the six principles. The inclusion of the word "significant" in the first principle was a worrying introduction from our point of view.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say that, because it is taken exactly and precisely from the legislation that was put on the statute book in the previous Parliament.
  Mr. Moyle: There was no legislation on common waiting lists in the previous Parliament. There was a provision that the Health Services Board should report on the introduction of such matters, and we started discussions. The conclusion of those discussions was left to the right hon. Gentleman, and unless closer examination reveals something that I have missed, he has not produced a solution this afternoon.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. If he says that the word "significant" is the thing that causes him the greatest anxiety, he must know that section 62 of the
  750
  National Health Services Act 1977 contains the phrase:
  "will not to a significant extent interfere with the performance by him of any duty imposed on him by this Act to provide accommodation or services of any kind".
  Mr. Moyle: That is in a totally different context from the six principles that the right hon. Gentleman enunciated this afternoon. The inclusion of the word "significant" in the first principle renders null and void all the other principles. For that reason, we do not think that that is a solution.
  What has happened is that the right hon. Gentleman has resurrected a dead controversy. There has been peace—
  Mr. Ennals: If the purport of the six principles is to ensure that there is no difference whatever between the private patient and the public patient, no one would ever again need to go private. Therefore, does not my hon. Friend agree that there must be some snag, be it the word that he chose or some other word?
  Mr. Moyle: I think that we can leave this matter at that point and press on.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North that there has been peace on this issue ever since the 1976 Act was placed on the statute book, in spite of the fact that 2,000 private beds have disappeared from the Health Service during that time. Together with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed we are worried about what will happen now that the Health Services Board has gone. I pay tribute to the board and its work. That board combined some disparate elements but produced good team work and presided with judicious balance over the phasing out of more than 2,000private beds—1,000 beds under the Act and 1,000 beforehand.
  It is unusual for a member of one party to pay tribute to a politician of another party, but I pay tribute to Lord Wigoder, the chairman of the Health Services Board, for making such a contribution to the exercise. Of course, he is a Liberal Whip in another place, but he made an outstanding contribution. Who will now stand between private hospital development and the interests of the National Health Service? There is no doubt that a top limit of 125 beds in the NHS is more likely to cause damage to the

  751
  interests of the National Health Service than the limit imposed in our Bill.
  The first port of call when a private project is recommended is the area health authority. The area health authority is the one body that resists the development of private practice and private hospitals more than anything else. Therefore, the private sector will not regard area health authorities as impartial. But appeal will lie to the Secretary of State.
  By introducing this Bill, which allows for greater expansion of private medicine, particularly in the NHS, the Secretary of State will have deprived himself of any right to say that he is impartial. The introduction of the Bill removes that possibility. What happened to all the practical arguments that Conservative Members used against the introduction of our Bill in 1976? I have been studying some of the speeches that were made at that time. In that debate the present Secretary of State said:
  "This absurd policy will cost £40 million to £50 million".
  Of course, it has cost nothing like that. We are now in possession of the figures, and it has cost a loss of only £5·8 million in charges. If the Secretary of State looks at the answers given by his hon. Friend the Minister for Health he will see that that figure must be reduced by the redeployment of the resources from the private sector into the National Health Service. That is an offsetting factor that is difficult to calculate. Therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Member is playing with words and figures. If his policy had been as successful as he tried to pretend to his hon. Friends, and if all the beds that were supposed to go had gone, there would have been a further loss of £30 million. If he phased out the pay beds, he would lose that.
  Mr. Moyle: The Minister for Health has said that the figure was £31 million and that must be reduced by the reallocation of resources from the private sector into the National Health Service. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's calculations in 1976 were wildly out. During the 1976 debate, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "if pay beds go and the consultants who wish to continue to take advantage of the private practice undertaking are forced to divide their
  752
  time between two locations, some of the most distinguished will leave the NHS altogether and cease to be available for NHS patients."
  However, on 30 September 1975 there were 30,503 doctors employed in hospitals in England and Wales. Last 30 September that figure was 33,275. There has been an increase of medical input into the National Health Service.
  During that debate the Secretary of State also said:
  "Not only patients but medical education will be affected".
  I sought aid from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who has some responsibility for these matters these days. He told me that in 1975–76 there were only 3,786 full-time academic staff in our medical schools. In 1977–78, two years after the passage of the Bill, that figure had risen to 4,240, an increase approaching 500. Medical education was not affected either.
  I said that I was sorry that the Minister for Health was not with us. He envisaged a flight of the swallows—a departure of everybody to the rest of the Common Market after the Bill had been passed. He said:
  "In a year or two when we get the figures, we shall be wringing our hands in distress."
  We now have those figures. In 1977, 117 doctors applied for authorisation to practise in Europe and in 1978 the figure was 134, which is approximately one-third of 1 per cent. of all the doctors in hospitals in England and Wales. However, even if they were authorised to go, it does not mean that they went, and even if they went it does not mean that they did not come back. We are therefore talking about the largest possible figure.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in his 1976 speech, added:
  "It is nothing less than a tragedy that so much time, effort and passion should have had to be expended on what is, in the last resort, a peripheral issue."
  The first thing that he does, however, when he gets the initiative is to compound the passion, time and effort by introducing a Bill that forces us to go back over the same ground.
  That is strange, and it is even stranger because his plea was:
  "I am saying that we should withdraw the Bill and refer the matter to the Royal Commission."—[Official Report, 27 April 1976; Vol. 109, c. 218–319.]

  753
  The Royal Commission's advice is now available, and it says:
  "From the point of view of the National Health Service the main importance of pay beds lies in the passions aroused and the consequential dislocation of work which then occurs. The establishment of a Health Services Board led to a welcome respite from discussions on this emotional subject."
  The Royal Commission concedes one part of our case, and that is the advice that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to see. Why, then, is he introducing the Bill at this stage? We are beginning to realise that it is a first step on a long road taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends.
  Dr. Mawhinney Dr. Mawhinney rose—
  Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman would not give way to me and I shall not give way to him.
  Ten days ago, the right hon. Gentleman was extensively reported in the press as saying that he wanted an insurance-based National Health Service with doctors paid on item of service. In other words he wants to destroy the National Health Service as we have known it since 1948, and this Bill is a step towards so doing.
  First, he is trying to introduce item of service payments for doctors. Colloquially translated, that means putting consultants on piecework. Many of the most distinguished in the profession will oppose that idea and we shall support them.
  The most damaging part of the Bill is the idea of an insurance-based scheme, which destroys the moral basis of the National Health Service as we know it. It will no longer be an organisation primarily for aiding the sick. People will have to pay for what they get and will get what they pay for. The inference in an insurance-based scheme is that the poor will get less and the rich will get more. We shall have two health services, which is what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East called for during the previous Administration. It will be a workhouse service for the great mass of the population and a Harley Street service for the small section who can afford to pay.
  What are we letting ourselves in for? On 4 December there was a letter in The Times saying
  "I joined…Private Patients' Plan when in my thirties shortly after the war. I regarded
  754
  my membership, which has continued without interruption, as a protection against the likely illnesses which would probably increase as my wife and I got older.
  I assumed that PPP by receiving subscriptions from healthy young people would be able to fund the advertised benefits for members as they became older. I was therefore rather shocked a few years ago when PPP informed me that as I had reached a certain age the rate of my subscription would have to be increased solely because of my age."
  That is what we shall let ourselves in for under an insurance-based Health Service.
  The scheme is well launched. There are to be 70p prescription charges, road accident charges have been increased by substantial amounts and growth in the Health Service has been limited to 0·8 per cent. next year. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, unless the Health Service has a growth rate of 1 per cent., it stands still. There has been no increase in cash limits despite—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: But that is precisely the growth rate planned by the previous Government.
  Mr. Moyle: Yes. But we did not double VAT in the Budget, we did not put up the health costs of the NHS by substantial amounts and we did not create an inflation rate of 17 per cent. and refuse to increase cash limits. We shall now have the retention of pay beds in the National Health Service and the funding of private hospitals. Now is the time when we shall start to fight back. The people of this country must get rid of the Government before their schemes for the NHS come to fruition.
  9.30 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): The debate has been wide-ranging. It has covered not just the specific points in the Bill but the related issues raised in our consultative document "Patients First".
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained when he opened the debate, there will be another occasion in the new year for a debate on the consultative document. I hope that the House will understand if I leave until then some of the points raised on the future structure and concentrate on specific issues that are raised by the Bill.
  Clauses 1 and 2, which deal with the structure, do not commit us to a particular structure. No decision will be taken

  755
  until consultation is complete. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) opened the attack on behalf of the Opposition. I should like to deal with his remarks on clause 4. Opposition Members have totally misunderstood the object of clause 4. It deals with the power of health authorities to raise money by appeals and collections. It is a permissive clause. Our objective is to enable hospitals to play a more positive role in local fund raising. While authorities can now accept voluntary contributions and donations, they cannot be engaged in fund-raising activities themselves. As a result of that, some hospitals have been lumbered with expensive equipment which has not been a priority for the local health service. Clause 4 will partly overcome that problem by enabling the local health authority to initiate and participate in local fund-raising and to steer it in the right direction.
  We are talking about the better use of voluntary fund-raising and about building up a more effective link between the health authority and local fund-raising activities. I cannot see how anybody can sensibly object to that. Let me make absolutely clear that any money that is raised in this way will be in addition to the allocations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is no question of clawback. We will maintain next year's expenditure on the NHS budget at the level set by our predecessors. That will fully compensate for the inflation that has taken place this year.
  Mr. Ennals: Including VAT?
  Sir G. Young: Yes, there will be full compensation next year for this year's inflation. There will be no disbenefit to the Health Service from the implementation of clause 4. I hope that the hysteria that has been expressed about clause 4 will subside. Indeed, for the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) to say that we shall go back to the position that exists in Lesotho with large black matrons extracting sixpences from patients is a credit to her imagination and nothing else.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West found himself in some difficulty when my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) asked him whether the £1·75 million that was raised in the North-West by Pat Seed was
  756
  obscene. He was forced to admit that his Government should have found that money. In my constituency, Age Concern raised £500,000 for a geriatric day centre based at the Central Middlesex hospital. Should the right hon. Gentleman's Government have found the money for that as well? Was that obscene? Where do we stop? It is impossible for for the NHS to meet every need and there will always be a role for local fundraising. What we are trying to do is to ensure that the institutions that benefit from fund-raising will be associated with the activity from the outset.
  Mr. Beith: I share the Minister's enthusiasm for local fund-raising, but his right hon. Friend specifically referred to a clause in the Bill which would prevent any clawing back by the Treasury of the equivalent in money raised locally. Has the Minister been able to identify that clause, because I have not?
  Sir G. Young: I apologise to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). So far I have been unable to identify that clause. Perhaps it is something that we can explore further in Committee. The right hon. Member for Salford, West said that we were strengthening regional health authorities. There is nothing in the Bill about regional health authorities and our consultative document leaves the question of the future role of those authorities wide open.
  We have a genuinely open mind on community health councils. We have come to no pre-judgment on their role and we shall welcome an informed debate on that and on whether they are the best or right way to secure consumer representation.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West accused my right hon. Friend of reducing accountability. One of the main objectives of the Bill is to abolish the Health Services Board and to restore the powers held by that board to the Secretary of State, who is answerable in this House. The right hon. Gentleman's accusation about reducing accountability is, therefore, totally without foundation. He admitted that in principle he would like to see a Health Service with no private sector whatever. He must recognise that that suggestion goes against a commitment given by the previous Administration of which he was a member. On Third Reading of the previous

  757
  Health Services Bill I think that it was said that it was not the policy of the Labour Administration to do away entirely with private practice. At some point Opposition Members must come clean and tell the country exactly where they stand on private medicine.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) criticised the 1974 reorganisation. He was not alone in that. He asked how we proposed to secure economies if we moved from area health authorities to smaller districts. It is true that there may be more authorities, but the cost lies not with the authority itself, but with the management structure underlying it, based on the staff.
  For example, in Wiltshire there is one area health authority and three health districts. In effect, therefore, there are four management teams. If we proceed on the lines that we have outlined, we hope to reduce that number to two or three. That is where the potential saving lies. There will naturally be consequences for the staff. This is conceded in paragraph 13 of the consultative document. We accept that there will have to be negotiations.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) had the effrontery to give us a lecture on the National Health Service. He managed to do that without once mentioning the events of last winter. He clearly suffers from a distressing illness—selective amnesia. He told us that strong emotions would be aroused by our Bill because it threatened industrial relations in the hospitals, with the consequence that patients would suffer. He did not mention the chaos over which he presided last winter.
  Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals rose—
  Sir G. Young: I shall give way in a moment. When my right hon. Friend needs advice on industrial relations in the National Health Service one of the last places he will call for that advice will be Norwich, North.
  Mr. Ennals: I was not expressing an opinion; I was simply quoting from the Royal Commission's report. If the Minister is saying that his right hon. Friend does not need the advice of the Royal Commission on industrial relations, that is a very serious statement.
  Sir C. Young: Throughout the debate on his Bill the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that if the pay beds problem could be solved, that was the key to better industrial relations. The history of events since that time has shown that he was absolutely wrong. Pay beds were irrelevant to the problems over which he presided last winter.
  We recognise the strong feelings that are held in the NHS. For that reason, my right hon. Friend announced earlier in the debate the six principles, which I believe are valuable and which will go some way to reassuring people about our policies. In addition, my right hon. Friend has retained specific safeguards to look after the interests of the NHS, and I shall return to that.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend told the House that a majority of people in the country, including trade unionists and Labour Party members, as well as a majority in this House, wanted private medicine to continue in the National Health Service, will he agree that if there is any fury arising from the Bill it will be the responsibility of Labour Members to tell their radical friends that they must obey the democratic wishes of Parliament?
  Sir G. Young: My hon. Friend is quite right. However, I hope that our proposals will be accepted by all those who work in the Health Service and that no attempt will be made by Labour Members to stir things up.
  The right hon. Member for Norwich, North asked about administrative savings resulting from reorganisation. It is envisaged that these will accrue to the Health Service. I said earlier that I was unable to locate the specific clause of the Bill which dealt with preventing the Treasury's clawing back. The provision is on page 14 of the Bill in subsection (5)—
  "sums shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section".
  Therefore, the assurance that the right hon. Member seeks is in the Bill. This is a matter for Committee where we can explore further the issue of safeguarding the NHS.
  It has been alleged throughout the debate that we are embarked on a fundamental attack on the principles of the Health Service. We have been accused

  759
  of going back to the 1930s, and even to 1911. When this Bill is on the statute book, the NHS will have greater protection against possible adverse effects from private practice than it had from 1964 to 1970. My right hon. Friend will have safeguards that were not thought necessary by the two Labour Administrations of that time.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked about the General Practice Finance Corporation. Clauses 15 and 16 refer to this. The corporation has power to borrow money and to lend it to doctors to buy, improve or build surgery premises. Without doubt the corporation has been a great help to GPs over the years. It has now committed the full £25 million that it was entitled to borrow under the 1966 Act. Clause 16 raises the borrowing limit to £40 million, with power to increase it, by order, to £100 million.
  Clause 15 contains a new power which allows the corporation to buy premises and lease them to GPs for their surgeries. Both the corporation and the profession believe that this will help doctors, particularly in the inner cities where high building costs and high rents make it extremely difficult for practices to find suitable premises. Some doctors are still unwilling to practise in health centres, and leasing from the corporation may be attractive to them. This power will be operated in accordance with the scheme to be approved by Ministers. Therefore, there will be proper control.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed asked a number of specific questions. Perhaps I could write to him about some of them. I emphasise to him that the Health Services Board is still in existence. How it proceeds is a matter for the board. It may take the view that on the Second Reading of this Bill it is not worth proceeding with further proposals for phasing out pay beds.
  The hon. Member also spoke about cuts in the future. Next year's planned expenditure will be 3 per cent. higher in real terms than the likely expenditure this year. We have honoured our predecessors' expenditure commitments on the Health Service for next year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) made a positive and thoughtful contribution based
  760
  on his knowledge of the Health Service. Under the Bill it will be possible to have pay beds in cottage hospitals if there is sufficient demand for them.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) on two occasions described savings of £30 million as being "candle ends". This expansive approach is not one that the country needs at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) made a knowledgeable speech based on his service on the regional health authority. He made a forceful point about London, and, as a London Member, I understand what he says about the dominance of teaching hospitals here. I hope he will accept that paragraph 41 of our consultation document deals with the special role of London.
  The hon. Member for Crewe was not at her best today. She implied that no restructuring was necessary, thus destroying what had been up to then a happy consensus.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), as did my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, stressed the need for flexibility in reorganisation. They are both right. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North asked whether all the pay beds that had been phased out would be restored. It is unlikely that that would happen because so many of the beds were not used. He spoke of the need for partnership between the public and private sectors of medicine, and I hope to return to that later. He raised a specific point about clause 10 and the number of beds needed before the matter could be referred. That is something we could usefully consider in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and other Opposition Members spoke of the private sector feeding like a parasite on the National Health Service. Opposition Members are totally unable to accept that there could be a relationship between these two sectors that could be to the advantage of both. I hope to return to that theme later.
  Mr. Pavitt Mr. Pavitt rose—
  Sir G. Young: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins)

  761
  raised the issue of the abuse of the hospitality of the National Health Service by visitors from overseas, sometimes referred to as gate-crashers. We have that matter under review. The right approach would be to persuade other countries to be as hospitable to our tourists as we are to theirs. We are making progress in that direction.
  The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made a somewhat hysterical speech. Nothing that anyone could say to him could ever shake his conviction that private medicine is an organised conspiracy to rob the taxpayer. I am not going to attempt to persuade him now. However, I ask him to consider the six principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech, and perhaps to concede that they are steps in the right direction.
  Much of the concern expressed in the debate related to allegations of queue-jumping, and I wish to make our position absolutely clear. It is totally unacceptable that the treatment of an NHS patient who is seriously ill or in need of urgent medical care should be pre-judiced because priority had been given to a private patient in less need. It is equally unacceptable that a patient who has had a private consultation should, as a result, be given a higher degree of priority for treatment under the NHS than would have been available to any other patient whose medical needs are the same.
  The general principles that have been agreed with the medical profession unequivocally outlaw that sort of thing. Indeed, they go substantially further than any other arrangements made in the past towards ensuring that private practice in the NHS is conducted properly and fairly.
  Mr. Pavitt: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell me whether the six principles that he has enunciated also cover the priority queue-jumping that takes place in out-patients departments? He will know that the present practice, when a patient goes for diagnosis, is that there are two forms, one that is marked PP and another that is marked NHS. Those with forms that are marked PP go straight in and those with forms marked NHS have to wait two or three hours. Will the six principles affect that?
  Sir G. Young: That was covered by the second principle mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his opening remarks.
  Clause 3 makes statutory the present informal arrangements for joint financing under which health authorities contribute to personal social services projects run by local authorities. Joint financing was started by the previous Government and is being carried on by the present Government. It has been successful in many areas in fostering collaborative planning between health and local authorities. It is contributing to a more rational economic use of available health and social service facilities.
  Hitherto, authority for joint financing has rested with the approval of the Treasury on the Estimates and on the confirming appropriation Acts. Joint financing is now an established feature of health and social services, and it is right that it should become statutory. The House should know that in the plan for NHS spending next year we are providing around £50 million for jointly financed projects—a 16 per cent. increase in real terms over the current year's allocation.
  A number of points raised dealt with the position of staff on reorganisation. While the consultative paper clearly points to cut-backs in bureaucracy and reduction in management costs, it recognises the need to treat the staff of the NHS, at whatever level they are working, both fairly and openly. The programme of implementing the changes proposed in the consultative paper has been framed with a view to limiting disruption and minimising the impact of change on staff. With the disappearance of both the area and sector levels of management, some staff will be affected, although it is not possible to estimate how many at this stage. We hope that most of the necessary staff reductions can be handled through natural wastage. That is one of the reasons why we are proposing a fairly lengthy time scale for both restructuring and for the review of management arrangements, though there may have to be some redundancies. In deciding what arrangements will need to be made for filling posts in the new service and for treating fairly those who may be displaced, we shall be taking into account the views of both NHS management and staff interests.

  763
  We attach great importance to proper consultation with staff interests throughout the process of reorganisation. We shall be starting consultations at national level as early as possible.
  There were one or two defects in the arguments deployed by the right hon. Member for Salford, West. Happily, pay beds have not been totally phased out. For that reason the forecasts that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made during the passage of the previous legislation have not been fulfilled. The Government consider that to be a matter for rejoicing.
  The main debate has been about the relationship between the National Health Service and the private sector. It seems that there are four options open to any Government on policy for the National Health Service. Two options are extreme and the other two occupy the middle ground. One extreme is the State monopoly, with the total abolition of all private practice. The second extreme is a free-for-all for anyone who wishes to enter the market. In the middle are two other options that have been adopted by Government. One involves the existence of a private sector that is separate from the NHS. That is what the Labour Government practised. The second involves not merely the existence of the private sector but a co-existence with the National Health Service.
  First, I shall deal with the more extreme arguments. Some Labour Members object on ideological grounds to private medicine for the same reason that leads them to object to private education, private ownership of the means of production, and private ownership of wealth. The type of society that they envisage, in which there is no alternative to a State-provided service, is not one in which most people wish to live.
  Even if the National Health Service were perfect, and even if it could meet all the demands made on it, I still think that it would be right for there to be an alternative, so that someone would be able to say "Thank you very much. I know that there is a National Health Service and that I am entitled to use it, but I wish to go elsewhere." That in no way invalidates the concept of a National Health Service, any more than the existence of owner-occupiers threatens the
  764
  existence of council tenants. There is no case in a free society for the establishment of a monopoly in the supply of health services.
  The second extreme option is what might loosely be called a free-for-all, with free entry into the health market for anyone who wishes to invest in it. My right hon. Friend has explained that we are retaining some controls on private sector development. He explained why such controls are necessary and why there should be controls that can be exercised where there is a threat to the National Health Service.
  This is not a control on the size of the private sector. It is merely a safeguard where there is a possible threat in any locality. Health care resources, both public and private, are too valuable to be wasted, and where there would be prejudice there will be powers of control.
  I mentioned the two options between the two extremes that have been adopted by Government. Both presuppose the existence of a private sector alongside the National Health Service, with some controls over it. There is a difference in the relationship between the two. The first option was the Labour Government's policy—the private sector was there and they did not like it although their legislation presupposed it so that they could ensure that pay beds would be phased out. The theme was no co-operation and no communication. The phasing out of pay beds was the severing of the institutional link between the two sectors, the link provided by the "geographical whole-time consultant"—the consultant who did some private work within National Health Service hospitals rather than, as would have happened under present legislation, miles away at a private hospital.
  The fourth option, which is our option, is positive, and not negative, co-existence. We want the two sectors to co-operate to make the best use of resources. The two sectors can and should complement each other. The National Health Service already makes use of private sector facilities. It did so even under the Labour Administration. That is a sensible system. There are about 4,000 beds in non-NHS institutions that are used by the NHS on a contractual basis. That more than outnumbers the present number of pay beds. We shall encourage authorities to make greater use of spare capacity in

  765
  the private sector where this rather than direct NHS provision is a sensible use of resources.
  It has always seemed to be a total nonsense that Labour Members say to the public "You may spend your money on any activity that you like—motor cars, holidays overseas and bingo—but on no account are you to make a voluntary deduction from your own income to make provision for yourself when you are ill." That is Socialism at its worst. These are important issues about the freedom of the individual.
  Part of our message is that the individual must assume greater responsibility for his health. The National Health Service does not have a "pill for every ill". The major improvement in the nation's health will come from people voluntarily deciding to adopt healthier life styles. There is no difference of opinion between Labour and Conservative Members on that point. It is entirely consistent with our philosophy of individual responsibility that we shall encourage each individual to make provision for himself privately. That provision having been made, the resources which are accumulated should be put to the most effective use.
  I quote from an article in the News of the World by Frank Chapple. [Interruption.] Labour Members spend much time quoting the advice of trade union leaders to us. I should like to return the compliment.
  The article is entitled
  "A severe case of hypocrisy".
  Mr. Chapple writes:
  "There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the trade union movement. And it was spelt out loud and clear at Blackpool when holier-than-thou union leaders attacked the private health treatment deal negotiated by 40,000 of my members. I make no bones about defending it. Whatever was said, then or in the future, will not affect the deal. It will stand because it makes good sense.…It could be justifiably argued that private health care could ease the strain on the NHS. What the largely ill-informed critics of the scheme have so far failed to prove is how the cover offered in our private scheme can possibly weaken the NHS…Hypocrisy taints all these accusations that it is my deal which is badly injuring the NHS. There is no condemnation when Liverpool women accepted the offer of open heart surgery in a private hospital because they could not get in it on the NHS. There is no condemnation when industrial disputes
  766
  delay the building of new hospitals and so deprive the public of medical services."
  I am still quoting the remarks of Frank Chapple. He adds:
  "Those who condemn our agreements conveniently overlook the fact that many leading policitians and trade union leaders have received private treatment. The outcry seems to have arisen simply because the rank and file are now being offered the same facilities.…What it boils down to is that blue-collar workers are about to get the preferential treatment that has long been available to white collar and managerial working groups.…It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of NUPE and COHSE. They have added to the NHS problems through their industrial disputes for higher wages. Now they have the cheek to assert that it is my agreement that will undermine the service."
  Those views expressed by Frank Chapple on behalf of his union members are shared by many other trade union members—for example, the National Union of Seamen.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends are convinced that the relationship between the public and private sectors of medicine should be one of partnership. The policy of separate development embarked on by the previous Government was misguided. The private sector is not a threat to the National Health Service to be distanced from it but a potential ally to be brought closer.
  If the Opposition are concerned about the development of a two-tier Health Service—one tier for the rich, and another for the poor—their policy of separation would inevitably have brought that about. The enforced phasing out of pay beds and their hostility to the private sector would have led to a greater surge of interest in private medicine from people in all walks of life and from all income levels.
  Our policies are designed to ensure that the National Health Service and the private sector co-operate. We want to ensure that the best use is made of our health resources, from wherever they come. Labour Members want to drive a wedge between the two, whereas we wish to build a bridge. If we can get the relationship right, it will be to the benefit of the National Health Service. The Health Service will lose if Labour Members turn their backs on the private sector.
  I invite all hon. Members who care about health services as a whole to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 250.

  Division No. 129]

  AYES

  [10pm]

  Adley, Robert

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

  Knox, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Eggar, Timothy

  Lang, Ian

  Alton, David

  Emery, Peter

  Langtord-Holt, Sir John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Eyre, Reginald

  Latham, Michael

  Ancram, Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Arnold, Tom

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Lawson, Nigel

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Lee, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Farr, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Atkins, Robert (Preston North)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

  Banks, Robert

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

  Loveridge, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Luce, Richard

  Bell, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Bendell, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McCrindle, Robert

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Fox, Marcus

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Best, Keith

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  MacGregor, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)

  Blackburn, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Blaker, Peter

  Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Body, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Madel, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Major, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marland, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marlow, Tony

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gorst, John

  Marten, Neil (Banbury)

  Bradford, Rev. R.

  Gow, Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mather, Carol

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Brinton, Tim

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawby, Ray

  Brittan, Leon

  Greenway, Harry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Grieve, Percy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Brotherton, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mellor, David

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Buck, Antony

  Hannam John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Budgen, Nick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hastings, Stephen

  Molyneaux, James

  Burden, F. A.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Butcher, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moore, John

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Heddle John

  Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Henderson Barry

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mudd, David

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hicks, Robert

  Murphy, Christopher

  Channon, Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Myles, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hill, James

  Needham, Richard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Neubert, Michael

  Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)

  Hooson, Tom

  Newton, Tony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordern, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Clegg, Walter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

  Colvin, Michael

  Howells, Geraint

  Osborn, John

  Cope, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hurd, Hon Douglas

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Parris, Matthew

  Critchley, Julian

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Pawsey, James

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Denshore

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pollock, Alexander

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Porter, George

  Durant, Tony

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Sims, Roger

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Viggers, Peter

  Raison, Timothy

  Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)

  Waddington, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Speller, Tony

  Wakeham, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Spence, John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)

  Renton, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Squire, Robin

  Waller, Gary

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walters, Dennis

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Stanley, John

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Steen, Anthony

  Watson, John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Stevens, Mar In

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

  Wheeler, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stokes, John

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rossi, Hugh

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rost, Peter

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thompson, Donald

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Thorns, Neil (Ilford South)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shersby, Michael

  Trippler, David

  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

  Silvester, Fred

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dempsey, James

  Homewood, William

  Adams, Allen

  Dewar, Donald

  Hooley, Frank

  Allaun, Frank

  Dixon, Donald

  Horam, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dormand, Jack

  Huckfleld, Les

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

  Douglas, Dick

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed

  Ashton, Joe

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

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

  Dubs, Alfred

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Eadie, Alex

  John, Brynmor

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Eastham, Ken

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby South)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

  English, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bradley, Tom

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Kerr, Russell

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Ewing, Harry

  Kinnock, Neil

  Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lambie, David

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)

  Field, Frank

  Lamborn, Harry

  Buchan, Norman

  Fitch, Alan

  Lamond, James

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Campbell, Ian

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ford, Ben

  Litherland, Robert

  Cant, R. B.

  Forrester, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Carmichael, Neil

  Foulkes, George

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)

  Cartwright, John

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cohen, Stanley

  George, Bruce

  McElhone, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Ginsburg, David

  McKelvey, William

  Conlan, Bernard

  Golding, John

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Cook, Robin F.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cowans, Harry

  Graham, Ted

  McMahon, Andrew

  Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhlll)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)

  Crowther, J. S.

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  McNally, Thomas

  Cryer, Bob

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McWilliam, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Magee, Bryan

  Cunningham, George (Islington S)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow,Shettles'n)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Haynes, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Lelcester South)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)

  Davles, Ifor (Gower)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maxton, John

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

  Meacher, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Home Robertson, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  770

  771

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Robertson, George

  Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Thome, Stan (Preston South)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Tilley, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Roper, John

  Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Newens, Stanley

  Sandelson, Neville

  Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Sever, John

  Watkins, David

  Ogden, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

  Weetch, Ken

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

  Wellbeloved, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Welsh, Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Whitlock, William

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Park, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Parker, John

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Parry, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Pendry, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Woodall, Alec

  Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Race, Reg

  Stott, Roger

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Radice, Giles

  Strang, Gavin

  Young, David (Bolton East)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

  Straw, Jack

  Richardson, Jo

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

  Mr. James Tinn and

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mr. George Morton.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

  HEALTH SERVICES [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the health services in England, Wales
  772
  and Scotland and their use by private patients and with respect to hospitals and nursing homes outside those services, to dissolve or make further provision with respect to certain bodies connected with or with persons providing services within those health services, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session;

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided or out of the Consolidated Fund; and

  (c) any payment into the Consolidated Fund.

  —[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

  TACHOGRAPHS
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move,
  That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.
  I shall seek to be reasonably brief, because I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the points that may be raised in the debate.
  These regulations are intended to bring to an end the controversy and uncertainty that have surrounded the application of the EEC tachograph regulation in this country. It is not a recent argument and it certainly pre-dated our entry to the EEC. Indeed, it was Mrs. Barbara Castle, when she was Minister of Transport, who first introduced statutory measures for compulsory tachographs in the Transport Act 1968. So several years before entry to the Common Market the case was considered sufficiently strong for a Labour Minister of Transport to include it in an Act of Parliament. Although never implemented, it remains on the statute book.
  The EEC law on tachographs came in a year or two after that, in 1970. It made the use of tachographs compulsory in most goods vehicles over 3½ tons gross and in passenger vehicles not on regular services. So the position was that when we joined the Community we accepted this regulation as part of our commitments under the Treaty of Accession. We should have begun phasing it in in 1976.
  However, we decided not to do this. Instead the then Government introduced a measure which allowed a tachograph to be used as an alternative to a log book on a purely voluntary basis. That was essentially for the convenience of the increasing number of lorry drivers on journeys to other EEC countries where the regulation was enforced.
  In 1978 the European Commission took us to the European Court for not complying with EEC law. The United Kingdom's counsel argued before the court that we already had a highly effective system of enforcing the law on drivers' hours which effectively achieved
  774
  the purpose of the tachograph regulation. That was our case. He also pointed to the substantial costs which introduction of the tachograph would impose on the industry and the possible consequences in industrial disruption.
  The court rejected this case. It ruled that none of these arguments could alter our fundamental legal duty under the Treaty to give effect to Community law. The court's ruling was on 7 February this year. On 5 March the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), announced that the Labour Government had accepted that decision. Let me emphasise that it was an acceptance not just by the Secretary of State for Transport but by the last Labour Government, binding at the least those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were members of that Government. The right hon. Member for Stockton added that he would be consulting the employers' organisations, trade unions and the Commission on a timetable to achieve full implementation. In due course, he said, he would lay the necessary regulations before the House.
  That was the positon that we inherited and on 21 May I made it clear that the Government accepted and supported the statement of the last Government. Like them. I believe that the ruling of the European Court is fundamental in this case. Respect for the law and the judgment of the European Court is the only basis on which the Community can function. In other areas we seek to insist that other member States obey the law. Surely it follows that we have to do so ourselves. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking about the European Community on 23 October, said, we believe in the rule of law and we must obey it. That is fundamental to these draft regulations.
  I also believe that the opposition to the tachograph has been very considerably overstated. I agree with The Guardian, which said in a leader that the tachograph has real road safety benefits. I also agree with those who say that it probably does more than anything else to eliminate the cowboy operator—the operator who is prepared to break the rules.
  The tachograph is a device which looks much like an ordinary speedometer. It is a combined speedometer and clock

  775
  which records automatically on a paper disc the vehicle's speed, distance travelled and time spent on the road. The intention is that it should simply replace the log book as the main record for purposes of enforcing the rules on drivers' hours. It is thus essentially an aid to road safety, helping to keep tired drivers off the roads.
  It can achieve more than this if drivers and their employers are prepared to work together to make the most of it. It can assist drivers to improve their own professional skills and achieve substantial savings in fuel consumption as well as in wear and tear on engines and tyres. It can give management information on the use of vehicles, and help to increase the efficiency and productivity of the operation. It presents absolutely no threat to the honest driver in this country. Indeed, some European trade unions, as I know from a visit to West Germany, believe that it is a positive benefit to their members.
  The essential purpose of the draft regulations is to enable the existing EEC tachograph regulations to be brought into full operation in the United Kingdom in a smooth and orderly way. They are the product of long and detailed discussion with representatives of the road haulage and freight transport and bus industries.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman says that the German trade unions have accepted this in principle. Have the French and Italian trade unions accepted the tachograph? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House know that they abuse the system and that they refuse to operate it in many areas?
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member is confusing two matters. I think that he is referring to the problem of enforcement in those countries. I do not claim that in all EEC countries the regulation is enforced to the standard that we would expect. I understand that the EEC is examining that problem. Many people genuinely believe that it is a safeguard for the driver and not the threat that many people in this country wrongly believe it to be.
  I take the opportunity to pay full tribute to the constructive way in which these consultations have been approached. I appreciate that representatives of the industries would have preferred to avoid
  776
  compulsion, but they have accepted that the law must be implemented, and their comments and advice have been both constructive and helpful.
  It is no secret that the European Commission pressed us very hard to give effect to the ruling of the court in what I considered to be too short a period. Of course it recognises that we cannot achieve full implementation of the regulation overnight, but it felt that, as we had already been in breach of our legal obligation since January 1976, there was a strong onus on us to come into line quickly. I am glad to say that I persuaded it to accept that a longer transitional period was necessary than that which it had originally suggested and thought necessary.
  Under these proposals tachographs will have to be fitted in accordance with a programme phased over two years, starting with the newest vehicles and ending with the oldest. The use as opposed to the fitting of tachographs in place of log books will become compulsory on domestic journeys from the beginning of 1982. In the meantime, there will be no change in the existing rules which allow the use of a tachograph as an alternative to a log book on a voluntary basis.
  I recognise that this timetable is still fairly tight. Its practicability depends largely on there being enough approved tachograph calibration centres across the whole country. At present there are nearly 200. By this time next year we aim to have 450.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Minister saying that this is not his policy and that he is just the messenger boy of an alien institution, over which we have no control, introducing law into Britain?
  Mr. Fowler: That is a remarkably silly intervention. The alien institution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was something for which the vast majority in this country voted.
  I shall, of course, be keeping a close watch on progress during the phasing-in period. If for any reason the programme should prove to be impracticable, I would not hesitate to take whatever steps appeared to be necessary in the circumstances to put matters right. Let me assure the House that it is no part of my

  777
  scheme that drivers or operators should find themselves on the wrong side of the law through practical difficulties with the programme which are no fault of their own and be put at risk. But I firmly believe that the job can and will be done in the two-year period.
  There are special problems in the remoter areas of the country, particularly in parts of Scotland. It is true that at the moment there are not enough approved tachograph centres to meet their needs. I recognise that this is a real problem and I have already taken steps to deal with it. My Department will very shortly be publishing details of a special new modified standard for centres in such areas.
  Islands present a related problem. Even with the modified standard for approval, very few of them could support a tachograph centre. Vehicles would have to go by ferry, sometimes over considerable distances, to have tachographs installed and calibrated. I have no powers to exempt the remote islands from the requirements of the EEC regulation itself. But, under my draft regulations, vehicles based on the United Kingdom islands which are not connected by road to the mainland need not have tachographs fitted until the end of the phasing-in period on 31 December 1981, irrespective of the date of registration of the vehicle. In other words, operators can choose the most convenient moment to get their vehicles fitted within the overall two-year period.
  Mr. Les Huckfield: The Minister will realise that there are certain parts of the country in which no calibration stations exist. He says that he proposes to make arrangements and take action. Is he trying to assure the House that he will by the end of the statutory period have sufficient calibration stations to cover the whole of the country without operators having to go long distances to have their vehicles calibrated? What he says goes a lot further than any Minister ever before. Does he understand what he is saying?
  Mr. Fowler: I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman should give other Members the credit for understanding what they are saying—apart from himself.
  778
  I explained that at the end of the consultation period, in which we took the views of industry—that was the purpose of the consultation period—we came to the conclusion that there were special problems in the remoter areas and the islands. We shall be publishing details of a special new modified standard for tachograph centres in such areas. However, the point is that this will greatly reduce the capital investment in these tachograph centres and allow such centres to be set up. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue this matter, he is entitled to do so, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will seek to give him more information. The hon. Gentleman is right: what I am saying is new, and that is why I am saying it during the debate.
  I know that many people would like to see the range of exemptions from the EEC tachograph regulation extended, but in this country we have to implement Community law as it stands. If we want changes, they will have to be brought about through the legislative processes of the Community, with the agreement of all nine member States.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What puzzles me is how his policy squares with the Conservative Party's election manifesto which, roughly translated, said that we must get the Government out of the small employer's pocket, we must release all these energies and allow these freedoms to operate. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the introduction of these massive controls—the spy in the cab—merely as a result of the activities of the Common Market, with the Conservative Party's manifesto?
  Mr. Fowler: One of the Government's major planks is to observe the rule of law. As I have said, that is exactly what we are seeking to do here. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not alone in this. The Labour Government also accepted the European Court's ruling. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not, but we do not yet have a party that is able to take in all the prejudices of the hon. Gentleman.
  I have taken steps in my proposals to ensure that vehicles will not have to be taken off the road simply because it is not possible to get the tachograph system repaired or resealed immediately. My draft regulations provide a defence against

  779
  convictions for using a vehicle with a defective or unsealed tachograph if it can be proved that it was not reasonably practicable for the equipment to be repaired or resealed. I believe that this provision, which is also new and which I have again included as a result of comments made during my consultations, will greatly reduce the costs incurred as a result of a vehicle being off the road, and so remove one of the most serious worries of the vehicle operators.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend say how much this scheme will cost, how many additional civil servants or others will be employed, what the capital cost of the scheme will be avid what he likely cost will be to any operator who has to go back and forth to have his tachograph calibrated?
  Mr. Fowler: I am not running away from that question. There will, of course, be additional costs on the industry. We know that. There is no secret about that. That has been known for a long time. I am sorry that it may come as a surprise to my hon. Friend, but that is the position—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the cost?"] The estimates vary considerably, but it is obviously in tens of millions of pounds for the industry.
  I believe that it is high time that we got the tachograph question settled in this country once and for all. The mistrust and general uncertainty generated by years of argument have been of no help whatever to the industry as a whole, or to the management and drivers who work in it. The sooner the whole matter can be firmly settled, the better it will be for all concerned. The central question in the debate is one of respect for the law. I believe that that is right; it is basic and essential.
  I ask the House to support the motion.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: This seems to be a day for saying that we must obey the law. I understand the point that is being made, but, in view of the statement today on the Bingham report, it is an unfortunate day upon which to make it. The regulation follows from the European Court's decision of February 1979. I do not want
  780
  to avoid the implications of the statement made by the Labour Government concerning the decision of that court.
  The former Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), said in February 1979 that he had reluctantly concluded that he must accept the decision and that in due course he would lay the necessary regulation before the House for its consideration. His case was based on the phrase, "in due course". That statement was made after a period of delay, when the Commission was asking for the law to be complied with. As the Minister has pointed out, for three years we refused to implement the tachograph requirement for several reasons. Those reasons are relevant to our decision tonight.
  My right hon. Friend said then that he believed in a voluntary system. The House passed legislation in line with that belief and the tachograph was not made compulsory. It was consistent with his decision that the installation of the tachograph should be voluntary and not compulsory. He did not think that the regulation would be helpful to industry, and he acted accordingly. Because the Commission disagreed with the Labour Government's attitude and did not accept the Labour Government's justification for it, it took the issue to court. The court said that, according to Britain's treaty obligations, we should implement the tachograph decision.
  Despite what the Minister said and despite all the consultations and decisions, both sides of the industry are still opposed to the compulsory installation of the tachograph. The Freight Transport Association would prefer not to have the tachograph. When opposing the Commission's attempt to impose the tachograph, we argued that it was expensive for the industry to implement and for the consumer. I was interested to hear the Minister say that the cost of implementation would be tens of millions of pounds. I do not know whether I shall shock him, but the estimates given in 1978 were £100 million just to install it. The latest statement by the Freight Transportation Association puts the cost at £350 million.
  Mr. Fowler: Probably the best estimate is between £200 million and £300 million compared with operating costs of

  781
  substantially more. The hon. Member has put the cost of the tachograph with the cost of the vehicle, which is a very small percentage of it.
  Mr. Prescott Mr. Prescott That is a debatable proposition. I shall not pursue the points about the tens and hundreds, but the Minister might like to go away and reflect on some of his answers.
  Insufficient consideration has been given to the implications of the compulsory imposition of the regulation. Even if we accept the Minister's argument about a cost of £250 million to £300 million, that is nearly three times more than the estimate in 1978. Goodness knows what the cost will be in 1981, 1982 or 1983, with the present rate of inflation.
  Mr. Roger Monte: Will the hon. Gentleman make his argument clear? Is he saying that if there had been a Labour Government they would not now be introducing these regulations? That is hardly credible.
  Mr. Prescott: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens to my speech before judging whether it is credible. After hearing my arguments, the House will be better placed to assess my conclusions on what action should be recommended. The Minister clearly demonstrated that we should go through the arguments first so that we understand the implications of the regulation before making judgments, although he made his judgment and brought the regulation before the House.
  Secondly, the Minister has said that overall tachographs would be safer, but the lorry drivers and owners do not agree. However, I rest my case, not on the arguments of drivers and owners, but on the Foster report published in November 1978. That was an inquiry into road haulage industry operators licensing. The report said:
  "We believe that there are as good and perhaps better ways of spending the money tachographs would cost, on safety. The judgment of the European Court will probably make our recommendations irrelevant, but if not we would recommend leaving it to operators and drivers to agree on the installation of tachographs where both find it useful."
  Thirdly, the argument is that the regulations will eliminate obstacles to competition, although the owners totally oppose compulsory imposition and it has not been
  782
  argued that road haulage is a monopoly industry. If anything, there is an excess of competition, which can lead to lowering of standards.
  The present checks and laws could perhaps be improved, but, as the Minister said, they are generally adequate, and the compulsory imposition of the regulation could lead to serious disruption. The Government claimed that a lorry drivers' strike would have had wide-ranging effects. If lorry drivers go on strike, there is considerable disruption, as last winter showed. The previous Government were concerned with imposing wage controls, and compulsory imposition would certainly have considerable consequential repercussions on wages, affecting their anti-inflation policy. We also reject the argument that the regulation will eliminate obstacles to competition.
  We have the regulation before us because of the European Court's decision. It is said that we are in default of our obligation under the Treaty of Rome. The judgment of the court did not say that the regulation should be imposed because of safety, to remove obstacles to competition, or to make for better enforcement in the industry. It said:
  "It cannot therefore be accepted that a Member State should apply in an incomplete or selective manner provisions of a Community regulation so as to render abortive certain aspects of Community legislation which it has opposed or which it considers contrary to its national interests…practical difficulties which appear at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect cannot permit a Member State unilaterally to opt out of fulfilling its obligation."
  The regulation is clearly being imposed because it is a constitutional requirement or a legal obligation arising out of a treaty.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Government should not honour the international obligations which the Labour Government undertook to honour?
  Mr. Prescott: That sort of argument is constantly before us—on fishing, lamb and a number of other issues. We have seen the stopping of the clock in the Common Market. A number of Treaty obligations are not being implemented or delayed. I sat for four years in the European Parliament and was constantly told that import controls were illegal, yet I served on

  783
  a committee where Commissioner Davignon brought in such controls almost every week. There are many bends and twists in matters relating to the interpretation of the Treaty in the Community. The French understand that much more than us and that is why they have a better deal.
  Mr. Fowler: Do the Opposition accept the decision of the European Court? That is a basic question. The Opposition should make their position clear.
  Mr. Prescott: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the beginning of my speech when I quoted the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, who was the Minister responsible for saying that in due course the obligations of the Treaty would be implemented, he would have heard me make clear that the previous Government observed the court's decision.
  Mr. Fowler: Is that the position of the Opposition?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, it is the position of the Opposition. I am bound to say that to the right hon. Gentleman. That is why I started with that fact clear in my mind. However, the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) asked me whether the obligations should be totally accepted. Certainly, in the instances of fishing and lamb, it is argued that we should be sticking to but not necessarily totally observing the letter of the law.
  A number of consequences could be triggered off by the compulsory imposition of the regulations. The Minister should realise that he is not free from the consequences which might follow if the regulations are passed. Indeed, the consequences may even be counterproductive to his declared aim to ensure that the regulation is implemented.
  The Freight Transport Association—the industry, not the unions—has said:
  "Given a free choice, therefore, industry would oppose the compulsory installation and use of tachographs and it firmly believes that the case for such a regulation has never been proven beyond the point of the UK having to accept such a ruling as part of its condition of entry into the Community."
  The industry also believes that, if the regulation is accepted, it will be in considerable difficulties. The Minister referred to those difficulties. He referred
  784
  to the timetable, the 500,000 lorries in the country, the 195 to 200 present centres and the aim to achieve 450 centres. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary winds up the debate—which the Opposition will not be doing because of the time that I have taken in the debate—he will explain how capital costs will be reduced to allow out-of-the-way places to be able to deal with the calibration points. The industry says that it wants three years and it asks the Government to delay the implementation of the measures by one year.
  The drivers feel strongly about the spy-in-the-cab proposal. Their grievance is that they have been told that it is being implemented to harmonise Community legislation. But the EEC regulations will lead to longer working by the drivers. They may not be driving for as many hours but they can work a lot longer under these regulations than under our legislation. Drivers could become more tired by the implementation of the legislation. The Minister said that the requirement to keep records for two days only rather than seven will make it easier for drivers, but a requirement of seven days in order to see whether the drivers work their rest-day periods at the weekend is dealt with under our legislalation. Offences on the Continent such as speeding are dealt with differently from Britain. There are fines on the spot which are not recorded at a central registry as is the case in our system. Therefore, the Commission's licensing provisions are affected.
  The Commission is bound to have to take into account before granting a licence any speeding offence. So though we may be harmonising provisions on hours with the tachograph, the penalties will be much harder on drivers in this country than they are likely to be on drivers in the rest of the Community.
  We are also concerned that more restriction on hours will mean that fewer places will be available where drivers may stop on motorways—or even lorry parks—which may cause them to contravene regulations. That was a point raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
  The Minister must be aware that the Commission is reviewing some of these matters. One of the Commission's recommendations to Governments, under the

  785
  European transport agreement, is to allow lorries that go through any Community country to countries outside the Community to go through Community areas without a tachograph but with a log book.
  Already exemptions are being made. On the one hand, the Commission takes us to court and we are told that we cannot adjust the regulations, yet, on the other hand, exemptions are being given to EEC lorry owners and drivers going to countries outside the Community via the Community without a tachograph. That is a peculiar inconsistency.
  The position that we shall adopt tonight is consistent. We ask the Minister to withdraw the regulations. First, the full implications of putting this measure into effect should be considered. Secondly, the consolidation of the existing road traffic laws and the offences under them should be considered. If the Government wish to harmonise them, it should be done through the Transport Bill that is now being considered in Committee.
  Thirdly, the implications of the Foster report on control of lorries should be considered. Fourthly, the Government should await the outcome of the referendum that the trade unions are conducting to decide whether industrial action should be taken because of the imposition of this regulation. I believe that the final decision will be made this week.
  Finally, the Government should mitigate the cost to the industry and the consumer of the imposition of the regulation. If it is not withdrawn tonight, the inevitable conclusion drawn by the industry will be that Parliament is forcing the regulation down its throat, not for safety reasons or better control on competition, but because of an obligation under a Treaty for which we must all pay. The Minister could mitigate the effects of the regulation by withdrawing it tonight.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. John MacKay: I want to talk about the special problems which these regulations will pose for my island constituents.
  On 12 November I asked the Minister whether any special consideration could be given to vehicles based on the Scottish islands, and my right hon. Friend said in his reply:
  786
  "No exemption is provided in the EEC tachograph regulations…and the United Kingdom cannot make such exemptions unilaterally."
  He added:
  "I am however considering what can be done within the regulation to deal with the special problems which implementation of the regulations will present to island based vehicles."—[Official Report, 12 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 460.]
  Indeed, my right hon. Friend has been as good as his word, at least in part, in that in the regulations vehicles on the islands off the coast of the United Kingdom, other than the Isle of Wight, will have until 31 December 1981 before having the tachograph fitted. But that is only a concession to put us in the group at the end of the table. Vehicles registered before 1 August 1973 have until 1981, so we are merely put into that category.
  I welcome this concession, because it will help my island constituents, but the extent of it is not great and does not deal with the long-term and continuing problem that the tachograph will impose on these islands. It is not only the fitting of the tachograph that is the problem, but the need for recalibration two or three times a year, and the need for resealing each time the seal is broken. Each time that happens on an island the lorry will have to go to the mainland to the nearest calibration centre. If a fault occurs in a tachograph, the vehicle cannot be used again until it has been to the centre and the fault has been rectified. Considerable difficulty and chaos will be caused on the island.
  The island of Islay is known to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If a 16-ton lorry based on that island had to go to the nearest calibration centre at Glasgow, it would take at least two days to reach the centre. It would leave the island at the beginning of the first day and it would perhaps return to it at the end of the second day. The total cost for a £10 test fee would be £264. That assumes that when the driver reaches the calibration centre he will be able to drive straight in. If he is not able to do that, he will be on a three-day visit to the mainland. That will increase the cost to over £300.
  I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend is aware of the special problems of the islands. However, as the House may know, our current United Kingdom legislation on plating and testing makes a

  787
  special exemption for island-based vehicles. I cannot understand why the tachograph legislation cannot make a similar exemption. If we have to persuade our EEC colleagues to do that, let us set about persuading them. I fail to understand what influence a lorry based for the whole of its working life on the island of Mull has on free trade between the partners of the European Economic Community.
  I support the principles and ideals of Europe, but it is this sort of bureaucracy that brings the Community into considerable disrepute. Despite some of the remarks by Labour Members, I appreciate that on long and medium haul journeys there are some major safety positives to be gained from fitting tachographs in lorries. As a Member who represents an agricultural constituency and wishes to see the French obeying the rules of the Common Market on mutton, I recognise that we are under a similar obligation to do likewise in respect of tachographs. However, I make a special plea to the Minister and the people of Europe on behalf of my island constituency. If what I am seeking can be met by the instrument before us or by the plating and testing regulations, surely it can be met by the ongoing regulations that govern the tachograph.
  I do not see the Common Market breaking apart by making such a small exemption for the islands round our coast. The small exemption that I seek would be of great benefit to my island constituents. If made, it would show that the Common Market is concerned with the remote areas of the United Kingdom. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to give my constituents and one some hope that the Government will press our case on our European partners and ensure that they look favourably on the making of an exemption for my island constituency.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I declare an interest as a sponsored Member—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield). I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Mr. Huckfield: I accept, of course, what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  788
  I declare an interest as a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers'Union. I have close connections with the Birmingham and district 5/35 commercial branches. Members of the branches, as some of my hon. Friends know, and as I think the Minister knows because some members live in his constituency, have been vociferous in their opposition to the introduction of the tachograph legislation that is now proposed.
  The magnitude of the problem over which the Minister thinks he can skate lightly has not yet been revealed. We are talking about the introduction of tachographs in about 600,000 vehicles. The bulk of the installations will have to be completed in less than two years. The timetable is January 1980 to October 1981. I do not make that two years.
  I am glad that the Minister has been forced to admit that the total cost of installation could be about £300 million. That estimate is on the low side. Much of the equipment will have to be imported. We do not know the price of the imported equipment. We do not know the exchange rates. I am willing to bet that £350 million is a better estimate.
  We shall also have all the problems of installation, over which the Minister skated lightly. For example, why must we so slavishly follow the timetable to which the Irish Government adhered? I do not understand that. In a letter of 26 October, the Parliamentary Secretary told me:
  "Nor are we 'slavishly' following the Irish timetable—or, indeed, following it at all."
  In fact, the Government are pretty well exactly following the timetable to which the Irish Government adhered.
  Anyone who takes a cursory glance at the map will find that we are dealing with two totally different countries. The geography, the road network, the whole conditions of transport, the whole infrastructure, are totally different in the Irish Republic, yet we still have roughly the same time scale laid down simply because the Minister has taken it into his head that the Commission attaches importance as a precedent to the timetable offered by the Irish Government.
  Who will pay for this in the end? Who will pay the £350 million? It will be the consumer. The Government have

  789
  already put up the cost of living by 17½ per cent., on their own estimates, by their own Budget. By how much will installations of this kind put up the cost of living again, as a direct result of these policies?
  I have always found the Freight Transport Association a very reasonable crowd. Its members certainly are not mavericks, a bunch of wild men. The association has said that the installation period should be at least three years.
  We must take into account the vastly different circumstances in different parts of the country. Cannot the Minister understand that it is not just the Highlands and Islands that we are talking about? We are talking about the fact that there is not a calibration station anywhere between Newcastle and Edinburgh. When we talk about Wales we are not talking only about rural Mid-Wales. There are vast parts of Wales which do not have calibration stations. Yet the Minister says that it will be all right as long as the employer has shown that he has taken reasonably practicable precautions. How can the Minister dare even to try to enforce such a condition?
  Will the Minister say that we shall have 24-hour calibration stations up and down the country? Are they to be open morning, noon and night? Does he not realise that lorry drivers work at night, that we have overnight trunking, that the bulk of heavy road freight in fact moves at night? Are the stations to be open 24 hours a day, or is that matter the kind of reasonably practicable exemption that employers will be able to plead?
  The basic trouble is that this is yet another of those actions under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 that we have to take. The Minister thinks that he must do it in precisely this manner, and I strongly disagree.
  It is true that regulation 1463/70 does not allow for different circumstances in different countries. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could have pleaded extenuating circumstances before the Commission, in view of the need to set up the calibration stations, the large number of vehicles and the resistance on both sides of the industry. It is not simply the Transport and General Workers'Union or the United Road
  790
  Transport Union. Surely it would have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to plead something different.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman talks about the abolition of log sheets—the lorry driver's dream. I do not know what he will do with all those gentlemen in black raincoats who wait in cafe doorways at three o'clock in the morning. I am not sure whether he proposes to make them redundant. If so, the guessing game that lorry drivers usually play will have to end.
  But it is not as easy as that. One cannot simply put the clock in and take the log sheets out. For example, what will happen to the measurement and recording of non-driving time? Even the most sophisticated clock on the market does not record the time that the driver spends out of the cab. It is a clock, but it cannot measure the time that the driver spends in connection with his driving duties.
  Does not the Minister appreciate that even in Germany, where there has been hitherto a fairly rigid adherence to the tachograph and its regulations, there are still numerous cases of lorry drivers working 90 hours a week because the tachograph cannot measure non-driving time? It is not possible to get rid of log sheets in that way. There will have to be some provision for measuring more than one driver. There will have to be some provision for measuring shifts. There will have to be some kind of provision whereby non-driving time and on-duty time—the spread-over period—are measured. But the Minister does not understand that. He seems to think that it is a very simple mechanism—out with the log sheets and in with the clock.
  Then the Minister tells us that it is a great safety device. I doubt whether he has the figures to prove that. He ought to know that the accidents occurring to heavy goods vehicles per 100 million miles have been diminishing. I will give the Minister the exact figures. Heavy goods vehicle accidents fell from 202 per 100 million miles in 1971 to 152 per 100 million miles in 1975, so HGV accidents are declining all the time. If the Minister can produce statistics to show that increased safety has been achieved as a direct result of the installation of the clock, I shall be very interested to see them, because we have not seen any such figures.

  791
  I rather fancy that the Minister is governed by his haste to introduce these regulations and not by any real need to introduce them. He does not seem to appreciate that there are numerous American and Canadian precedents showing that these devices have been installed purely for management reasons—not to measure hours, not to cut accidents, not to increase safety performance, but simply as a productivity and management measuring device. Cannot he understand that there is a great deal of feeling on the union side of the industry that this is the reason why a good many employers would like to introduce these devices in this country—not as an aid to safety, not to reduce accidents, but simply as an aid to management?
  The Minister ought to know something of what a modern tachograph can do. It is not simply a clock in the speedometer. Does he know that the kind of device that he proposes to instal in the lorry driver's cab can, for example, measure whether a lorry driver started off five minutes late, whether he broke the speed limit by 2 mph, whether he forgot to switch over, whether he put down the wrong mileage on his sheet to London, whether he misspelt the destination town, whether he was caught opening the clock when he should not have been, whether he stopped on an unauthorised break, whether he took too long changing over, whether he took too long before setting out, whether he took too long roping down, whether he overslept by eight minutes, whether he changed into the wrong gear, whether he was too heavy on the brakes, or whether he went up and down the gearbox too rapidly?
  All those can be measured on the tachographs which are on the market—and that is before the admission of the silicon chip into the tachograph. We shall soon have a tachograph that can tell the colour of the driver's socks. That is the kind of technological progress being made in the industry.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is making a fundamental case against the tachograph. Unlike many other hon. Members who will speak in the debate, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Administration. Did he accept the recognition by the then Secretary of State for Transport and his own Govern-
  792
  ment of the European Court's decision on the tachograph? If he did not, why did not he resign?
  Mr. Huckfield: I am quite clear on what my hon. Friends have said. I believe and they believe that there is no need to introduce the tachograph in this fashion. That is the position which has been adopted, and that is what was said from the Opposition Front Bench. It is quite conceivable to go to the European Commission to plead the extenuating circumstances that we have in this country. There is no need to adhere slavishly to the kind of pattern and timetable that were followed by the Irish Government.
  I shall finish with this question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Italians get round this by a procedure of fines, bribes and fiddles on the spot? I could tell him a few, if he wishes to know them. Cannot he understand that the French get round it by having a man in the firm whose permanent job is to pay the fines. Cannot he understand that the Belgians get round it simply by ignoring the regulations? Does he not know that the Belgians, until fairly recently, had a driving limit of 1,200 hours over six months governing lorry drivers? How the Dutch get round it, we shall never know. No one understands how the Dutch manage to make their haulage rates per ton so cheap.
  I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is widespread abuse. There are widespread fiddles and widespread evasion on the Continent. I do not see why both sides of the British road haulage industry should be so severely penalised in this way.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I consider the tachograph to be a totally unwelcome, unsatisfactory and expensive European fact of life. When that is accepted, we must make the best use of this measure.
  The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) seemed to pose all the reasons against but offered no real practical solutions for. It is vital that, if this measure has to be accepted, it is accepted with practical realism to make the best of an undoubtedly bad job. Its strength is the availability of legal and practical analysis

  793
  of events shown on the sheet. For those hon. Members who have never seen it—I suspect there are many—I have some in my possession.
  Its weakness, however, is the high cost of well over £350 million a year and the inevitable bureaucracy that will be involved. I suggest, therefore, that flexibility is the only answer to the problems. I welcome the flexibility my right hon. Friend has shown in the changes he has made in the regulations as a direct result of the observations of practical people who have to live with it. One example is that the sheets have to be retained only for two days.
  I should like to ask hon. Members whether, having seen the sheet, they consider it would be practical for it to be kept for a longer period in someone's pocket. I have had 18 years' working experience. Hon. Members should perhaps try for themselves.
  Mr. Albert Booth: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is practicable for the police, trying to enforce driving hours regulations, to find out whether a driver has had a rest day in the last seven if there is only a two-day log?
  Mr. Mills: The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that, while the driver has to keep the sheet for only two days, for all practical purposes the employer keeps it on a spike in his office. The right hon. Gentleman's point has no validity.
  I wish to be brief as I know that a number of hon. Members wish to contribute. Flexibility is needed by the haulage industry in its use of the benefits. I have seen an analysis showing the accident benefits. This defies other forms of analysis. It is a real benefit. Flexibility is needed by the Ministry of Transport, perhaps going beyond that shown by my right hon. Friend. Tachographs represent the least acceptable face of our membership of the European Community. It is tragic that in the latest green Euro-document this represents the only contribution to European transport. New horizons are not created in this way.
  Making the best of a bad job leaves some questions to be answered by my right hon. Friend. How will the regulations affect crews of two or three? Will they still have to use the EEC log books?
  794
  Or will one driver use the tachometer sheet?
  It is vital that flexibility is shown over the number of TCCs. I have discovered that in my constituency of Meriden, which encompasses a large stretch of the M6 and all the M42, save about 10 miles, there are at present no TCCs. The hon. Member for Nuneaton might be interested to know that.
  I feel strongly that, by the time the necessity to fit tachographs is arrived at, we must ensure that there are either relaxations or sufficient TCCs to do the job. The nearest to my constituency is in Birmingham. I ask my hon. Friend to define more clearly those valuable suggestions that he has already made in the proposed section 97A on this point and how he thinks the term "reasonably practicable" will be interpreted.
  I should also like a repair to a damaged tachometer or a broken seal to be considered on an exemption basis by the road hauliers themselves on a temporary basis, particularly in the first two years up to 1984 in which the regulations will apply.
  I also ask my hon. Friend to say whether fork-lifts and dump trucks over 3½ tonnes will still require tachographs, as many of these will undoubtedly not have to leave factories, so it seems irrelevant to have them.
  Cheap haulage is essential if we are to achieve the consumer prices that we want. While implementing the regulations—it seems to me that we have no choice, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who say anything else must be living in the sand—could we not consider a period of two years' grace during which we interpret "reasonably practicable" in a free, gentle and reasonable way? If we have no choice with these regulations, I suggest that that kind of flexibility is the only answer to the points raised by the trade unions and the road hauliers.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The essence of the argument against the tachograph generally is that it is being imposed on us as part of the mindless drive towards standardisation stemming from the Common Market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)

  795
  made out a telling case against the pressure that has been put on this country. Therefore, I hope that he will join me in opposing these regulations and the pressure that has been imposed on us. This pressure takes no account of national circumstances, particularly our safety record of heavy goods transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) pointed out, our safety record is very good and is getting better. Indeed, in many instances it is better than the records of many countries that use the tachograph.
  There is a danger that the tachograph could be detrimental to our safety record, because it allows eight hours' driving time. That is what it is regulating. It is not regulating the stresses, strains, pressures and exhaustion produced by preparation and loading time and all the other activities imposed on drivers. These aspects and the effect on a driver's constitution are not measured. All that is measured is eight hours' driving time, and that is permitted. Therefore, the use of the tachograph makes possible a posse of exhausted, strained and stressed drivers driving vehicles with mechanical safety devices in their cabs designed to measure safety.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not under the misapprehension that we are changing the drivers' hours regulations in some way. I am sure that he appreciates that the restriction is eight hours' driving time whether measured by a log book or a tachograph. We are arguing only about the device that measures drivers' hours.
  Mr. Mitchell: I would argue that there is a conflict with our regulations. I suggest that our approach is better, because of our regulations, than this mechanical recording device which is to be installed in the cab of a vehicle. It takes no account of the stresses and strains on the driver or of the reality of accidents that usually occur in the first two hours in areas near to base. These pressures are not measured by the tachograph. I do not accept the safety argument for the tachograph.
  On the basic argument, I should like to emphasise a local note. I cannot speak
  796
  for national pressure and interest groups, but I can speak about the opinion of the two sides of the industry in my constituency—an area with important transport interests that will be vitally affected by the use of this device. Those interests feel that this device is being imposed on them without their consent. Indeed, both sides of the industry locally view it with reluctance and hostility. They see it as interference with the present balance. On my assessment, the employers are more against than for the tachograph. Most of them if they have an attitude towards it at all, regard it as a nuisance which could upset the delicate balance of negotiations in the industry.
  The Common Market is imposing not only personal surveillance in the cab but complete interference in collective bargaining in this one industry alone. That is resented on both sides of the industry. Employers see the possibility of the delicate balance being upset by this intrusion.
  The opinion of the drivers has been demonstrated all too clearly by the fact that Grimsby suffered from a long, difficult and expensive stoppage over the tachograph in January 1978. For a whole week the port and town were brought to a halt by a drivers' strike localised to the area and precipitated by the fear that the tachograph was to be imposed on them.
  The tachograph was part of the complex of feelings and complications which produced the strike of January this year. We have therefore suffered two serious strikes caused by the tachograph. The owner drivers see it as yet another unnecessary restriction on their operations.
  The threat to the industry caused by the tachograph—resented in my constituency—poses other problems. The tachograph regulations do not operate in the same framework of law enforcement as is applicable to the rest of the country. We have a much stricter framework of enforcement in this country than in Europe and a machine designed to operate in a more lax enforcement context is now being forced into operation here.
  The drivers see themselves as the forgotten men of industry. They know that British industry depends on lorry drivers, but they see themselves badly treated as a group. This feeling of

  797
  alienation was one of the causes of the transport strike of last January. They feel that something extra is being imposed on them without any acknowledgement of the problems that they face. There are problems of accommodation, of parking and of keeping on driving. In very difficult circumstances, they are being forced to live a hand-to-mouth existence. In other words, they feel that up to now nothing has been done for them and here is something more being imposed on them. The tachograph is being imposed without any of the ameliorative factors which exist on the Continent.
  The drivers say that if the tachograph is to be imposed on them they should enjoy the same advantages as their colleagues on the Continent. There should be on-the-spot, or, at least, seven-day fines. Why should drivers have to travel down to South Wales from Grimsby for court proceedings when that kind of disadvantage is not faced by lorry drivers in Continental countries?
  Our lorry drivers want standard fines and split licences so that offences committed in the private sphere do not necessarily count against a man's job. They want to enjoy the same advantages as Continental drivers if they are to be forced to accept the tachographs.
  There is also a problem of administration and recalibration. It exists because there are not enough calibration centres. Though the number is to be increased, there will still be the problem of lost time. Recalibration is necessary not only for a breakdown in the tachograph itself but with any difficulties with the speedometer cable, the gear box and even, I understand, if there is a puncture in the drive wheel tyres. All this will cause queues at calibration stations with resulting lost time in an industry whose economy depends critically on making the maximum use of its vehicles.
  Lost time for a driver is lost time for the industry and there are not enough calibration stations. Even the extra provision of such stations will not benefit a place such as Grimsby which has only one calibration station within reasonable distance and which will face long queues of waiting drivers.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry, but time is short and I cannot give way.
  If the Minister cannot eliminate the queues at his own testing stations, how can he provide an adequate calibration service for an industry which will be under strain?
  We receive a trickle of reports from the Continent about fiddles with the tachograph. The Minister has given full answers to a series of questions which I tabled. I was prompted to ask those questions by drivers in Grimsby. We have heard of how Continental drivers use duplicate discs, throw-out discs and how companies hire unemployed men and use their names to back a disc. We have not heard how such fiddles can be eliminated in Britain.
  The device is being forced upon us. We are unprepared to operate it. The industry does not want it. It regards it as another grievance on its grievance-littered back. The timetable is not of our choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said that we were close to the Irish timetable. It was argued in the Irish debates against the tachograph, to paraphrase Robert Emmet, "Let no man count my mileage whereas no man who knows my mileage dare not question it. Let not ignorance of machinery harrow my way to the grave".
  I do not wish to end on such a note as that, but I mention it only because of the Irish precedent and the timetable that we must follow.
  The industry believes that it labours already under a series of grievances. It sees this as another unnecessary intrusion into its complex labour relations and its already sophisticated and adequate enforcement machinery. I share the industry's frustration. When told that the industry does not want the tachograph, hon. Members are forced into making half apologies and inadequate explanations. We have to say that it is necessary because of the European Court's ruling. It is another example of how Parliament has lost control over our destiny. We are in an inadequate position to deal with an industry which is angry about this device.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: Given a free choice, almost no hon. Member

  799
  would support the compulsory introduction of the tachograph. However, we have no free choice. The Freight Transport Association states:
  "Given a free choice, therefore, industry would oppose the compulsory installation and use of tachographs and it firmly believes that the case for such a regulation has never been proven beyond the point of the UK having to accept such a ruling as part of its condition of entry into the Community."
  The association has opposed this measure for a long time. It states:
  "Nevertheless…UK operators now accept that they have no alternative but to follow the ruling of the European Court and that the regulations before the House are an inevitable consequence of that ruling."
  That is our position. We have no alternative but to follow the ruling of the European Court. That is a sad and sorry situation, but it is a fact of life.
  I sympathise with many hon. Members who object to the tachograph and object in principle to the Treaty of Rome. Of course they find this unacceptable. But they must understand that the Labour Party committed its Government to accepting the ruling of the European Court. The Freight Transport Association, in its document, makes it quite clear. It says:
  "we recognise that Parliament cannot amend the regulations before it".
  Labour Members are deceiving their supporters and the House if they believe that we have any option. Many of us might regret the current situation. The simple question we have to ask is: while the Community exists in its present form, and we are members of it, do we or do we not respect the rule of law? This matter has been to the European Court. There have been efforts made by successive Governments to try to gain time and to amend the position for our benefit.
  Can we honestly complain about the French disobeying the rulings of the European Court over lamb and then refuse to recognise its rulings in respect of another matter? The position is unpalatable for almost all of us, but we cannot alter things. It is wrong of Labour Members to try to put forward a different proposition.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, here again, we have a proposal which is not
  800
  in the interests of this country but which we must accept simply because we are members of the Common Market?
  Mr. Moate: The position is that £350 million in unnecessary costs will be imposed upon industry. There is no disguising that. Eevery hon. Member has to answer the question: do we or do we not believe in the rule of law? We might, many of us, wish to change that law, and we ought to do so. Until we change that law—and it might come sooner than many of us expect—we have no option but to accept the situation. Let us try to gain time, exemptions and flexibility.
  The Labour Government were forced into accepting these proposals. This Government are in exactly the same position. We are carrying out their inheritance as much as our own. We have no option but to proceed. The whole House ought to be supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends in respect of these regulations which are being imposed upon us. They will produce very little benefit. There will be some benefit in some areas, perhaps. Generally speaking, they will be a considerable disadvantage to this country. They arise from our Treaty obligations.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that tachographs are already in use in about 10 per cent. of lorries in use in this country and that many managements and unions who successfully operate those fleets claim that they represent a considerable benefit, not least a financial benefit?
  Mr. Moate: I conclude by saying that many of us would accept that, voluntarily installed, throughout many parts of industry these devices would be beneficial. To act compulsorily is wrong. Compulsion would normally be opposed by this House. In these circumstances, as a result of a pre-accession obligation—undebated at the time of accession and arising from an unamendable Bill—we have no choice. The proposal deserves our support and that of the Opposition.
  11.33 pm
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: I wish briefly to convey to the House specific areas of concern about the tachograph which have been put to me by both sides of the road haulage industry in my constituency—an industry based upon important firms and the port of Goole. I have

  801
  heard considerable doubt expressed as to the viability of the timetable laid down on page 4 of the regulations. Doubt has been expressed as to whether there are sufficient tachometers and whether they can be installed and calibrated in time.
  Although the Minister said that he would display a measure of flexibility in implementing these provisions, it does not appear to me, from reading the regulations, that the flexibility rests with him. The flexibility will rest with the enforcing authorities. He is not in a position to tell us whether the authorities will fail to abide by the letter of the regulations. The article dealing with reasonable practicability, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) referred, relates not to the installation of the tachometers but to keeping them in good repair. We shall run into a problem over the timetable for installing these pieces of equipment.
  Secondly, I have heard some concern expressed about the admissibility of the tachograph record as evidence in courts of law. The proposed section 97Bwhich is set out on page 3 of the regulations says that it would be admissible evidence under the part of the Transport Act 1968 to which the new section will belong. Does this mean that, in relation to other road traffic offences which are not in that part of that Act, the tachograph will not be regarded as admissible evidence in a court of law?
  11.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): If the regulations are approved tonight, the use of the tachograph will become compulsory in this country by 31 December 1981. To begin by expressing a purely personal opinion, I suspect that when we reach that stage, and thereafter, it will be difficult to remember what all the fuss was about when it came to installing tachographs.
  I accept that at present there is a great deal of concern about tachographs.
  Mr. Peter Fry: If that date is reached and it is found that, because of manufacturing problems and the question of calibration, it is not possible for all the vehicles to which the regulations apply to be so fitted, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not put the British transport
  802
  industry into a situation where it has to take vehicles off the road in order to comply with the law?
  Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend said in his opening speech that he would consider the position if that arose. We are certainly prepared to be flexible, but flexible within the two-year limit which has been achieved by my right hon. Friend as a result of hard negotiations with the Commission and which, I can assure the House, is not the time limit which the Commission would have preferred. Within that time limit, there will certainly be flexibility, but the time limit has been arrived at following consultations. It is our belief—it is the only basis on which we put the regulations forward—that there should be no practical problems in implementing the regulations.
  Let me tell the House why I think that some of the concern which is expressed about the tachograph will prove to be misplaced. Obviously there is great concern about the tachograph. There is great concern about heavy lorries generally amongst the general public and those who drive heavy lorries. The first concern must be road safety. I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) said, the road safety record of heavy goods vehicles is steadily improving. In order to maintain those safety standards, we have rules on drivers' hours. There is universal acceptance of those driver's hours. It is desirable, in the interests of the safety of lorry drivers and members of the public, that an eight hours' driving maximum is adhered to.
  What we are talking about, therefore, is what means are to be used to measure the maximum period. The debate is about whether we should stick to the traditional British log book or move to the European and other international standard tachograph.
  Mr. Les Huckfield Mr. Les Huckfield rose—
  Mr. Clarke: May I deal first with the points raised by other hon. Members? If I give way to interventions, I shall not reply to those who have spoken in the debate. I have already referred to the hon. Member.
  Let me deal with what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said about the penalties imposed

  803
  on British drivers and with what the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said about the differences between penalties here and those in the rest of Europe. The penalties for breaches of the drivers' hours regulations are our existing penalties. Nobody is talking about relaxing the penalties on drivers for breach of the drivers' hours regulations. They are not affected by these regulations. We are talking about merely whether the necessary records should be kept for enforcement of drivers' hours by somebody writing down in a log book what he has done, or by having a speedometer-type device with a card which records what is done and making manual records at times—for instance, for a driver to record his duty time in the usual way when he takes the tachograph card out of the machine.
  I come to the question of cost which was raised by the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Kingston upon Hull, East. There is great concern about the cost.
  As my right hon. Friend frankly conceded, there is no escaping the fact that considerable capital and running costs will be involved. We do not dispute the global figures that have been put forward, but they are all extremely vague. I do not dispute that they are of the magnitude of £100 million, £200 million or £250 million. But they must be viewed against equally vague total figures of £15,000 million in relation to the operating costs of vehicles. That is an extremely loose estimate on which I would not rely, but it is of the right order.
  Let me try to produce some realistic figures, because all the others are extremely vague. We estimate that for a particular vehicle the fitting of a tachograph would cost about £300, and that the annual cost of recalibrating and maintaining it would be about £45. The total operating cost differs enormously depending on the size of the vehicle, but it is about £20,000 to £30,000 a year. Yet here we are talking about £345 with regard to the tachograph
  Another aspect of the cost is that of the calibration centres and the costs of going to those centres, particularly in outlying areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay) asked about the islands in Scotland and outlying areas generally. I was pressed for more
  804
  details about the new lower standards that we are prepared to approve to meet this important point. These will apply to new centres that are more than 25 miles by road from another approved centre. That will be of particular benefit in parts of Scotland and Wales. The main difference in the full approval standard will be the standard of testing equipment that is needed. Remote area centres will not require the very expensive rolling road for tachograph testing. Other changes will reduce the need for building works or for bigger premises. Therefore, these changes will make it much easier for tachograph centres to be paying propositions in areas where there are few commercial vehicles. Centres are coming along well in other parts of the country. We expect there to be a network, and that new lower standard for approvals will ensure that it is extended much more widely.
  In the brief time that is left I can devote no more than another minute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll. However, I should like to deal with the question of the islands. We envisage that the network of centres will get as far as the islands. For example, by the end of 1981, with the sort of reduced capital costs about which we are now talking, there could well be a remote area tachograph centre on the island of Mull, and we know that on certain Scottish islands tachograph centres are being built. Therefore, facilities will possibly be available on the islands. If not, lorries will have to go to the nearest mainland station. Oban will almost certainly have one. We do not foresee the need to travel to Glasgow which my hon. Friend foresaw. I hope that his constituents will be reassured that the cost of attending the centre will be substantially less than he feared. That is another concession that we have made.
  One aspect which could prove to be expensive is if a seal is damaged and the tachograph is returned to be resealed. However, a person will be able to use the defence that he has gone to a centre as soon as reasonably practicable. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) asked me to define "reasonably practicable". This will be a question for the courts in each case. All that I can say is that it is a familiar phrase in the law. I have been familiar with it for

  805
  many years in respect of the Factories Acts, and it gives rise to no difficulties there. I do not think that it will give rise to any difficulties under this legislation.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that we would comply with the directive and the requirements if under the new section 97A we substituted the sum of £1 for £200 and retained the use of the log book? I shall not go into what that implies, but it is quite clear what we are doing; we are retaining the present system while complying with the directive.
  Mr. Clarke: That sounds terribly ingenious, and I am sure that it would have the same measure of success as the previous Government's arguments before the European Court when they tried to avoid applying the regulation. However, I cannot answer that point in two minutes when the hon. Gentleman has produced it from his pocket and read it out.
  I turn to the EEC requirement, which is the point of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is a long-standing opponent of
  the EEC, but he accepts the legal obligations that flow from our membership. Of course, this is an EEC requirement. That is why we are here. That is not in itself a reason to be against it. The hon. Member for Grimsby would be against motherhood if that was a requirement of the EEC. It so happens that this is an EEC requirement, although not wholly an EEC requirement. Mrs. Barbara Castle tried to introduce tachographs in 1968. Austria, Switzerland and Sweden now have them, and while we are members of the EEC we must abide by the rule of law. The Community cannot work without abiding by the rule of law. The international community cannot function if Western industrialised countries such as Britain defy the rulings of courts.
  We must comply with the ruling and we must approve the regulation, as we have won a good battle with the European Commission to get a two-year period of grace and a sensible and flexible timetable within that period.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 25.

  Division No.130]

  AYES

  [11.45 pm

  Alexander, Richard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Renton, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Hooson, Tom

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Banks, Robert

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Beith, A. J.

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rossi, Hugh

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Lang, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Best, Keith

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

  Blackburn, John

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)

  Bright, Graham

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Silvester, Fred

  Brinton, Tim

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  Brotherton, Michael

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Speller, Tony

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  MacGregor, John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Squire, Robin

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Major, John

  Stevens, Martin

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

  Maude, Rt Hon Angus

  Tebbit, Norman

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Mawby, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thompson, Donald

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

  Waddington, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Wakeham, John

  Cope, John

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

  Waller, Gary

  Dover, Denshore

  Murphy, Christopher

  Ward, John

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Needham, Richard

  Watson, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Neubert, Michael

  Wheeler, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Newton, Tony

  Wickenden, Keith

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Normarrton, Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Parris, Matthew

  Wolfson, Mark

  Fox, Marcus

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Penhaligon, David

  Gow, Ian

  Pollock, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Peter Brooke and

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Robert Boscawen.

  Heddle, John

  NOES

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

  Huckfield, Les

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Crowther, J. S.

  Lamond, James

  Soley, Clive

  Cryer, Bob

  Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Welsh, Michael

  Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

  Dixon, Donald

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Golding, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours and

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Parry, Robert

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Resolved,

  That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (UNITS OF MEASUREMENT)
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The business was announced last Thursday by the Leader of the House. Those of us who went to the Vote Office last week for the document received the Government explanatory memorandum No. 5247/79, dated 20 March, and the EEC regulation of that reference. However, I understand that a matter has arisen and that an additional memorandum has been deposited in the Vote Office, dated today. That document is not signed. Therefore, hon. Members who received documents last week—even my hon. Friend 'the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), who has put down an amendment—are unaware of the development. No indication is given on the more recent document as to when a change of decision at the Council of Ministers took place. Clearly it was subsequent to 28 March o this year.
  If the Council's decision was taken as recently as yesterday or last Thursday, the existence of the additional memorandum could be understood. I hope that we shall receive an explanation before the debate starts. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, lack of documentation on these matters has been a cause of considerable difficulty.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I am well aware that lack of documentation has been a source of difficulty in the past. I understand that the second document has been in the Vote Office for some hours—since 8 o'clock anyway, which is some hours—and I also understand that the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), in whose name an amendment stands, has been happy to substitute for it a manuscript amendment. On that basis, I believe that we should proceed with the debate. No doubt the Under-Secretary will explain what has occurred.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a desirable precedent for the House to debate the measures on the basis of documents that have been available only to those who have been lucky enough to discover the facts in the space of the few hours that have been referred to?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it is not a desirable precedent. The matter was drawn to my attention earlier this evening and I am delighted to know that the documents were eventually placed in the Vote Office. However, although it is not a desirable precedent, in view of the fact that there is a manuscript amendment, I believe that we should proceed with the debate.
  11.59 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of EEC document No. 5247/79, as amended, on Units of Measurement.
  First, I shall refer to the points of order that have been raised. I emphasise that copies of the memorandum were placed in the Vote Office, as you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the course of my speech I shall refer to the memorandum. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will see that the slight amendment is entirely favourable from their point of view.
  Mr. John Fraser: It is regrettable that this happened and it is more regrettable that the memorandum was not signed by a Minister. We have waited many months for this debate. Indeed, I signed the previous Government memorandum. Now we have an unsigned memorandum from the Government. I hope that this will not occur again.
  Mr. Jay: Will the Minister at least tell us who is responsible for the memorandum that is not signed?
  Mr. Eyre: I am not able to answer the question of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I apologise for the tightness of the timing. It will become apparent as I proceed that the effect of the amendment is slight and favourable.
  Following the European Economic Community decision in 1971, incorporated in directive 71/354, to move towards the exclusive use of the metric—SI—system throughout the Community, the United Kingdom accepted this commitment on its accession in 1973. The timing of the phasing out of Imperial units was, however, largely left open for further consideration.

  811
  In 1976 an amending directive—76/770/EEC—set out a partial timetable for the removal of certain Imperial units, although the future of the most commonly used units was left open. The amending directive was introduced by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and was welcomed by the House after a full debate on 7 July 1976.
  Since then the United Kingdom has participated in discussions in Brussels on the future of Imperial and other non-SI units. The result is that the present draft directive, originally published as COM (79) 89, was considered by the Select Committee on European legislation on 28 March this year. It has since been slightly amended, as I shall explain in a moment.
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Will my hon. Friend confirm that had we not become members of the Community it would still have been necessary, and in conformity with Government policy, for action such as is included in the directive to be taken because of the programme of metrication upon which both Labour and Conservative Governments had embarked?
  Mr. Eyre: It is not possible for me to speculate accurately on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). It is difficult to envisage where we would have been had we not taken the important step of becoming members of the Community.
  The new directive, which will replace the two earlier directives, sets out to regulate the use of units in certain areas of activity—for example, for economic, safety or administrative purposes. In practice, this means that as units of measurement cease to be authorised, reference to such units in legislation must be replaced.
  It should be stressed that the directive does not introduce controls in areas where they do not already exist. For example, sport makes widespread use of units of measurement but it is not subject to legislative control. The furlong, for example, which ceased to be authorised at the end of 1977, can continue to be a feature of race meetings if the organisers so choose. For consumer protection reasons we have exercised control on the use of units for weights and measures purposes
  812
  for very many years. The directive will apply in that area.
  The new directive, which will replace the two earlier directives, comes into force on 1 October 1981. It assumes that the Imperial units not in chapter III will by then have been removed from use in legislation in accordance with the timetable in the earlier directive. The United Kingdom has already partly implemented that timetable. The units of measurement regulations of 1978—statutory instrument 1978 No. 484—phased out a number of the less widely used units, such as the chain, the furlong and the rood and the dram. The next step is for a further group of Imperial units to be removed from use in legislation by the end of the year. There have been delays in finalising the new amending directive the necessary implementing leg cannot be introduced until early next year.
  There is one small but significant amendment to the earlier draft, COM (79) 89. Three units—the yard, the square yard, and the therm—would have had to be removed from legislation at the end of the year. That was not acceptable to the Government as the early demise of the yard and the square yard would effectively compel the use of metric units only for certain retail sales, and the gas industry needed to use the therm for some time. We have negotiated an amendment to the original proposal that safeguards the position of the three units. They are now included with the other common Imperial units in chapter III of the draft directive. That means that their future need not be discussed again for 10 years.
  The Government have accepted that the other Imperial units in the original proposal may be removed from legislation on the basis that all the legislation that uses them either has been amended or is in the process of being amended. The phasing out of the use of Imperial units by industry has been the subject of the most widespread consultation. We know of no special difficulties likely to arise now that we have safeguarded the units that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Will the decision to cease to authorise these Imperial units in 1989 have to be unanimous? Could the United Kingdom, even at that stage, prevent these units from being phased out against its will?
  Mr. Eyre: There is 10 years ahead of us for consideration. It will then be necessary for the matter to be brought again to the House before any final step is taken.
  Mr. Spearing: Before the Minister moves on to its substance, perhaps we may deal with the matter of the amendment. My concern is not for its substance but for the procedure. There could well have been a major change in the opposite direction. Other than those hon. Members who have been to the Vote Office since 8 o'clock, hon. Members who took their documents last week would not have known of it. When was the change made subsequent to the Select Committee's meeting of 28 March? Was it last week or was it much longer ago?
  Mr. Eyre: I cannot answer precisely now, but I shall seek to do so in the course of the evening, or write to the hon. Gentleman. It may be helpful if I tell the House that there is only one amendment of any significance to the draft directive considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation on 28 March this year. Three units of measurement—the yard, the square yard and the therm—which under the terms of the earlier directive—71/354/EEC as amended by 76/770/EEC—would have to cease to be authorised at the end of this year, have now been included in chapter III of the draft directive. This means that they are grouped with other commonly used Imperial units on which a decision need not be taken before—as I have emphasized—31 December 1989.
  Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman answer a little more clearly the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)? The Minister said that before there was any change the matter would have to come to the House. But is there not also a decision by the Council of Ministers? After all, we were told on another issue earlier tonight that, although it was before the House, the House had no option but to decide one way, because the Council of Ministers had so decided. Is the Minister's hon. Friend right in thinking that before such a decision was taken it would have to come before the Council of Ministers, and we should have a veto if we wished?
  Mr. Eyre: I should like to come in more detail to the point that the right
  814
  hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) have raised. I wish first to complete my remarks about the effect on industry.
  We shall make the maximum possible use of the directive's provisions relating to the continued use of existing equipment. This is very important in certain parts of the country. It is no part of the Government's policy to make unnecessary difficulties for industry, and the implementation of the directive will be tailored to fit the realities of everyday life.
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: At the strictly practical level, will local authorities cease requesting metric measurements for planning applications? It seems to me that they have been doing that for years, against the decision of this House. I realise that this is not a matter for my hon. Friend's Department, and if he is not prepared to answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me.
  Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the very considerate way in which she posed that question. It is highly technical, and I do not believe that it would be possible for me to obtain for her immediately an answer that properly considered all the implications. I realise the practical importance of the matter, and I shall see that proper inquiries are made and that a full answer is sent to my hon. Friend. I hope that she will enjoy reading it during the Christmas Recess.
  The most commonly used Imperial units are all included in chapter III of the amending directive—including now the yard, the square yard and the therm. A decision on the future of all these units will have to be taken by the end of 1989. This does not mean that they could not continue in use after that date—simply that a decision is to be reached by then on a date or dates after which they will cease to be authorised. Consequently, these units can continue to be used within the United Kingdom for trade and in our prescribed quantity regulations relating, for example, to some basic foodstuffs, coal and so on. Their continuing use will be as I have described.
  The decision in Council would have to be unanimous and would therefore be subject to a veto.

  815
  As has already been made clear to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, the Government do not intend to compel metrication by legislation. Accordingly, voluntary timetables can be drawn up by the trade interests directly concerned.
  The Government share the view of the previous Administration—I thought that the hon. Member for Norwood made this clear when he introduced the motion in 1976—that the directive should not seek to dictate the pace of metrication but that it should reflect the change of pace here. This has a very important practical implication for the House. That pace of change goes on and we have to reflect it. That is the Government's approach in introducing the motion.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before he sits down, could he perhaps indicate why any specific date is given in the order? Why does not the order say that these measurements can be authorised until further notice? Why set a date on it? Would not my hon. Friend agree that it looks as if the Commission—the bureaucracy in Europe—ismerely trying to make further work for itself to justify its existence? I believe that these measurements are popular in this country and that people want them to stay. Why should not they remain ad infinitum or until further notice? Why do we have to have a date on the order?
  Mr. Eyre: The history of these matters is extraordinarily complicated, but I assure my hon. Friend that as a consequence of earlier measures that date is in being, but its operation is qualified in the way that I have described, which means that we shall have an opportunity to consider the matter again before the results become final.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, may I say to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). This replaces the amendment which is printed on the Order Paper.
  12.17 am
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I beg to move as a manuscript amendment, at the end, to add
  816
  "but affirms that no decision on the phasing out of those imperial units which the EEC Directive requires to be reviewed by the end of 1989 should be taken before the House has first given its approval."
  The amendment seeks to establish the principle that this House should decide if and when the remaining Imperial units should be phased out. I understand that it is acceptable to the Minister and I hope that he will confirm that. This principle may have been explicit in the explanatory memorandum of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) but it is not explicit here, and on such an important matter it is absolutely essential that we make the position clear.
  Before the end of 1989, the Council has to decide on a date for phasing out Imperial units. In those circumstances, the Government of the day, if they agree with the Council view, will have to get the prior approval of this House.
  12.20 am
  Mr. John Fraser: I think that the whole House will welcome the directive. I am not saying that in a spirit of self-congratulation because I signed the memorandum. I am sure that it is acceptable, as is the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).
  I mean no discourtesy to the Under-Secretary of State, but it is a pity that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who has strong views on and departmental responsibility for these matters, is not present. The right hon. Lady has made a number of statements outside the House on these subjects.
  The matter covered by the directive is deferred for 10 years. Even at the end of that time, as the Under-Secretary of State said, we are not bound to take any decision. If the rest of our partners in the Community decided that there would have to be a phasing-out, we should have a right of veto and the matter could be put off for another discussion to take place in about 10 years' time.
  Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend certain that the veto operates, from our point of view, in the right direction? Is he sure that this is not a situation in which the special relationship lapses should any other country exercise the veto?
  Mr. Fraser: My clear understanding, when I prepared the memorandum, was

  817
  that there was deferment of any decision, that any decision to phase out remaining Imperial units would require a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers, and that a British Minister would be able to veto that decision. It is simply a deferral of any decision at all.
  It is explicit that the veto would reside in this country. I hope that I put the matter properly in the memorandum before the House, saying that the pace of metrication is best determined inside the United Kingdom and not determined for us by our membership of the Community. There is little to argue about, or discuss, in the Community proposal. The matter is put off. We are left to our own domestic devices in deciding what to do.
  But we cannot ignore some discussion in the House about the way in which we should proceed at our own domestic pace towards a completely metric system. This matter divides each side of the House. I think, from my recollection, that it also divides the Liberal Party. It would be a pity if what is very much a scientific matter were to become an issue in which one party was in favour of measuring an area by multiplying a chain by a furlong while the other party favoured measuring an area of land by the hectare. Any idea that clear party lines can be established on these matters is ludicrous and would do no credit to the House.
  We have to continue to consider the pace and the desirability of moving to a completely metric system. One can move more quickly in some areas than in others. I want to put a number of points for consideration.
  First, there is the compelling argument about simplicity. I should like to give an illustration. If one wanted to find the capacity in cubic yards of the Dispatch Box before which I am standing, one could measure first in inches and divide the result by 1,728 to convert into cubic feet and then divide by 27 to convert into cubic yards. I think that that is a fairly good illustration. On the other hand, if one were working it out in cubic metres, one would measure in centimetres and move the decimal point. There is a point about simplicity here. Anybody who has struggled through O-level physics on the Imperial system and has seen others doing it rather more easily on the metric system will know what I mean.
  818
  Secondly—this is not unimportant—we have about 16 million people educated solely in the metric system. Looking through CSE and both O-level and A-level examinations, I think that I am right in saying that we find not one examination conducted on the Imperial system. We have some responsibility to children and adults educated solely in the metric system.
  Mr. Sainsbury: On the subject of education, on which the hon. Gentleman appears to have some knowledge, will he tell the House whether he has any information on the time advantage that can be derived from teaching children subjects, such as physics and mathematics, in the metric system, which he has graphically demonstrated is so simple, as opposed to teaching them in both systems or just in the Imperial system?
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman mentioned time.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I have in mind the time that it takes to go through the educational process. I have heard it suggested that it takes an additional year in the mathematical curriculum if one has to teach people in both the Imperial and metric dimensions.
  Mr. Fraser: Frankly, I would not know. From what little mathematics teaching I have done, I have found it easier and speedier to teach in the metric system. I think that is beyond dispute.
  We have been progressing in education on the metric system for almost 15 years. I think that it was in 1965 that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) first began a programme of change to metrication. I am not sure whether he was followed or preceded in that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). It has taken a long time. We must consider how long we should continue with a dual system.
  The third reason why we have to consider these matters is that Britain is an international trading nation. We do not trade in glasses of beer and pints of milk. Successive Governments have given commitments to retain the pint for both milk and beer. That is relatively unimportant, but there are other areas where trading considerations are of importance. If I

  819
  interpret the Government's attitude properly, they regard the change to metrication as inevitable but they have no clear idea when the change will take place. I ask the Minister to say a little more about the Government's philosophy on that matter.
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs has made clear that she does not believe in compulsion. When there is a change from Imperial to metric, the trade generally agrees upon a date when the change will take place. In that sense it is voluntary. The trade agrees upon a date for transition from one form of measure to another, but, for the sake of orderliness, it likes the Government to prescribe that date as a matter of law. There is no possibility of converting from the Imperial to the metric system by voluntary means, particularly in the retail sector, as I think the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will confirm. The word "compulsion" has been invested with rather more force than it deserves. A phasing-out order puts a Government imprimatur on the agreement reached by the trade itself about the way in which it will phase from one system to another.
  I ask the Government to consider whether voluntarism should be allowed to progress to the stage where it becomes anarchy and chaos. There is danger in relying too heavily on voluntarism and in not providing an orderly framework within which industry can make the transition if it so wishes. I hope that we can on some future occasion have the Government's reflections on how they see the process eventually taking place.
  When we considered the Weights and Measures Bill I gave a commitment to publish an annual statement about voluntary and compulsory changes to metrication. Perhaps we can have an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that that annual statement about progress towards metrication will continue to be published to the House so that hon. Members, industry, and the general public will know what is the basis of the Government's thinking and what kind of timetable they have in mind.
  12.31 am
  Mr. Graham Page: I should be delighted if I could congratulate somebody on having saved yards, square yards
  820
  and the therm. Unfortunately, I do not know whom to congratulate, because the memorandum on this subject is not signed. I should have liked to offer my congratulations because whoever it is has done a lot better than the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) when he was in charge of this subject.
  He put before the House a memorandum of 20 March this year in which he was quite prepared to accept the loss of the yard, the square yard and the therm. At that time the Select Committee on European legislation reported to the House. It called our attention to this proposal and recommended that it should be considered by the House.
  We are only just having the debate on the issue following the report from the Select Committee in March. In that report the Select Committee on European legislation made this comment:
  "Some familiar units such as the yard and the calorie are not included in the list of legal units of measurement that may continue to be authorised."
  Obviously the Select Committee puts some weight on the fact that we were to lose the yard. Had the Select Committee been informed of the fact that we have now saved the yard it might well have recommended to the House that this debate was unnecessary.
  There is an undertaking to put before the Select Committee on European legislation any significant alterations in the proposals that are to go to the Council of Europe, so that the Select Committee may reconsider a proposal on which it has already reported to the House. In this case the Select Committee had reported to the House in March last on a proposal as described by the hon. Member for Norwood when he was in charge of the Department. It is a great pity that this new and welcome proposal was not brought before the Select Committee. It might have saved the House a lot of trouble tonight. There it is, and I still do not know whom to congratulate.
  I do not even know when this decision was made. If it was made even a week ago it could have been brought before the Select Committee. If it was made only yesterday, or today, I congratulate whoever made it. The yard has just been born "in the vestry" as it were, just in time. I am pleased that we have it back.

  821
  Is my hon. Friend quite satisfied that he has construed the relevant article correctly?
  Article 1 of the draft directive states:
  "The legal units of measurement within the meaning of this Directive which are necessary for expressing quantities shall be:…
  (c) until a date to be fixed by those Member States, those listed in Chapter III of the Annex in those Member States where they were authorised on 21 April 1973; this date may not extend beyond a date which shall be set by the Council under Article 100 of the Treaty before 31 December 1989."
  It is possible to construe that as meaning that the date of termination of legality must be a date prior to 31December 1989. The Minister has said that it means that if before 31 December 1989 the Council fixes the date for termination of the legality of those measures, the date can be any date—five, 10 or 20 years after 1989. However, I am not certain that that is the right construction.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Has not my right hon. Friend considered that article I has been amended by a memorandum that will be in the Vote Office tomorrow and available to hon. Members in a week or two?
  Mr. Page: I was tempting the Minister to amend this article so that it is certain that all that must happen is that before 31 December 1989 a date is set but that, apart from that, the matter is left wide open.
  A date must be set before 1989. It is right that any proposal should come before the House. Normally it would go first to the Select Committee that deals with European legislation. That Committee may recommend that it be debated by the House. If the Committee so recommends, the Minister cannot take steps to implement the proposals until the House has debated it. That is the purport of the amendment. The amendment states only fact. Present procedures should be emphasised. The amendment is acceptable as a statement of the present position.
  Mr. Deakins: That is not my understanding of the amendment. Under the present procedure, when the Select Committee recommends that there should be a debate, it normally takes place on the Floor of the House, on a Government
  822
  motion to take note. Under the amendment, which I hope is acceptable, the House will have to take a positive decision—the Government will have to move a motion to approve the action that they propose to take in the Council.
  Mr. Page: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) for explaining his amendment still further. I agree with his amendment even more. I am sure that hon. Members agree that the House should debate an affirmative resolution. I want to be certain that the other member States will not construe this article to mean that a date of termination of the validity of these measurements must be fixed before 31 December 1989. I hope that the Minister will negotiate better wording for article 1 (c).
  12.40 am
  Mr. David Penhaligon: By training I am an engineer and therefore probably have more sympathy for going metric than most other people. I recognise the reluctance on the part of some people to follow this trend. My beloved mother in Cornwall still buys potatoes by the gallon, which is the way that people in Cornwall have always bought potatoes and, although I tell my mother that I am sure that it is absolutely illegal, she will buy potatoes by the gallon until the day she dies and, frankly, as far as I am concerned, I cannot see why she should not.
  There is, however, one problem. I am not quite clear how we now measure a number of things in this country. How, for example, do we define the pressure to which we pump tyres on cars? We have in this document the possibility of using newtons/m2, pounds per square inch, or bars. I do not know whether the old kg/cm2 is still alive and kicking, but certainly the previous three are mentioned in this document.
  This is the problem when there are two or three systems operating at the same time. Very few people understand the connection between one set of units and another. The point I raise is relevant to a number of other possible combinations of units dealt with in this document. How do we measure the pressure to which tyres are inflated? How do we measure the maximum stress at which steel becomes plastic? How do we

  823
  measure stress and pressure in general terms? Have we ended up with the ludicrous situation of having a different system for measuring stress in steel from that which we use for measuring pressure in tyres? That is the problem when there are two systems operating together.
  I make a confession. When I am thinking of how warm the Chamber is I think in degrees Fahrenheit. When I think of the temperature at which steel melts I think in degrees Centigrade. It is a crazy system by which to bring up young people. Certainly the schoolchildren understand only the new units. I believe that the trend must be general. My specific question is: how do we measure pressure?
  12.43 am
  Mr. Tim Sainsbury: It seems rather unfortunate that the move to metrication, which it has been pointed out has been going on in this country officially for 15 years and has been under discussion for about 100 years—indeed, I believe that it was nearly carried in this House 100 years ago—has become confused with the directives of the European Community. If it causes no other problem it brings into the debate certain Labour Members whose prejudices against the Community would override even their strongest affection for the logical system of measurement which metrication represents.
  This situation rather muddies the waters in a discussion on something which I would have thought that anyone who considered the situation logically and took into account schoolchildren, the consumer and industry—three fairly important groups in society—would have to support. I detected, underlying the opening remarks of the Minister, almost a welcome for the idea, as he said, that the matter need not be discussed again for another 10 years. I can only say that if, for 10 more years, our schoolchildren, our industry and our consumers are to be kept in the ridiculous confusion that we have now, they will bitterly regret it. We shall all come to realise what an unnecessary problem we are causing the whole of our country.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that he did not expect any special difficulties to arise. He should appreciate that a great many special difficulties are
  824
  already in existence as a result of the lack of clarity in the Government's metrication policy and the lack of clarity at times displayed by the previous Government. The difficulties are already there. The first one concerns education. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that already 16 million children had been educated either entirely or principally in the metric system. Are we to continue educating children in the metric system and then ask them to come out into a world where we persist in using an archaic system which is hardly used in any other part of the world? I should like my hon. Friend, if he cannot answer that now, to write to me.
  Are we proposing any change in the education system, because in 10 years' time it will not be 16 million; it will be 26 million or 30 million who will have been educated in the metric system and will then be expected to spend the remainder of their lives grappling with these extraordinary measurements which everybody else has been sufficiently sensible to give up.
  We then come to the question of trade. I was interested to receive an answer from one of my right hon. Friends to the effect that only 0·4 per cent. of our exports go to countries which either have not metricated or have not got a committed timetable for metrication already. Do we—one of the greatest trading nations in the world—wish to stay with the 0·4 per cent.? It imposes absurd difficulties upon our manufacturing industry if it has to produce in Imperial measures for the home market and in metric measures for exports.
  Some of my hon. Friends share, I am sure, my desire that our heritage should be preserved. However, the right place to preserve the heritage is in places like museums. One does not use one's model T Ford for driving up and down a motorway every day; it is a piece of industrial archaeology. Perhaps it is because it is called the Imperial system that some of my hon. Friends find it so attractive, but that is a false reason for having such affection for this peculiar system.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I certainly do not drive up the motorway in an old Ford car, but I do like to know how many miles I am driving on the motorway. My hon. Friend, who I am sure accepts the

  825
  Government's move towards reducing Government expenditure, would surely not like huge sums to be spent on changing all the motorway signs at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. The British people are very proud of their mile. There is no reason why this Imperial measure should be changed, just as there is no reason why the pint or the yard should be changed.
  My hon. Friend talks about our heritage, but surely there are many Imperial units that could be used ad infinitum in this country without damaging industry. If only 0·4 per cent. of our exports are to countries that have Imperial measurements, surely industry can adapt itself and that will not inconvenience the British people.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I do not think that my hon. Friend could have been listening to what I was saying. There is the problem of education and trade. If a manufacturer is producing an article in a world market, as practically all people who try to export are, he does not want to have to produce and package that article in Imperial and in metric measures. It complicates the whole process and leads to fewer exports because it is therefore the more difficult to export. My hon. Friend must try to bring himself to think about the matter logically. It is very romantic to be attached to the mile. There is no reason why we should necessarily drop the mile, anyhow in this century. My hon. Friend may not be aware that the only Imperial measure that has any remaining significance in the world of sport is the mile. The mile is still occasionally run with distinction. Those in athletics have not been running any other distance expressed in Imperial terms for years—I think I can almost say decades—but the mile can be preserved. If we can keep that and go metric on the rest, perhaps that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
  Those most adversely affected by the present state of confusion are the consumers, and that means every person in the country. It is all very well to talk about keeping the pint, but is my hon. Friend aware that by the end of next year milk in retail shops will be sold only in metric measurements, while milk delivered to the doorstep will be sold only in Imperial measurements? We shall then have a system whereby a very standard commodity is sold in two totally different
  826
  and incompatible systems of measurement.
  Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) is, even if he is not—that if one takes a recipe that requires the use of butter and cheese, butter will be bought in metric packs and the cheese will be bought in Imperial packs? That is not exactly helpful to either cooks or consumers.
  We are in a state of total and ridiculous confusion, which is damaging to education, trade and the consumer. The House should take note of this directive in the hope that we shall not have to wait another 10years in our present state of total confusion, at great cost to our education system and manufacturers and at growing confusion to the consumer.
  As my hon. Friend knows, as each month goes by more and more goods in metric packs come into the High Street shops of our country. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Norwood suggested, unless we have a Government created, co-ordinated programme of conversion, conversion of weighed-out goods will not take place. Therefore, weighed-out goods will continue to be sold in Imperial measures, whereas all packaged goods will be sold in metric measures.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How much will it cost?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The cost to the consumer and to education will be infinite, and the cost to the manufacturer will become progressively more damaging. However much we love our imperial past, it is time that we said "Goodbye" to the daily use of this relic of imperialism.
  12.52 am
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If a week is thought to be a long time in politics, 10 years must be infinite hereafter. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is a hardliner for metrication, the subject of the debate has the unanimous agreement of every hon. Member. I am sure that every hon. Member would agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). From the nodding of the Minister—which I took to be nods of awareness and awakeness—I took it that he agreed with it also.
  Mr. Eyre: It may help the House if I indicate that I am glad to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).
  Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful, as I am sure are all hon. Members, to hear of the Minister's acceptance. That only goes to underline my second point, because I believe that the subject matter of the debate has exhausted itself. Had we known about the matter, perhaps we would not now be wasting public time and money, and subsidies for the Refreshment Department and all the other things that follow, keeping the House here unnecessarily.
  I hope that the House will not mind if take a moment to mention a matter that I think is far more important than any hint of disagreement that has arisen during the debate. That concerns the procedure by which we have come here. I remember sitting close to where the hon. Member for Waltham Forest now sits—unhappily, for too long—when in debate after debate on EEC motions I drew attention to the lack of provision of documentation for an EEC debate.
  I remember being supported by my own Front Bench at that time. Time and again we stood up and criticised the Government for failing to take the necessary steps to acquaint the House on matters that were far more contentious than any that have been debated tonight. I was not one of those who went to the Vote Office to check on the documentation, because it never occurred to me that year after year of complaint about the way in which Back Benchers are treated would have been ignored by my Government. That Government came into power promising as much assistance to the Back Bencher as possible.
  It never occurred to me that if I bothered to go to the Vote Office I would find inadequate documentation. As we noticed in the previous debate, we are not always happy with what the Common Market forces on us. Those of us who are strongly in favour of the values of the EEC—the fact that we are a member of the club that, above all else, helps to secure world peace and co-operation in international affairs—give up some of our independence as Back Benchers because we trust the Government to make sure that EEC matters are brought before us
  828
  completely, properly, and in a way that is beyond procedural and technical dispute.
  However, what has always happened is still happening. We used to complain about the administration of the House—that somebody had not bothered to make sure that the documents got to the Vote Office. However, a decision seems to have been taken in Europe that is of great importance to tonight's debate, yet about which no one knows anything. We only know that we have a piece of paper, bearing the name of the Department of Trade with today's date at the bottom, saying that the rules have been changed.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page has courteously and properly said, it is not just that he would like to congratulate whoever brought about that change; he wants to know who is responsible for the piece of paper. Why do those responsible for the paper not think it necessary to acquaint the Minister with fundamental details as to when it was negotiated, who negotiated it, who produced it, and who signed it? The absence of any answers—for which I do not blame my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has performed his task with great distinction—is symptomatic of the contempt in which we fear that Back Benchers are held by bureaucrats. Following hon. Members from all parties, I have had to complain about the utter failure to produce these documents and of the failure to acquaint the Minister of something that is fundamental to the debate.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the complaints that he mentioned when his party was in opposition were more often than not initiated by hon. Members on the Government side? The real culprits are not necessarily the servants of the House or Government, but the manner in which the EEC legislates and changes one document into another, by what we would technically call an amendment, in secret and by procedures that are arcane in the extreme. Is that not at the bottom of the difficulty?
  Mr. Lawrence: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is right. We are simply not in a position to know, as we have not been given an explanation.
  Mr. Deakins: Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether this is correct, but is

  829
  it possible that the piece of paper that we have received from the Vote Office today is not an additional explanatory memorandum, and hence it is not signed? It purports to be a notice bringing to the attention of the House an amendment to the draft directive. In those circumstances it is odd that it should have come from the Department of Trade. An amendment to a directive should normally come from somewhere in Brussels and be signed by the President of the Council.
  Mr. Lawrence: The text of the document that we have tends to support the hon. Gentleman's proposition. It says that there is only one amendment of any significance to the draft directive.
  I think that all hon. Members will agree that it is a highly unsatisfactory situation, for whatever reason. If anything of importance and value results from tonight's discussion to justify hon. Members being here at this late hour it will be if the Minister gives a personal undertaking that this matter will be thoroughly looked into to see why this happened. Perhaps he will be good enough to write to hon. Members present who have shown an interest in the matter or, failing that, give an explanation in due course.
  More importantly, he should make sure that this never happens again. If anyone's backside has to be kicked, it should be kicked, and if anyone's head has to be banged, it should be banged, if this Government wish to maintain the loyalty of their Back Benchers in support of proposals that we often reluctantly feel obliged to support because we are supporters of the Common Market. This country has voted overwhelmingly to support the Common Market, and we have to continue trusting the Government and the various Departments. We should not be led into the situation in which we are driven to doubt whether we are being run by robots rather than by people who care about issues that concern this House.
  1.2 am
  Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made valid points on procedure, but I hope that they will in no way detract from a warm welcome for this additional item that has been presented to us. The amendment allows the yard, the square yard and the furlong to survive
  830
  for a further 10 years as legal units of measurement in this country. I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on this important achievement, which will be much appreciated throughout the country.
  I welcome the general change of direction taken by the Government on metrication. Although the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) hoped that there had not been a change of direction, clearly the abolition of the Metrication Board and the statement that there will be no further compulsory metrication denotes a significant change of direction, which I warmly welcome. As long as we have a Conservative Government, which will certainly be until 1989, when this matter comes up for decision, and, I hope, many years thereafter, we shall have what I would describe as a permanently mixed economy on different systems of measurement. Few people will regret that or be confused by it, although my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) admitted that he was totally confused by the two systems.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The one thing that I am not is confused. Perhaps I should have declared an interest, as a retailer. We serve well over 2 million customers a week and they are all in the permanent state of confusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) wishes to remain. People are required to go about their daily business in schools, shops and manufacturing and commercial enterprises using two incompatible systems of measurement.
  Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for declaring his interest, of which I was not previously aware. He has been hiding his light under a bushel, if he will excuse the Imperial reference. However, I suggest that he underestimates the common sense of the British people if he believes that his customers are as confused as he suggests. They are capable of buying goods in a metric pack and then ordering a pound of potatoes in an Imperial unit without suffering any confusion.
  People should not be compelled to fit into the neat, logical pattern of life that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove and the hon. Member for Norwood suggest. That is not my understanding of

  831
  the British way of life or the Conservative philosophy. For decades hence—perhaps for infinity—we can continue to have both systems operating alongside each other. Industry can go metric on a voluntary basis if it wishes and needs to. At the same time, workers in industry will continue to use pounds, ounces, miles yards, inches, pints and gallons fully understanding them and not suffering from any confusion.
  Many millions of people have been educated in the metric system. In school, they are taught a certain system, but education is also given in the home. In the home and in shops children will learn all the different measurements. If we asked people in the street—tomorrow, not tonight; it is too late—about their knowledge of the different systems, we should discover that they had just as much familiarity with the Imperial system as with the metric system. The change of direction makes sense. It will be welcomed generally and I welcome the Government's action in the matter.
  I accept that in 1989 we shall have the right of veto. Yet, the more I read and re-read the document the more confused I become. On the one hand, it could be implied that until 1989 the measurements remain legal. If that is the case, a new proposal in 1989 will be required and in those circumstances the veto could operate against us. If, on the other hand, the measurements continue indefinitely—unless the Council takes a decision against us—the veto will operate in our favour and we can prevent any change. The answer is simple, but I am somewhat confused by the document. I want to be certain that, with or without the amendment that will pass tonight—not necessarily overriding the directive—we shall have the continuing power of veto.
  If we do have the veto, it is important to retain that power and not to move over to majority voting.
  1.10 am
  Mr. Eyre: With the leave of the House, it might be convenient for me to reply to a number of points that have been raised during the debate, in particular to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised at an earlier stage. I
  832
  am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the opportunity to intervene and accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).
  Again I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for being unable to answer his procedural question. As he knows, I should have liked to be able to take some credit for what is a favourable change. I am sure that some credit must be due to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept an assurance that I shall consider the matter. I agree that it is not entirely satisfactory. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not write to all those who are present. The Parliamentary Private Secretary and I keep arguing about who was present when we attempt to draw up a list.
  Mr. John Fraser: I have tabled a question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, asking her to give a full reply after the recess.
  Mr. Eyre: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do all that she can to clear up the question of procedure and ensure that a misunderstanding of this sort does not arise again.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister assure the House that in any statement or answer that is given it will be made clear at what meeting of the Council of Ministers the change we have learnt about tonight was made, under what sort of procedure, what Minister was present, and on what date?
  Mr. Eyre: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will understand that Ministers are not physically present at all meetings—
  Mr. Fraser: They are not present at any of them.
  Mr. Eyre: I accept the nature of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry and I shall do my best to ensure that it is properly answered.
  I thank the hon. Member for Waltham Forest for moving the manuscript amendment. On behalf of the Government, I am glad to accept it. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a series of powerful points in support of the motion and I am grateful for the welcome that he gave it. He called for a certain

  833
  measure of orderliness in the way in which trading interests respond to the requirements of phasing out.
  Undoubtedly, trading associations will consider how they are to respond to the regulations. I have been told that the petrol retail trade recently decided to go metric voluntarily. Perhaps that decision will have an effect on other trade associations. I mention that because I hope that it will be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who expressed his anxiety in this connection.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that there is evidence, as his Department knows, that there is no prospect of the trade in catch weight perishable commodities going metric voluntarily without a Government arrangement for a cut-off date. Unless that is introduced, confusion is bound to continue. It will be worsened by the petrol trade going metric and other trades not going metric.
  Mr. Eyre: I respect my hon. Friend's expert knowledge. I am sorry that he speaks in such strong terms. However, I am grateful for the further contribution that he made about the educational implications. I am sorry that I cannot answer it now, but I shall get a full answer for him and write to him.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who has given great service to the House as a member of the Select Committee on European legislation and who has a great knowledge of these matters and a whole range of other matters, asked whether the article was correctly construed. I am always worried when my right hon. Friend intervenes to raise such a matter. When he did so on an earlier occasion in Committee the Government were defeated. I am always apprehensive of, and careful in my approach to, my right hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend asked about dates. His inquiry was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. At present the end date is wide open. However, a date will have to be set by 1989. In coming to that decision the veto will be available to member States. The date that has to be determined by the Council by 1989 may be a date much later than that. I hope that that simple statement will clear up all the doubts and reservations that have been expressed, and will
  834
  satisfy my right hon. Friend, who I note is shaking his head.
  Mr. Moate: What will happen if the veto is used and no date is set?
  Mr. Eyre: I think that we would all have to consider that carefully.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) asked how stress is measured. At that time I was feeling it keenly. How do we distinguish between that measurement and the measurement of pressure in tyres? I feel that there are differences between the two measurements. I have been waiting for inspiration, but it has not come. It is a technical matter, even a medical matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that when I have been able to consider it I shall write to him to convey the relevant technical information.
  The Government share the view of the Labour Adminstration that the directive should seek not to dictate the pace of metrication but to reflect the pace of change. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the measure, as amended.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of EEC document No. 5247/79, as amended, on Units of Measurement, but affirms that no decision on the phasing out of those imperial units which the EEC Directive requires to be reviewed by the end of 1989 should be taken before the House has first given its approval.

  ETWALL HOSPITAL, DERBYSHIRE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]
  1.19 a.m.
  Mrs. Sheila Faith: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak at this hour, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who is to reply to the debate, who I know has had a particularly tiring day. However, I can justify my calling upon you and taking your time, because a serious situation has arisen in my constituency.
  The area health authority has ordered the temporary closure of a 94-bed

  835
  rehabilitation hospital in my constituency, and the nursing staff have now taken over the hospital and are staging a work-in, after conducting a poll that showed that 92·5 per cent. were in favour of doing so. The area officer of the National Union of Public Employees, who is in the Strangers Gallery tonight, has assured me that the activities will be moderate and that there will be no mass picketing. NUPE has asked the ambulance men to co-operate with it and not to transfer patients to other units.
  When I visited the hospital recently I saw that the building was well maintained and structurally sound. I spoke to the doctors, nurses and staff, and I have received a huge correspondence. Everyone is agreed that the area health authority must be persuaded to reconsider its decision.
  The hospital is situated two miles from Etwall, a pleasant village, which I believe my hon. Friend has visited, and it is surrounded by beautiful countryside. It has, therefore, a soothing atmosphere, which makes it eminently suitable for recuperation and convalescence, and it is also the ideal location for elderly people. Patients appreciate the peace and quiet of the countryside. Although officially named a rehabilitation hospital, it also caters for the young chronic sick and geriatric and psychogeriatric patients. The unit caters for the terminally ill, as well as those recovering from accidents and serious operations.
  All the doctors, nurses and staff that I have spoken to say that they prefer to work in a small unit. They are all on friendly terms with the patients, and some of these patients have been resident for several years and have become accustomed to each other. Both staff and patients would suffer dreadfully if the link were broken.
  Etwall hospital has become a prestigious rehabilitation centre for in-patients and out-patients with locomotor disabilities after orthopaedic surgery, accidents, strokes, amputations, arthritis, neurological and neurosurgical disease, and is recognised as a national rehabilitation centre.
  The rehabilitation team consists of two consultants, nursing, physiotherapy and occupational therapy staff, in addition to
  836
  an engineer, speech therapist and social worker. This is a very skilled and dedicated team, which has been slowly built up over the years. If it were disbanded as proposed, it could not easily be built up again.
  The hospital is pre-eminent in the Midlands as a rehabilitation unit for the heavily disabled patient and is the envy of large neighbouring teaching centres at Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield, which have no comparable facilities. The hospital also provides care for the younger chronic sick.
  An excellent feature of the hospital is the harmony that prevails among the staff. During the industrial trouble of last winter, disturbance at Etwall hospital was minimal. As is often the case in small hospitals, the auxiliary staff know the patients well and feel involved with them, and they refuse to take action that would be to their detriment.
  The consequence of closing surgical and preconvalescent beds at Etwall will be a concentration of care upon Derbyshire Royal infirmary and the City hospital, and this will mean an accumulation of post-operative patients in the acute beds, less surgery will be carried out, and therefore waiting lists will lengthen.
  There is an increasingly elderly population in Derbyshire, and the Derbyshire county council's homes for the elderly are already overcrowded. The closure of Etwall will cause a backlog of elderly people and add to the shortage of part III accommodation. The closure, therefore, will have an effect on already hard-pressed facilities, and this is particularly worrying because it is acknowledged that Derbyshire is already a seriously deprived area in the Trent region.
  The nurses at Etwall, some of whom are in the Gallery tonight, are not staging this work-in because they are fighting for their jobs. They have all been offered alternative employment. They are fighting to save a hospital that they love and for the right to continue serving their own patients, for whom they have developed a genuine feeling of affection.
  The hospital is an economic way of providing treatment, as the cost per in-treatment day is £44·60 at the Derbyshire Royal infirmary, whilst it is only £22·92 at Etwall. The patients do not

  837
  all require the complex equipment that is available at the larger hospitals and, indeed, some may be transferred to Derwent and Bret by hospitals. These units are also more costly per patient—day than Etwall.
  The local community takes a most active interest in Etwall hospital, and the league of friends makes its own contribution, not only by providing facilities—for example, equipping day rooms and giving television sets and so on—but by bringing moral support to the patients. There is an amazing degree of local enthusiasm for and loyalty to this hospital.
  I have spoken to patients and ex-patients who have contacted me and they all say that the closure of Etwall hospital would be a tragedy. They tell me that the hospital has given them a new lease of life. They all say that they know of waste in administration and organisation and they are appalled that little has been done as yet to reduce the bureaucracy. Doctors associated with the hospitals in the area insist that savings could be made by cutting down unnecessary tests and X-rays and by making changes in prescribing. Constituents have written to me telling me of waste in the ambulance service, as ambulances are being used by mobile people, and I feel that great savings could be made in this way throughout the country.
  My colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), are supporting me tonight, and they have put many ideas to me of ways in which further cuts could be made. I know that they would like to say a few words later. I have also been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
  The strange thing is that all my letters, including those I have received from doctors and nurses, blame the administration and wonder whether it fully comprehends the consequence of its action. They all say that the bureaucrats are making a poor job of being their own executioners and there is much disappointment that firm Government action has not already been taken.
  838
  We know, of course, that the National Health Service is one of the largest enterprises in the world, and therefore change cannot happen overnight. We also know that the Government have produced a consultative document, "Patients First", which has set out plans for changing the organisation of the National Health Service and to abolish a tier of administration. I am glad to see that this document shows that the Government also intend to strengthen management at hospital level and to see that doctors' and nurses' voices are more fully heard by the health authorities.
  The current situation at Etwall hospital demonstrates clearly the need for these changes, and I hope that it will be recognised that had the document already been presented to Parliament, perhaps hospitals and other services would have been saved, including Etwall.
  Everyone knows that the Government inherited a depressing economic situation and that a Labour Government would have also had to make cuts in expenditure or alternatively imposed very righ rates of taxation.
  The previous Government said that there would be no increase in cash limits to cover inflation. As a result of last winter's action, the Government have had to honour the results of the Clegg Commission, and therefore it was obvious that some cuts in services would be inevitable.
  The feeling in my constituency is that there are far too many administrators, and that this makes the system clumsy and immobile and unresponsive to changing situations.
  The area health authority should have known since last winter the financial implications of increased pay awards, and it has no excuse for not having gone ahead with making cuts in its own staff. In other parts of the country the delay in shedding staff is more understandable, but in the Derby area the rate of unemployment is 3·6 per cent. lower than most other parts of the country.
  Employers tell me that skilled jobs are available in the building, engineering and other industries and are going begging at salaries of between £120 and £200 per week. When I visited the local skillcentre in the summer, I was told that there were vacancies for engineering training. The

  839
  Derbyshire area health authority could therefore lead the country in encouraging people to relinquish jobs in the bureaucracy, without the fear that they will create long-term unemployment.
  I ask the Minister to speak to the Derbyshire area health authority and persuade it to cut its staffing levels. It is the fit and able who should be asked to make sacrifices and changes in their lives, not the sick and elderly.
  I hope that the Minister will do all that she can to save Etwall hospital, even at this eleventh hour.
  1.30 am
  Mr. Matthew Parris: My constituency adjoins Belper. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) for allowing me time to comment. I am glad to see on the Opposition Benches the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). Concern about closures in Derbyshire transcends political differences.
  I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper. Our area health authority has been misguided and its members have been weak. Derbyshire has always believed in centralising health care. Its financial problems are real. But these provide a ready-made excuse for accelerating a campaign of closures already under way long before the present Government came to power. That is what the authority believes in doing. It has told me so.
  At the time of the election, the axe was raised over Parwich, a village hospital in my constituency. The reason given was staff shortages. But nurses have been turned away since then. Now the Smedley Memorial hospital in Matlock is also threatened. As at Etwall, temporary closure is sought to reverse the status quo, to shift the burden of proof and disperse the evidence. It is called temporary closure. The furniture was taken away from Smedley this afternoon.
  As at Etwall, members of the authority were reduced to a rubber stamp. Incredibly. I believe, no paper on the Etwall closure was provided for members beforehand. As at Etwall, public support has been overwhelming. Our meetings at Parwich have attracted more than 1,000 people. Hundreds have written to me. If the Minister could meet the
  840
  nurses and patients involved, and if she could have seen the crowds standing quietly outside packed village halls at Parwich on a bitter winter's night, she would see that Government and people are of one mind. It is health bureaucracy that has come between us. Our town, our district and county councils and our Peak Park planning board all support us. Our community health councils feel isolated and exposed. In a few months it will be too late. We appeal to the Minister not merely for a generalised expression of support for small hospitals but for her help in saving ours.
  1.32 am
  Mr. Peter Rost: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) on raising this important issue. I thank her for allowing me to support her. We are aware—I know that the Minister is—that the Trent area has been the Cinderella in the national allocation of funds. The matter has been raised several times in the House in recent years. We now have an understanding that the Government are allocating increasing amounts to put that situation right over forthcoming years.
  It is not a deprivation of cash that has created this crisis. Increases in VAT have added to pressures on the budget. Pay increases resulting from the strikes of last winter and the subsequent inflation have added to the considerable pressures. But that is not an adequate excuse for what is happening to health provision for patients in Derbyshire.
  It is not only Etwall that is affected. In my constituency, Draycott hospital is being temporarily closed. I understand that it is to be a 15-months'closure. I wonder what is the definition of "temporary" when we are talking in terms of 15 months. The real cause of the trouble is that the area health authority has not provided early enough for the inevitability of tighter budgeting.
  It has continued overspending. It has not done enough to improve its efficiency, cut out waste and top-heavy administration. I should like to put some questions to which I hope the Minister can address herself or make subsequent inquiries.
  What administrative savings have been made by the area health authority over

  841
  the past year since it became aware that pressures were building up on the budget? What could be saved by better hospital management—I am referring not simply to management but to administration in the hospitals—if a real economy drive were undertaken? I found the answer, as anyone could find it, by speaking to nurses and staff in hospitals. All can point to areas of waste in the daily administration of hospitals.
  Thirdly, why is it that the Draycott hospital is fully staffed, yet half the beds are empty? This is another post-operational hospital, just like Etwall, which could have been reducing the pressure on Derbyshire hospitals, where there are long waiting lists. Yet Draycott hospital has been starved of patients who must be waiting.
  Fourthly, I think that we are entitled to know why, at the Draycott hospital—I cannot speak for others—in recent months there has been a considerable amount of capital expenditure of a maintenance and repair nature that was not essential but has been carried out. The area health authority must have been aware that the budget was tight and that other hospitals were about to be temporarily closed. Why, during that time, was expenditure of an unnecessary and inessential kind continued? I maintain, and the area health authority has admitted, that the financial crisis, as it describes it now, was anticipated. If so, why were precautionary measures not taken earlier to cut some of the spending?
  Fifthly, why were the community health councils not consulted properly and their constructive advice taken on how economies could have been made to avoid these closures?
  Sixthly, why has no effort been made to use more voluntary support? The league of friends of the Draycott hospital—an excellent organisation—would have been prepared, and still is prepared, to provide more support rather than see the hospital close.
  Finally, if the pay awards of last winter resulted in budget excesses—which they have done—why have there not been more reductions in the service staff rather than a closing of the hospital beds?
  Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, the suspicion must remain that
  842
  the area health authority has mismanaged its finances and is now, in an unnecessary and unacceptable way, depriving Derbyshire of services and taking it out on patients. This is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will call in the area health authority to account for its present position.
  1.37 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith) for raising this issue, which I know is causing so much concern, not only to her but to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and to my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant), for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), all of whom are here at this late hour because of their concern about what is happening to hospital services in Derbyshire.
  I fully understand the feelings of all who are confronted with the closure of hospitals to which they have contributed so much over the years. I know that I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Belper of the Government's firmly held view that health authorities, many of which we know are facing severe financial difficulties, should look first to administrative and other items of expenditure not directly related to the provision of patient services to see what savings can be made. The closure of hospitals or other reductions in services direct to patients should not be countenanced until every other avenue has been thoroughly explored.
  It may be helpful if I go over the background to the decision of the Derbyshire area health authority to close Etwall hospital temporarily. I must stress the word "temporarily", because I think that there may be misunderstanding locally about it.
  The Trent region and the Derbyshire area have suffered from a legacy of funding considerably below the national average, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred. Although a certain amount of progress has been made over recent years towards rectifying the balance, there is still some way to go.

  843
  This financial year Derbyshire AHA is heading towards an estimated overspending of about £1·4 million. The Government have told all health authorities that they must be prepared to grapple with the problem of living within their cash limits, difficult though this may be in some cases. I am glad to say that the Derbyshire AHA fully accepts this. It aims to meet its cash limit by March 1981, but, to do so, it has decided that some hospital closures are inevitable. I know that it has not considered the closure proposals lightly. Each of the three health districts is heading for an overspend this year, the biggest being in south Derbyshire. This has resulted in the proposals that were approved at the area health authority's meeting earlier this month.
  We fully appreciate the difficulties that all health authorities and their districts face—especially those which have been under-resourced as in this case—in absorbing the effects of excess pay and price inflation, but, given the serious economic and financial situation that we have inherited and the urgent need to reduce the burden of public expenditure overall, I do not think that anyone could reasonably expect the National Health Service to be wholly exempt from general financial pressures. Nevertheless, the current arrangements for adjustment of health authorities' cash limits are distinctly more favourable than for other areas of Government spending.
  Etwall is, of course, not the only hospital that will be affected in Derbyshire, as has already been mentioned. The AHA aims to save £½ million in a full year from these closures, permanent or temporary, and £300,000 from the temporary closure of Etwall hospital. Consultation documents have been issued on the closure of Parwich hospital and the Smedley Memorial hospital at Matlock. Both of these are proposed for permanent closure. I understand that Smedley hospital is now empty, and the AHA proposes to keep it closed in the new year while consultation takes place on the proposed permanent closure.
  In addition to Etwall, the other hospital to be closed, at Draycott, and the theatre and surgical ward at Derwent hospital, will be closed temporarily. I can well understand that, given the position in which the AHA finds itself that there
  844
  are fears that, once closed temporarily, these hospitals will not be able to open again—or worse, that the AHA is merely using temporary closure as a cosmetic to disguise the eventual permanent closure.
  I am told by the AHA that this is not so. It is its firm intention to reopen Etwall and Draycott hospitals and the theatre and surgical ward at Derwent hospital as soon as circumstances permit. The AHA hopes that this can be done early in 1981. Meantime services will be kept under review.
  The other point that I should make about Etwall hospital is that the temporary closure will be phased. Closure will not take place until the end of February 1980 at the earliest. The AHA, after full consultation with and on the advice of the consultative medical staff, has decided that admissions to the hospital should cease from yesterday, Tuesday 18 December. It will clearly take time for arrangements to be made for the transfer from Etwall of those patients who will not be able to be discharged during the next few months.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East asked a number of detailed questions. I think that at this late hour and with the information that I have to hand I should be foolish to try to answer those questions, in case I misled my hon. Friend and the House. I assure him that my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—will write to him and to other hon. Members involved in this debate as soon as he can.
  All the points that have been made, whether bound up with the temporary closure of Etwall or the permanent closure of Parwich, are bound to have an effect on services to patients in south Derbyshire. We know that there is very little slack elsewhere in hospital services in this district and in the wider area. Although the AHA cannot at this stage be specific about the precise extent of these closures, waiting lists are bound to be affected.
  None of us likes to see proposals for the closure of hospitals that have given such good service in the past, but some closures may from time to time occur. I think that we all accept that. Area

  845
  health authorities such as Derbyshire face a difficult task. Not only do they have to grapple with the cash limits that have been set; they have been told to plan on the basis that cash limits will be increased to cover most of the excess cost of pay awards. We have been able to provide an extra £250 million for this purpose but we must face the fact that there is no more money available in the NHS this year.
  Next year, we envisage small growth in real terms in the amount of money available to the NHS—about 0·5 per cent. overall. We are of course aware that regions like Trent and areas like Derbyshire will be looking for continued redistribution of resources between health authorities, but the exent to which this can be done will clearly be restricted by the amount of overall growth money available next year and thereafter.
  I return to the particular case of Etwall hospital. I am told that the staff are reluctant to accept the decision of the area health authority. I can understand their concern but I hope that good sense will prevail and that the planned meeting between the AHA and hon. Members, which is to take place shortly, will bring together the facts and the impressions that hon. Members have gained. I hope that this deep problem will be resolved. Much is to be gained by both sides in discussing the nitty-gritty in greater detail than we are able to do in the House, where the AHA cannot speak up for itself.
  I welcome the meeting. If, after the meeting, areas of doubt and difficulty remain, my hon. Friend the Minister for
  846
  Health has said that he will meet those concerned and consider what further can be done, within available resources, by the Derbyshire AHA to overcome the difficulties facing health services in that county. I realise that little that I have said will do much to lessen hon. Members' anxiety. The only way that I could do that would be to hold out a promise of substantial extra resources. That I cannot do.
  The Government have asked all health authorities to look first at administration and other items of expenditure which are not directly related to the provision of patient care in making the savings. I hope that when the meeting takes place between hon. Members, the AHA and others who are concerned about hospital provision in the area and the present financial plight of the authority, the argument of the Minister of State and others will be considered in a constructive spirit.
  Above all, the lesson that we all have to learn, whether in the Government, local government or health authorities, is that we must manage within available resources. It is up to all good men and women to ensure that every idea is brought to bear upon the problems of the health services in the area. If the meeting does not resolve the issue, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will readily meet those concerned to see what might further be done. We hope that it is possible to resolve the problems locally without intervention by the Minister.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Two o'clock.

  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
  SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION
  LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
  LORD JUSTICE GENERAL
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF SESSION
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF SESSION
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  National Council of Educational Standards (Report)
  National Council of Educational Standards (Report)
  Primary Schools (Curriculum)
  Primary Schools (Curriculum)
  Design in General Education (Report)
  Design in General Education (Report)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Higher National Diploma
  Higher National Diploma
  Schools (Inspections)
  Schools (Inspections)
  Local Authorities (Government Control)
  Local Authorities (Government Control)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage
  Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage
  Departmental Staff (Powers of Entry)
  Departmental Staff (Powers of Entry)
  Student Unions (Finance)
  Student Unions (Finance)
  Huntington's Chorea
  Huntington's Chorea
  Universities
  Universities
  Association of Polytechnic Teachers
  Association of Polytechnic Teachers
EMPLOYMENT
  Manufacturing Industry (International Comparisons)
  Manufacturing Industry (International Comparisons)
  Long-term Unemployed
  Long-term Unemployed
  Homeworking
  Homeworking
  Domestic Boilers (Scaling)
  Domestic Boilers (Scaling)
ENERGY
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Naphtha
  Naphtha
  THE ARTS
  THE ARTS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  EXPORT OF WORKS OF ART
  EXPORT OF WORKS OF ART
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
    Herring Fishing
    Herring Fishing
    Fish (Iceland and Norway)
    Fish (Iceland and Norway)
  ARTS COUNCIL
  ARTS COUNCIL
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Aujeszky's Disease
  Mackerel Quotas
  Mackerel Quotas
  Whisky (Exports)
  Whisky (Exports)
  CIVIL SERVICE
    Index-linked Pensions
    Index-linked Pensions
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    European Community Budget
    European Community Budget
    Benefits (Taxation)
    Benefits (Taxation)
    Life Assurance
    Life Assurance
    Personal Incomes (Taxation)
    Personal Incomes (Taxation)
    Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
    Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
    Fleet Street (Casual Workers)
    Fleet Street (Casual Workers)
    Public Expenditure (Wages and Salaries)
    Public Expenditure (Wages and Salaries)
    Rates (Tax Relief)
    Rates (Tax Relief)
    Value Added Tax (Construction Industry)
    Value Added Tax (Construction Industry)
    National Land Fund
    National Land Fund
    Pay-as-you-earn
    Pay-as-you-earn
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
    Council of Ministers
    Council of Ministers
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Rhodesia
    Rhodesia
    Falkland Islands
    Falkland Islands
    New Hebrides
    New Hebrides
  HOUSE OF COMMONS
    Press Catering Facilities
    Press Catering Facilities
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Gias Uddin
    Gias Uddin
    Immigration Rules
    Immigration Rules
    Illegal Immigrants
    Illegal Immigrants
    Fine Defaulters
    Fine Defaulters
    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Demonstrations (Police Costs)
    Demonstrations (Police Costs)
    Operation Otis
    Operation Otis
    Admissions (Heathrow Airport)
    Admissions (Heathrow Airport)
    Immigration Offices (Instructions)
    Immigration Offices (Instructions)
    Woolworths, Manchester (Fire)
    Woolworths, Manchester (Fire)
    Immigration
    Immigration
    Iranian Nationals
    Iranian Nationals
  INDUSTRY
    Co-operative Development Agency
    Co-operative Development Agency
    British Aerospace
    British Aerospace
  WALES
    Carmarthen Southern Bypass
    Carmarthen Southern Bypass
    Trunk Roads
    Trunk Roads
    Council for Wales
    Council for Wales
    Road and Transport Budget
    Road and Transport Budget
  SCOTLAND
    Scottish Development Agency
    Scottish Development Agency
    Council Houses (Sale)
    Council Houses (Sale)
    Houses (Thermal Insulation)
    Houses (Thermal Insulation)
    Trawling (Otter Board)
    Trawling (Otter Board)
    Scottish TUC
    Scottish TUC
    Assistance to Industry
    Assistance to Industry
    Scottish Plant Breeding Station
    Scottish Plant Breeding Station
    Local Authorities (Manpower)
    Local Authorities (Manpower)
    Forestry Commission
    Forestry Commission
    Education Department (Manpower)
    Education Department (Manpower)
    Housing Waiting Lists
    Housing Waiting Lists
    Housing (Capital Allocations)
    Housing (Capital Allocations)
    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Teachers (Mathematics and Science)
    Teachers (Mathematics and Science)
    Economic Prospects
    Economic Prospects
    Small Firms
    Small Firms
    Roads (Maintenance Costs)
    Roads (Maintenance Costs)
    National Health Service (Reorganisation)
    National Health Service (Reorganisation)
    Intermediate Treatment Centres
    Intermediate Treatment Centres
    Forestry
    Forestry
    Trunk Roads
    Trunk Roads
    Peterhead Prison (Investigation)
    Peterhead Prison (Investigation)
    Local Government
    Local Government
  ENVIRONMENT
    Old People's Housing
    Old People's Housing
    Rate Support Grant
    Rate Support Grant
    "Local Democracy Works" (Document)
    "Local Democracy Works" (Document)
    Departmental Functions (Sport)
    Departmental Functions (Sport)
    Temperature and Humidity Levels
    Temperature and Humidity Levels
    General Rates
    General Rates
    Palace of Westminster (Temperature)
    Palace of Westminster (Temperature)
    Local Authority Manpower
    Local Authority Manpower
    Local Authorities (Area Development)
    Local Authorities (Area Development)
    Stevens Report
    Stevens Report
    Town and Country Planning Act 1971
    Town and Country Planning Act 1971
    Commission on Energy and the Environment
    Commission on Energy and the Environment
    Hovercraft Noise
    Hovercraft Noise
    Parish Councils
    Parish Councils
    Council House Transfers
    Council House Transfers
    Housing (Bolton)
    Housing (Bolton)
    Government Offices (Heating)
    Government Offices (Heating)
    Control of Pollution Act
    Control of Pollution Act
    European Community (Council of Environment Ministers)
    European Community (Council of Environment Ministers)
  TRANSPORT
    Greater Manchester Transport Authority
    Greater Manchester Transport Authority
    Road Accidents
    Road Accidents
    Battlesbridge Bypass, Essex
    Battlesbridge Bypass, Essex
    Rayleigh Weir Roundabout
    Rayleigh Weir Roundabout
    Concessionary Fare Schemes
    Concessionary Fare Schemes
    Warren Copse (Motorway Services)
    Warren Copse (Motorway Services)
    Trunk Roads
    Trunk Roads
    Severn Bridge
    Severn Bridge
  TRADE
    Balance of Trade
    Balance of Trade
    United States of America
    United States of America
    New Zealand Lamb
    New Zealand Lamb
    Shoe Exports (Japan)
    Shoe Exports (Japan)
    Motor Cars (United Kingdom Manufacturers)
    Motor Cars (United Kingdom Manufacturers)
    Air Navigation
    Air Navigation
    Iron and Steel Imports
    Iron and Steel Imports
    Purchasing Contracts
    Purchasing Contracts
    Steel and Steel Products
    Steel and Steel Products
    Pig Iron (Imports)
    Pig Iron (Imports)
  NORTHERN IRELAND
    Economic Council
    Economic Council
  SOCIAL SERVICES
    Attendance Allowance
    Attendance Allowance
    Airborne Lead
    Airborne Lead
    Rampton Hospital
    Rampton Hospital
    Lone Parents (Supplementary Benefit)
    Lone Parents (Supplementary Benefit)
    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
    Hospital Out-patients (Prescriptions)
    Hospital Out-patients (Prescriptions)
    Huntington's Chorea
    Huntington's Chorea
    Regional Health Authorities
    Regional Health Authorities
    Northern Region
    Northern Region
    Health Care (Northern Region)
    Health Care (Northern Region)
    1981 Census
    1981 Census
    Social Security Bill (Representations)
    Social Security Bill (Representations)
    Polyurethane Foam Furnishings
    Polyurethane Foam Furnishings
    Immigration Rules
    Immigration Rules
    Hearing Aids
    Hearing Aids
    Alcoholism (Hostels)
    Alcoholism (Hostels)
  DEFENCE
    Industrial Disputes (Use of Troops)
    Industrial Disputes (Use of Troops)
    Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich
    Royal Herbert Hospital, Woolwich
    Infantry Battalions
    Infantry Battalions
    Kit Issuing and Reporting Centres
    Kit Issuing and Reporting Centres
    Type 432 Armoured Personnel Carrier
    Type 432 Armoured Personnel Carrier
    Helicopters
    Helicopters
    Royal Artillery (Armaments)
    Royal Artillery (Armaments)
    Royal Armoured Corps
    Royal Armoured Corps
    BAOR Units (Ulster Service)
    BAOR Units (Ulster Service)
  SP70
  SP70
  Tracked Rapier
  Tracked Rapier
  Armed Forces (Secondment)
  Armed Forces (Secondment)
  United Kingdom (Missile Attack)
  United Kingdom (Missile Attack)
  Foreign Nationals (Military Training)
  Foreign Nationals (Military Training)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of London): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Lord Barnetson—Took the Oath.

HELSINKI FINAL ACT: EASTERN BLOC IMPLEMENTATION
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the implementation by the USSR and East European countries of the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act during 1979.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the record of implementation of the Helsinki Final Act by certain of the countries during the year as a whole somewhat deteriorated. The Government have drawn attention to these trends in their detailed report on implementation made in another place on 28th November. I am arranging for a copy of the text of this report to be published in the Official Report.
Following is the report referred to:
"FURTHER REPORT ON SOVIET AND EASTERN EUROPEAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HELSINKI FINAL ACT FOR THE PERIOD JUNE TO NOVEMBER 1979
GENERAL
" 1. The record of implementation in the Soviet Union and a number of Eastern European countries has somewhat deteriorated. The denial of certain basic human rights, and of the freedom of the individual to monitor the implementation by governments of the Helsinki Final Act, has become if anything more marked In the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, while adverse developments in the GDR have, with one important exception, continued. In the same countries relatively little progress has been made in improving the implementation of the human
1654
contacts provisions of the Final Act. Implementation in other areas of the Final Act has shown no significant change.
" BASKET I (PRINCIPLES GUIDING RELATIONS BETWEEN PARTICIPATING STATES; AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT
PRINCIPLES
"2. The Soviet Union has continued to call for the conclusion of an agreement on the non first-use of force by CSCE States and, together with its Warsaw Pact Allies, has suggested that there should be a conference at the political level between CSCE States to discuss this and other security matters. This emphasis on the military aspects of security, described as military détente ', has continued in the public statements of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact Allies, to the virtual exclusion of the human dimension of the Final Act.
"3. Implementation in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Principle VII) has deteriorated in a number of countries since the last report. In the Soviet Union four members of Helsinki Monitoring Groups have been arrested during the period under review, three from the Ukrainian group and one from the Armenian group. A leading Moscow human rights activist, T. Velikanova, who has been active in publicising the repression of religious and national minorities, was arrested earlier this month. Two more members of an unofficial religious seminar, V. Poresh and T. Shchipkova, were arrested and another member of the group received a four-year sentence. Father Yakunin, a leading member of the Christian Committee for the Defence of Believers' Rights in the USSR, was arrested at the beginning of this month. In October another member of the unofficial trade union group, SMOT, N. Nikitin, received an 18-month sentence, becoming the third member to be tried since May this year. There have continued to be disturbing reports about the physical condition of several prisoners of conscience' (including Shcharansky, Ogurtsov and Orlov).
"4. The rate of emigration of Soviet Jews has continued at the level of rather over 4,000 per month established at the end of 1978, though there have been reports of growing numbers of arbitrary delays and refusals, particularly in the Ukraine, often on grounds of alleged insufficient kinship with persons abroad. There have also been reports of pressure being brought upon those responsible for an unofficial journal on Jewish cultural and religious affairs. There has been no indication that the concessions to freer movement from which Jewish applicants and those from a few other minority groups have benefited are to be more generally extended.
"5. In Czechoslovakia, the main event in this period was the trial on 22nd/23rd October on charges of subversion of six of the 10 arrested members of the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted, VONS. The sentences were for terms of imprisonment from three to five years; the fate of the other arrested members of VONS is still undecided. The trials were completed in two days, without foreign observers being allowed access, and despite appeals from a wide range of public and governmental opinion

1655
in both East and West. The British Government has made clear to the Czechoslovak authorities on a number of occasions that it deplores the arrests and sentences; the Government of the Republic of Ireland, acting on behalf of the Nine, has also expressed the deep concern of Member States about the Czechoslovak action.
"6. Administrative harassment of political and religious dissenters in Czechoslovakia has continued throughout the period. Reports that individual political activists have been detained in psychiatric establishments could reflect a disturbing new trend. The success of VONS in bringing official abuses to public notice may, in part, account for the determined way in which the authorities have moved against them. The procedure of granting fixed term exit permits to prominent Czechoslovak intellectuals has been used several times as a device to induce emigration: during the period, Pavel Kohout, the play-right, was refused permission to return from Austria and deprived of his citizenship.
"7. In Romania, some negative developments have been noted during the late period. For instance, there have been increased instances of harassment and imprisonment of members of SLOMR, the Free Trade Union of Romanian Working Men. Four members of SLOMR's leadership have been imprisoned and one, Father Calciu, an Orthodox priest, has been jailed for 7½ years on unrevealed charges. At the same time there are indications that a new propaganda campaign is being launched to combat emigration, religious observance and human rights activism.
"8. In the GDR measures have been introduced, as part of a tightening up of existing legislation concerning public order, to make the passing of even unclassified information to foreigners and the publication abroad of criticism of the GDR punishable by periods of imprisonment. The GDR authorities, however, announced an amnesty for certain categories of prisoners in connection with their anniversary celebrations and stated their intention to release 20–25,000 prisoners. While two prominent political prisoners, Bahro and Huebner, have already been freed, it is not known what proportion of the total of those released will be political '.
"9. In Poland there has been some sporadic but unsustained harassment of leading dissidents, including the jailing for two months in September of Adam Wojciechowski, a member of Amnesty International. The Hungarian Government's domestic policies have continued to be the most liberal in Eastern European terms. Bulgarian implementation in this area has shown neither positive nor negative movement.
CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES
"10. Advance notification was given of the major Soviet exercise NEMAN ', which took place in the Baltic Military District from 23rd to 27th July. On this occasion, observers were invited from NATO and other signatory countries. A number of countries, including the United Kingdom, accepted. In the event, less than four hours of direct observation were permitted. No other notifiable exercises are believed to have taken place in the rest of Western Europe.
"11. In his speech in East Berlin on 6th October, President Brezhnev indicated Soviet
1656
support for the development of additional confidence-building measures. The new elements he proposed were: a reduction from 25,000 to 20,000 of the ceiling above which ground force exercises must be notified; longer notification times for such exercises; the notification of military movements involving more than 20,000 men, and an upper limit for 40–50.000 men in the size of ground force exercises. The proposals for the lowering of notification ceilings and for a commitment to notify movements are similar to those which Western and neutral and non-aligned countries put forward at Belgrade. (Foreign Ministers of the Nine, meeting in Brussels on 20th November, reaffirmed their view that it was essential to maintain an overall balance between military and other aspects of security in the CSCE process. They agreed, taking into account the proposals made by President Giscard in 1978 for a Conference on Disarmament in Europe, that the Nine should work for the adoption at the Madrid meeting of a mandate for further negotiations within the CSCE framework on militarily significant and verifiable Confidence-Building Measures applicable to the entire European Continent.)
BASKET II (CO-OPERATION IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS, OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATION
"12. In general there have been no identifiable trends or substantial changes in the period under review. Shortage of hard currency has led to a wider and more restrictive application by certain Eastern European countries of counter trade policies. In Romania, in particular, trade organisations are now demanding 100 per cent. compensation on most contracts. In Hungary and Poland, on the other hand, similar hard currency restrictions have led to an increasing emphasis on the development of co-operation arrangements between Western companies and local producers, both in the countries concerned and in third markets. Despite similar hard currency problems in Czechoslovakia, the latest meeting of the United Kingdom-Czechoslovak Joint Commission was held in a positive atmosphere and the British section of the Czechoslovak Chamber of Commerce has been showing increased interest across the whole field of United Kingdom-Czechoslovak trade. In the GDR a number of major industrial projects are under discussion with Western (including British) firms and in one or two cases contracts could be awarded early in the New Year. In Bulgaria there are encouraging signs of a more flexible attitude towards foreign investment.
BUSINESS CONTRACTS AND FACILITIES.
"13.The overall situation remains as in the last report. The Soviet Ministry of Finance are in the process of negotiating a series of double taxation agreements with Western countries which may resolve some of the uncertainties which currently act as disincentives for companies wishing to establish offices in the Soviet Union. In Poland, where some 30 British companies are now established, a decree was issued in September requiring foreign firms to pay their locally recruited staff not less than 50 per cent. more than equivalent grades employed in Polish foreign

1657
trade enterprises. The implications of this decree are unclear, and our Embassy is currently investigating with the Polish authorities the bases on which the provisions of the decree are to be applied. Shortages of private and business accommodation for foreign business representatives continue to be a major problem in most Eastern European countries, though efforts arc being made, in a number of countries, to extend the availability of both.
ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL INFORMATION.
" 14. The differences in practice noted in the last report have continued. While the availability of commercial information in Bulgaria and the GDR has, if anything, worsened, Hungary issued its 1979 statistics year book in English for the first time.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
"15. Co-operation under bilateral agreements on science and technology and on the environment has continued satisfactorily. Earlier this month a high-level meeting on the environment was held in Geneva under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), at which representatives of the countries of Europe and North America signed a convention on Long Range Trans-Boundary Air Pollution and endorsed a declaration on Low and Non-Waste Technology.
BASKET III (CO-OPERATION IN HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER FIELDS)
HUMAN CONTACTS.
16. There have been indications of some deterioration in the record of certain countries whilst others have maintained their previous level of progress. In the Soviet Union overall implementation under this heading remains disappointing. A list of 23 long-standing personal cases, mainly involving resettlement in the United Kingdom, was submitted to the Soviet authorities in June and a further list, adding one new case, was submitted on 27th September. Only one of these cases has since been satisfactorily resolved. At least two applications for permanent residence in the Soviet Union by British wives have remained outstanding for almost a year.
" 17. In the GDR pensioners are still the main category of citizens normally granted exit visas for family reasons: they account for about 95 per cent. of successful applications. As regards non-pensioners, blood relatives are sometimes allowed to visit the United Kingdom for a family celebration or bereavement but the GDR policy in this respect has continued to be restrictive and arbitrary. In the other direction, a British subject who had previously lived in the GDR has been refused permission to visit her children and grandchildren in the GDR.
" 18. In Czechoslovakia, earlier indications that it would become easier for so-called 'illegal ' emigres to normalise their status and thus facilitate visits from relatives have not so far been borne out. Tourist visits to Western countries are increasingly limited for most Czechoslovaks by the rationing and inflated rate of foreign currency allowances.
" 19. In Romania there has been some improvement since the last report in the granting of
1658
applications for family meetings. Difficulties and delays at all stages of the exit process remain common. There has also been an improvement in the Romanian performance on bi-national marriages but sustained effort remains necessary to achieve this.
" 20. The performance in this area of Poland and Hungary has been good in most respects. The latest development in Hungary makes it possible for male applicants of military age to obtain exit permits. Hungarian tourism to and from Austria has grown rapidly following a Visa Abolition Agreement. Bulgarian implementation has shown some improvement.
INFORMATION
"21. There has been no change in the general availability of British and other Western non-Communist newspapers and periodicals in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The only British newspaper commonly available, but in small quantities, is the Morning Star, though a few of the larger tourist hotels have occasional copies of other papers. The major exception to this general rule is Poland, where small quantities of a relatively wide range of Western newspapers and magazines are available at normal points of sale.
"22. One major positive development has been the steady increase in the number of British hooks on sale to Soviet citizens. Altogether 20 bookshops in the Soviet Union now stock Western books, six of them in Moscow.
"23. The GDR authorities continue to impose severe restrictions on the information activities of diplomatic missions. On more than one recent occasion school-children who visited the British Embassy in East Berlin for material for a school project were detained and questioned by GDR police.
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR JOURNALISTS
"24. The harassment of individual foreign journalists in the Soviet Union has continued. The most important case concerning a journalist representing a British newspaper in the period under review involved direct and indirect attempts by the Soviet authorities to cut short the period of the correspondent's accreditation. The restrictions on the activities of foreign correspondents in the GDR introduced in April, together with the latest amendment to the Public Order Law, remain a considerable impediment to the free flow of information about events in the GDR. The facilities provided for British newspaper and television journalists visiting Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland have continued to improve. On the other hand, the practice of the Czechoslovak authorities on the granting of visas to Western journalists has remained somewhat arbitary.
CULTURE AND EDUCATION
"25. The implementation of the various bilateral cultural, educational and scientific exchange agreements has been generally satisfactory, though possibilities for co-operation remain considerably restricted in some countries. Late cancellation and postponement of some agreed visits from the Soviet Union and certain other countries is a continuing problem.
" In Romania the promotion of educational exchanges has been made more difficult by a new Education Law which prevents anyone with teaching duties, including most researchers, from leaving the country except in the summer vacation.
CONCLUSION
"26. The negative trends in the implementation of the humanitarian provisions of the Final Act identified in this report are viewed with concern by the Government, who continue to believe that the full and balanced implementation of the Final Act is an essential and integral part of genuine détente in Europe. Whilst the Government recognise the importance of the development of the military aspects of security in the context of the Madrid meeting, they cannot stress too strongly that, unless signatory governments are also prepared to fulfil the existing provisions of the Final Act, including its humanitarian dimension, the necessary minimum basis for confidence and trust on which such further measures depend cannot exist. The negative developments cited in this report are unlikely to improve the prospects for the Madrid review meeting in November 1980. The Government, in their regular contacts with other signatories of the Final Act between now and Madrid, will not hesitate to bring these shortcomings to the attention of those concerned in the hope of promoting that progress in implementation which will help ensure a successful outcome to the Madrid meeting."
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer—and I shall read the report with great interest—I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be as successful in trying to get more satisfactory answers out of Russia and the East European countries as they have recently been in negotiations elsewhere that we have been hearing about.

MAIN BATTLE TANK: NATO COLLABORATION
2.32 p.m.
Lord HILL-NORTON: 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 any of our NATO allies intend to adopt the United Kingdom design of the future Main Battle Tank.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords,
1660
may I be permitted to answer the Question which has just been asked.
We are now engaged in the first stage of development, the project definition phase, of the United Kingdom's new Main Battle Tank (MBT-80), which will start to replace Chieftain in the late 1980s. We believe that our design, mounting Chobham Armour and with a rifled bore gun and a diesel engine, will best match the Warsaw Pact armoured threat into the next century. It has not proved possible to collaborate with any of our NATO allies on the design of a complete tank, but we are continuing to explore the scope for collaboration on components.
Lord HILL-NORTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. May I ask him whether he will agree that a golden opportunity for standardisation has thereby been lost? Would he also agree that the operational and logistic disadvantages which flow from that loss are serious? Would he further agree that it may not be wise when we and our allies face the same threat on precisely the same ground to accept these disadvantages simply because the Leopard tank was not invented here?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord has invited me to agree with him on a number of issues. I will take note of the noble Lord's point of view and see that that is directed to the attention of my right honourable friend.

CUTS IN OVERSEAS AID
2.34 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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 provide information regarding the latest distribution of cuts in the overseas aid programme to individual territories.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, planning figures for aid disbursements are based on intentions and assumptions which may not be realised: aid commit-

1661
ments generally spread over several years and expenditure against such commitments fluctuates from one year to the next. The effect of the £50 million reduction in aid expenditure this year on individual countries varies according to the rate of disbursement of aid on different types of project. It would be misleading to try to break down the £50 million between individual countries.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and while appreciating that the Government cannot give an exact or precise breakdown of the projects affected by the cuts, may I ask whether an indication can be given of the countries most likely to be affected? Will the Government give an assurance in regard to future years that grants in respect of aid are maintained at the highest level?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give an indication of the countries upon which these cuts may fall. As I said in my original Answer, such an indication would be full of ambiguity and would be misleading.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, may I ask whether due consideration has been given to the probable extra needs in Rhodesia? If, as we all hope, things go well on the security and constitutional front, is it not highly desirable that generous aid should be provided in proper circumstances in order to maintain political stability there? Does not this mean that extra money will need to be provided in the aid programme?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we are certainly considering what we can do for Rhodesia in these new circumstances. However, it is exactly that type of reason which makes it so difficult to plan ahead accurately and give reliable forecasts of the amount of money that we are going to spend for individual countries when sudden and unforeseen demands upon our resources arise.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: May I ask whether the noble Lord will confirm that the sum of £27 million which he mentioned in the Statement yesterday refers exclusively to the costs of organising the pre-independence arrangements; that
1662
further sums will be allotted to the reconstruction of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia after independence; and that of course your Lordships' House will have every opportunity of discussing the amount and the purpose of that future sum? Secondly, would he—I am sure he will—confirm that in looking at the problems and possibilities in the future for Rhodesia under independence Her Majesty's Government will also pay close attention to the urgent needs of Zambia and indeed other neighbouring countries?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can certainly give the assurance that we will give urgent attention to the needs of Zambia and the neighbouring countries. With regard to the item of £27 million which was contained in the Statement which I repeated yesterday, I can confirm that that sum is specifically for expenditure incurred during the transitional period and is primarily the cost of the monitoring forces.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I find it a great pleasure to be able to support the noble Lord opposite in the tone of his Question. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, this question: in view of the fact that there are many countries that are allocating aid at a much higher percentage of their gross national product, irrespective of the question of economic status, is it not time that the Government of this country recognised that this is a priority need in the world in which we live? Will they reverse the policy that they have so far taken of cutting overseas aid, despite the low position that we hold in the league table of percentage of GNP?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think that we do too badly with our aid programme. We are planning to spend in the current year something like £790 million on our total aid programme, which I do not think is too bad. As the noble Lord reminds me, that is about 0·3 per cent. of our gross national product, which is a lot of money all the same when one actually has to write the cheque for it. We are absolutely determined to keep our aid programme, and all our other expenditure programmes, within our resources.

THE BINGHAM REPORT
2.40 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be repeating a Statement that will be made in another place on the Bingham Report.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare) rose to move, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The Report was as follows:
PRAYERS
The Committee have considered a proposal to increase the choice of psalms for use at Prayers. The Committee recommended that, for an experimental period of one year, the Bishop reading Prayers should be able to choose from a further ten psalms, or passages from psalms, in addition to the present five.
2. FACILITIES FOR MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The Committee have considered a report from a Sub-committee appointed to advise on what facilities of the House might be made available to members of the European Parliament. The Sub-committee consisted of the following Lords:

The Chairman of Committees

L. Ampthill

L. Denham

V. Eccles

L. Edmund-Davies

L. Hayter

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Wigoder

The Sub-committee had recommended that the House of Lords should, subject to any relevant security considerations, issue passes to members of the European Parliament to enable them to gain access to the Peers' Lobby and thence to the Galleries of the House, if there were room. The Sub-committee further recommended that, in granting any other facilities, the House should proceed in step with the House of Commons.
The Committee also considered a memorandum by Viscount Hood proposing the acceptance by the House of a recommendation made by the European Communities Committee in their 44th Report of Session 1977–78 that members of the European Parliament should be invited to use all the facilities of the House and have seats reserved for them below the Bar and in the Members' Gallery.
The Committee are aware of the desirability of fostering a close relationship between members of the House of Lords and members of the European Parliament. It was pointed out,
1664
however, that there are considerable difficulties in extending to members of the European Parliament an invitation to use many of those amenities of the House currently available to Peers. Pressure in the Library, in the Dining Room and on accommodation generally is such that services to Peers would be restricted if members of the European Parliament were entitled to use these facilities. The view was expressed that there were difficulties of principle in inviting members of the European Parliament to use facilities which are not available even to Members of Parliament.
The Committee share the view of their Subcommittee that, while progress in the direction proposed by the European Communities Committee is desirable, it should be made in step with the House of Commons. They. therefore, recommend that the Chairman of Committees should consult as a matter of urgency with the appropriate authorities of the House of Commons to determine a joint approach to this question.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE.
The Committee agreed to an increase in the authorised complement of Clerks to 20, plus one seconded.
The Committee were informed of the promotion of Mr. D. Beamish and Mr. J. Maude to Senior Clerk and of the appointment of Miss Meryll Rowena Dean as Legal Assistant in the Overseas Office in the place of Miss P. M. Smith, resigned.
4. LIBRARY
The Committee agreed to the installation of a Prestel information service television receiver on a permanent basis.
The Committee also agreed that one of the full-time temporary cataloguer posts be made permanent.
5. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Committee approved provision for the payment of revised subsistence allowances to delegates to European Asssmblies.
6. POLICE
The Committee agreed to an increase in the administration charge under the agreement with the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District for the supply of police services.
7. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application of the following Civil Service Memoranda:—

(a)CM/379—London Weighting

(b)CM/390—Responsibility Allowances

(c)CM/394—Subsistence and meal allowances.

giving revised rates of pay and allowances to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
8. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee sanctioned a revision in the Official Shorthand Writer's scale of fees.
9. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised a revision in the fees payable to transcribers and temporary reporters.
10. EXPENSES OF SELECT COMMITTEES
The Committee authorised a revision in the rate of pay of temporary Research Assistants.
11. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mr. R. J. Skelton, M.B.E., Higher Executive Officer, who retires on 1st January 1980.

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. K. H. Allen, Cleaner, who retired on 13th May 1979.

(c) Preserved pension and lump sum to Mr. D. G. Marchant, Executive Officer, who resigned on 12th May 1979.

(d) Preserved pension and lump sum to Miss A. P. Johns, Personal Secretary who resigned on 9th March 1979.

(e) Short service payment to Miss P. M. Smith, Legal Assistant, who resigned on 31st August 1979.

(f) Short service payment to Mrs. E. L. Field, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 7th December 1979.

(g) Short service payment to Mr. K. J. Hayes, Clerical Officer, who resigned on 6th July 1979.

(h) Revised short service payment to Mrs. G. Robertson, née Holland, Senior Personal Secretary, who resigned on 11th May 1979.

(I) Transfer value payment to British Broadcasting Corporation in respect of Mr. M. J. Price, Clerical Officer, who resigned on 22nd December 1978.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the Third Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords Offices Committee be agreed to, I think I should draw your Lordships' attention in particular to item 2 of the report: facilities for Members of the European Parliament. That raises questions of fundamental importance to this House. When it was considered in the Committee, differing views were expressed. There were those who supported a memorandum which had been submitted by the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, which advocated that Members of the European Parliament should be invited to use all the facilities of this House and have seats reserved for them below the Bar and in the Members' Gallery.
There were others who preferred the view that had been taken by a subcommittee of the Offices Committee which, while extremely sympathetic to the wish to keep a good liaison with Members of the European Parliament, took the view that facilities of this House are already under heavy pressure and that it would be unwise to undertake further and as yet unknown commitments. However, that sub-committee recommended that we might consider a special system of passes for the Members of the European Parlia-
1666
ment, which would give them access to the Peers' Lobby and thence into the Galleries.
I think I should also point out that the sub-committee, when it deliberated, had available decisions made by the Library Committee and the Refreshment Subcommittee. In the event, the Offices Committee made no decision, but I was invited to consult with appropriate authorities in another place in order that we could co-ordinate our approach to this matter. This I have done, and I have every hope that I shall be invited to attend a meeting next month at which these matters will be discussed. Finally, I should like to say that in my opinion it is of extreme importance that we keep in step on this matter with another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say that in an odd way I am wearing two hats. I was once Leader of your Lordships' House and also I know the difficulties from the point of view of the other place. However, I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has put it correctly: we must be very careful about this. We do not have the accommodation here, or certain facilities. This applies even to another place. Therefore, I welcome what he has said and I support him wholeheartedly.
Viscount HOOD: My Lords, I had the opportunity of airing the differences between my view and that of the subcommittee of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in the Offices Committee last week, and I do not intend to go over the same ground today. However, there is one comment I should like to make on the final paragraphs of section 2 of the report. I am sure it is desirable to keep in step, if we possibly can, with the House of Commons. A joint approach, if it can be contrived, is, I am sure, the better solution, and not least for the Members of the European Parliament. But all that depends on the willingness of the House of Commons to move positively in the desired direction and to move soon, because our whole relationship with the Members of the European

1667
Parliament is liable to go sour if the problem is not tackled positively and quickly. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will find the House of Commons authorities receptive and constructive; but if, in, say, two months' time, he is unable to report progress, then I think your Lordships should seriously consider taking independent action.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that my last appearance as Chairman of the European Select Committee should be in a short debate on the report of the Offices Committee. I have spoken on this subject in your Lordships' House on two occasions and, more numerously, on sub-committees. I would hesitate to run the risk of tiring your Lordships yet again by repeating arguments I have put in the past. However, I was yesterday instructed by the Select Committee, without dissent, to speak in this debate and to put their points of view. When one recalls that the European Committee and its sub-committees muster, above all, the support of over 100 noble Lords, one realises that this is a body of opinion which must be taken into account when important matters are under consideration.
Therefore, I comply with the request of the committee and put my point of view. First, I should like very much indeed to thank the Chairman of Committees, not only for his personal kindness to me but also for the magnificent way in which he serves the interests of the House, and not least in chairing the Offices Committee.
I thank the Committee for the report that he has brought to us. In many respects it is disappointing, but the noble Lords on the Select Committee appreciate the difficulties which have to be overcome and they welcome the fact that the Lord President has stressed the urgency of further discussions with another place. I think it is difficult to exaggerate the tragedy it would be if we got out of touch with our fellow legislators in Strasbourg. They can be of the most tremendous help to us, not least as a channel of information about European thinking and the pressures we are about to be put under by
1668
actions of the European Community. To deny ourselves the contact that would be provided if the report of the European Select Committee had been accepted would be a great disappointment. We have done everything that we can in this House to help European Members of Parliament. They are most grateful for the help they have had from us, but there is nevertheless a feeling of alienation on their part which nobody who has talked to the European Members could fail to detect. I think it would be a very great pity if this alienation continued.
I should like to remind members of Her Majesty's Government that so long as there is no direct personal contact, as there tends nowadays not to be, we are going to see more and more occasions such as the one recently when Parliament and the Council of Ministers fell out with each other. I think that would be a very great pity indeed. We believe in the Select Committee that a sense of shared responsibility, created in an atmosphere of easy informality in the Palace of Westminster, is of the greatest importance. It transcends the various physical difficulties which we appreciate do exist but which nevertheless we do not believe are insuperable. So, my Lords, 1 would thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for having instilled this note of urgency into our consideration of the problem, and express the hope that the practical results will be not too long delayed, because I believe that the European Parliament and this Parliament would both benefit from closer contact than we have at the present time.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to add just a brief word in support of what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood. I do not think we should be too embarrassed if we are in some respects a little ahead of the Commons. In fact, the work that is being done by the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and by the sub-committees in studying the regulations and proposals of the Commission—the reports that have been made in this House—in their content and interest have really been outstanding. This House has absolutely made the pace. I have not noticed any resentment in the Commons. I think that Members

1669
of the Commons who are interested will be very grateful to your Lordships for the tremendous job that has been done in this respect.
Of course, the fact is that it is common knowledge that there is a great deal of personal political opposition in the Commons to the European Commission and the general concept of the Common Market, which is undoubtedly gumming-up the wheels in all these structures outside the House, and possibly inside the House as well. Therefore, it is not in the nature of things to expect the House of Commons to move quickly on this matter. I very much support what the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, has said, that of course, in principle, we wish to see the House of Commons take a lead in these matters. But if it appears that they really just are not capable of doing so, I feel it is in the interests of Britain and of Parliament as a whole that we should push discreetly on ourselves.
What could be done? Let me briefly say a word. I have had a lot of experience of the Refreshment Committee; and what could be done there quite easily, without inconvenience to ourselves, is to invite MEPs to use the single Peers' side of the Dining Room. There is a very quick turnover. After all, all 61 of them are not coming at once. There probably would not be more than a handful of them at any time. So they could come in, have a meal, rub shoulders with us, and use the guest room and have a drink, on the understanding that they cannot bring in guests because our facilities are too limited.
In the Library, why should they not ask for a book or for information if they want it, provided that they do not try to sit down in the Library, which would be very difficult to do, and are restricted to using the common room upstairs? This is a facility which we could offer them. It seems to me that if we want to do something for them, we can find a way of doing it by giving them some facilities which will make them feel that we want to be friends with them, we want to have contact with them and we see benefit in it for us and for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has said. So I hope that my noble friend Lord Aberdare, having listened to these cogent words from noble Lords and myself, will
1670
be willing, as his last paragraph indicates, to continue to look at this with a view to seeing whether we could do something to make these people feel that we want to have a friendly relationship with them, and are prepared to go to the absolute ultimate to do it.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I should not feel honest if I sat here and did not raise my voice. I am glad to learn that there is political opposition in another place to this proposal. I certainly oppose it, but I am not going to speak for any length of time. I did not vote in the European election. I used all the influence I had to dissuade other people from voting. I am opposed to the Common Market. I think that entry to the Common Market was fatal to this country, and I shall do all I can to take us out. Therefore, I want at least one voice to say, "I am opposed".
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, having just returned from a committee meeting at the European Parliament, I should like to say how much I agree with the three speakers, my noble friend Lord Nugent, the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, who expressed their disappointment that the House of Lords Offices Committee was not able to go a little further in providing facilities for my colleagues in the European Parliament. I think I can safely say that among my colleagues there is very great admiration for your Lordships' House, and for the work that has been done over Europe since the Lord Maybray-King Committee of 1972. The reports of our Scrutiny Committee are some of the wonders of Strasbourg and have been studied with great care by all the Community institutions. Many of my colleagues hoped that the House of Lords would take a lead over this matter, and were encouraged to believe this by the Forty-Fourth Report of 1977–78.
It is a fact, whatever other noble Lords have said, that our facilities in this House are less stretched than those of another place, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent that if there was a real will to find some place for them in this House a way could be found. But I am afraid that there is more to this than meets the eye. I have been observing the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition during

1671
this short debate. He said very little about the report, but he has been making some noises of disagreement to the previous speakers. I wish that we could have heard a little more about them, because it seems to me that the reasons that have been advocated may be due not entirely to a lack of facilities in your Lordships' House, but to a political disagreement among noble Lords opposite and their honourable friends in another place.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I intervene? I believe that the noble Lord has got it wrong. I am not at all anti-Europe in any way. What I was saying was that I think the report of the Select Committee is sensible. It explains how, even now, we lack accommodation facilities for noble Lords. The facilities are dreadful. With noble Lords sharing desks, the position is disgraceful. I believe that even in the Commons there is still a shortage of accommodation. All I am saying is that if you do this you must go very cautiously, but I think that the report is very sensible.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I had not quite finished my speech. I am very glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has given that further explanation. I trust that that is the only reason why he advocates caution in this matter, and that it is not because of any opposition to the idea of the European Community on behalf of some of his noble and honourable friends.
I should like to conclude by saying that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent, that if we are unable to make any further substantial progress during the next few weeks or two or three months, we must seriously consider taking the lead on this matter. We must seriously consider what facilities we can provide for Members of the European Parliament, because if we do nothing, if we wait too long, then this mood of alienation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, referred, will grow, further misunderstandings will happen, similar to the one that happened three weeks ago, and the national interest will suffer.
2.57 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, to ensure that my noble friend Lord Wigg will not be completely isolated, I want to endorse his remarks 100 per cent. I, too, am opposed to this proposal which I think is a lot of damned nonsense. It certainly is irrelevant. What would we gain by it? So far as I can understand, the European Members of Parliament are going to be able to come and sit alongside us in the Peers' Dining Room and have a meal at somewhat lower cost than they would have to pay outside. I do not see why we should provide them with benefits of that character. Besides, this so-called liaison is a bit of a farce. The other week I read in the newspapers—those organs of unimpeachable veracity, which always tell the truth—that they voted against the EEC budget. Did they consult us before doing so? Are they likely to consult us in future, before taking action of that kind? Are we to understand that "liaison" means that they will ask for instructions before they take action against the Council of Ministers and the Commission? These are very pertinent questions. They may be regarded as impertinent, but I do not mind either. It will suit me.
This kind of thing will not do. After all, what shall we gain by this liaison? What is going to happen? Does it mean that we shall be able to exercise a measure of control over the activities and transactions of the European Parliament? Of course not. They would not agree to that. If we said to them, "Before you do anything come and consult us, take instructions from us. We had something to do with your election, however minimal it might have been. Therefore, take no action before you ascertain the opinion of your superiors—we are the superiors ", would that happen? Of course not. So I suggest that we do not allow this to pass. We should refer it back to the Select Committee and the Select Committee should consider whether this kind of liaison will be effective. Is it going to be relevant? Is it going to produce beneficial results? We are entitled to ask these questions.
Finally, I just want to say this. I fully appreciate that the majority of Members of your Lordships' House are in favour of the Common Market. I deplore it. Many, many years ago I

1673
said in another place that it would prove to be disastrous. If the Common Market has not proved disastrous, it is very near it. Certainly it has not proved to be very effective. I have said much the same in your Lordships' House. I have been against the Common Market from the start. The whole thing has proved to be a farce and of no benefit to us.
I do not suggest, because of my opinion about it, that we should withdraw from the Common Market. Once you have joined it is very difficult to withdraw. We should have thought about that beforehand and also about all the things which have happened since we joined—the high cost of living and the disputes with France. Not a word has been said about that. If we want liaison, that is the kind of liasion to have so that we and our colleagues in the Common Market act consistently and work towards what are supposed to be the beneficial results to be derived from the Treaty of Accession. None of this has happened. I think the time has come to speak out; so I speak out, along with my noble friend Lord Wigg. If there is to be liaison, let it be effective liaison. Let us decide what action should be taken, but before any action is taken the Members of the European Parliament should consider what are our views on this particular subject.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, have had the privilege of serving on one of the sub-committees of the European Communities Committee. From the picture which the noble Lord gave to us, I did not recognise what goes on in those sub-committees. My own feeling and experience is that both the Select Committee representing your Lordships' House and the Members of the European Parliament are trying to make something work and that it is enormously helpful to both sides to be able to put some colour into what otherwise are rather difficult and stodgy documents. I have not the slightest doubt that we, and therefore, to the extent that we serve your Lordships' House, your Lordships' House, have benefited a great deal from these contacts. A good many Members of this House were Members of the European Parliament, though unfortunately there are not so many of them now. I
1674
have not the slightest doubt that they and therefore the Parliament that they were helping to try to work, benefited from being able to talk things over in a friendly, sensible atmosphere. Both sides were trying to make an obviously difficult and experimental institution work.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will discuss this matter dispassionately. Nobody can accuse me of being a Common Marketeer. I have always been opposed to it. However, when we look at this report, in which it is suggested that Euro-Members of Parliament should invade this place from their own Parliament abroad, I think it is carrying things far too far. If you are a Euro-MP your Parliament is in Strasbourg; it is not here. If Euro-MPs want access to this place, their friends can bring them in as visitors. They can have their contacts in exactly the same way as any Member of Parliament here can bring in a visitor. When all is said and done, we cannot allow Members of the European Parliament to enjoy the privileges of this place after they have been elected to sit in the European Parliament. A terrible fight went on in the House of Commons about this issue and a big fight is still going on. I agree with the Select Committee that we should keep in step with the House of Commons on this big issue.
I think there ought to be a Select Committee made up of representatives of the two Houses to determine what the position ought to be. But I do not think that Euro-MPs should be allowed to come into the House of Lords for, by God!, the facilities are bad enough as it is without making them worse. So I suggest to the Government that they should set up a Select Committee, made up of Members of the two Houses, who could then have a go at this problem. But, by God!, we must not let the European Parliament control either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, because it has been suggested that those who have facilities to offer may not really want to offer them I feel that I must say something as chairman of the Library Committee. That is not true of the Library Committee. We were very sympathetic to the idea that Members of the European Parliament should be allowed to use some

1675
of our facilities, but we had to take into account facts which your Lordships know very well; namely, that the services offered today by the Library are steadily coming into greater demand. It is not as though we can measure the burden on the staff of the Library by what is happening now, because the trend is very definitely upwards. That being the case, and because we are confined on the one hand by accommodation—we have no further accommodation into which to expand—and on the other by the number of our staff, we felt that it was not right at present to throw open the doors of the Library. One of the things which it would be impossible to do would be to allow Members of the European Parliament to come in and ask questions but not to sit down. I do not know what scenes would then take place! My opinion is that, if we could admit them, we could offer certain resources—European documents and so on—which no doubt would be useful. At any rate, we could offer to let them have a terminal link-up with our data base on European affairs. They could have this in a building which I understand they are to have quite close to hand.
I have one other point to make to your Lordships. It is very difficult to envisage going far ahead of the Commons. This is not because I would not wish your Lordships from time to time to take the initiative. But this is only one building. If we were to admit Members of the European Parliament into our part of the Palace of Westminster, who could keep them out of the other part? It would be very difficult. I should like your Lordships to take a lead—and if the other place were to be deeply intransigent perhaps your Lordships should do so—but it is as well to be aware of the fact that we live in one Palace and that this will make difference of treatment very difficult.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while supporting those who would like to see greater facilities for Members of the European Parliament, may I ask a short and simple question regarding another paragraph of this report, because there is more than paragraph 2 to this report. Paragraph 6 refers to the increase in the administration charge under the agreement
1676
with the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District. May I ask what the present charge is and what the future charge is likely to be? It is common talk among police officers of all ranks that this building and its surroundings are more extravagantly staffed with police officers than any other place in London and that it is very hard to justify.
3.10 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, may I very briefly—because many remarks have already been made on this important matter—support the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, and my noble friend Lord Greenwood in the remarks which they have made and answer one or two of the points which were raised by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. This morning I was at a meeting of Sub-Committee D of your Lordships' European Select Committee and there we had evidence from two United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. They were vehement in supporting any suggestion which would increase the contacts between them and us. They believed that it would add enormously to the effectiveness of their work and make them—not represent our views; they would not, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell suggested, take instructions from us but they would find it very much easier to understand what was going on in our minds and they paid us the compliment of saying that because of the work of your Lordships' Select Committee we were in a good position to advise them concerning that. Simply coming once or twice a year in order to give evidence, while valuable in itself was no substitute for a much more frequent and informal contact of the sort which could exist if they had certain facilities within the Palace of Westminster. That seems to me to be very strong evidence in favour of taking some positive steps to enable this to be done.
I do not think it is vitally important that they should have access to the Library facilities. They have as good, probably even in some respects better, library and information facilities at their own disposal. I do not think there is any need whatsoever for them to have offices here or to have desks or chairs of their own or anything of that kind, but it is of enormous importance and value that they should feel free to come at least into

1677
our end of the Palace of Westminster—because after all that is all we are concerned with here—not as visitors and asking for cards to be filled in but of their own right, so that they may have at least one place (the Peers' guest room) where they may drink with us and one place where they can have a meal or a cup of tea. There are no great numbers involved. I am ashamed to say that I cannot remember the total number of European Members of Parliament. I believe it is 80 or so.
A noble Lord: Seventy-two without the dual mandate.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, we must remember that it is only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays that these facilities are of any significance, and on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for at least three weeks in every month the European Members of Parliament are engaged elsewhere and would never use it: there are very few occasions when more than half a dozen of them would be here at the same time, and to say that we do not have enough room at our bar to allow those half dozen people to have drinks is either a complete misapprehension of the facts or is suggesting that your Lordships are even more alcoholically prone than I think you are. The same goes for the facilities in the dining room.
As to the question of keeping in step with another place, I think there is a lot to be said for keeping in step with all one's partners, but there is no point in keeping in step if the steps which your partners are proposing to take are stationary steps. If they are going to take a step forward, let us step forward with them; if they are going to do no more than mark time, I myself do not wish to hold their hands while we mark time and do nothing. So, while I think it is very reasonable and diplomatic for the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees to talk with them, I think we should take no action until we re-assemble in January. If by that time no agreement has been reached to enable us to make some modest progress along the lines I have outlined, then I suggest that we should forget about keeping in step and should march forward on our own.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, being a member of the Select
1678
Committee on the European Communities, I should like to make two points very briefly. First, I hope that my noble friend the acting Leader of the House will, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, take into account and consider carefully what was said by the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. Secondly, as it is the occasion of his last utterance in that capacity, I should like to say how much I, and I think other members of the Committee, have appreciated his chairmanship. I am sure they would agree with me that it has been characterised by his wisdom and his dedication to the effective working of the Committee.
3.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might be permitted to add my remarks of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for what he has done on the European Committees, because he has guided them through very difficult, controversial and extremely complicated legislation, and indeed he has guided the whole House. I think the House owes him a great debt of gratitude for what he has done. I agree so much with what he said, that the House—and indeed Parliament—should not get out of touch with the European Members of Parliament. I think he is absolutely right in that: Westminster should not get out of touch with what goes on in Europe, and the European Members should not get out of touch with what goes on in Westminster. I believe everyone will agree with that, with the possible exceptions of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who feel that they do not like the thing anyhow and want to be shot of it. But to most people the European Parliament is there and we have to make a success of it. It would he a great pity if we could not keep in step.
The difficulty arises as to exactly how we get into step and how we can keep in contact. Some of us, like my noble friend Lord Bethell, have the advantage of being able to keep in contact by coming here, but that does not apply to everyone, and the proposal made by the Offices Committee is clearly one which does not achieve a unanimity of view. That is the reason why I suggest that it is undesirable to proceed too far along the line suggested this afternoon while there is a substantial

1679
section of opinion within the House with serious doubts about offering access to European Members and their using facilities such as the Library and the Dining Room. I can understand the arguments which have been put forward about the Library, but I am bound to say that I thought my noble friend Lord Nugent made an extraordinary suggestion for one who is so generous, namely, to invite them into the Library but to tell them that they cannot sit down. I should always be hesitant if my noble friend were to invite me out to a meal—which I do not expect he would—
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware that there arc many occasions when I go to the Library to ask for something but when it is impossible to sit down? That must be a common experience for all your Lordships because the accommodation is so limited. So the European Members would be doing no more than anyone else has to do.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not have any hesitation in routing me out of a chair if I am occupying it when he wishes to go to the Library.
It is difficult to proceed with this suggestion when there are a number of people who have serious reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that if necessary we should go step by step with the House of Commons provided they are moving forwards, but he did not want to be a party to it if they were going to stand still. There again we have the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eccles, that if you give people access to one part of the House how are you going to prevent them from going into another part of the House? If we wish to do this in your Lordships' House we have the problem of thinking how we are to control the situation if those in another place do not wish to take the same action. That is why I think there is much to be said for trying to do this in step with another place.
After all, my Lords, this particular report is not the end of the matter. The noble Lord the Lord Chairman has been asked by the Committee to consult the
1680
appropriate authorities in another place with a view to trying to determine a joint approach to the question. I should have thought that that was really the better way to proceed, to have these joint discussions, and that the Offices Committee might then be able to suggest a further step forward. But as it stands at the moment I hope the House may feel that the best thing to do is to accept the report as it is and to see what transpires after that.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, before the noble Earl the Leader of the House sits down I must ask this question. In considering these facilities will he also bear in mind that there are two of us who do not wish to mix with the Members of the European Parliament; and therefore can we be provided with facilities so that we do not have to mix with them?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that, of course, is a matter for the whole House, and no doubt the whole House will consider the noble Lord's view.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I think I should just thank all those of your Lordships who have taken part in this short debate. I ought to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for his kind remarks to me, but I think it much more appropriate on this occasion that we should be joining with my noble friend the Leader of the House and others who have thanked him for the very able way in which he has done his duties and for the very balanced speech he made today.
I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that there certainly was no political implication in the consideration given by the Select Committee. If he looks at the membership of the subcommittee he will see that there are people there from all shades of opinion. All that this debate has done is to underline the same differences of opinion as there were in the committee. Obviously these will eventually have to be resolved. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, seemed to think that I was responsible for the report. This is the report of the Select Committee; I am in their hands and eventually in the hands of the House as to what decision we make. I would suggest that the advice given by the Leader of the House on this occasion is wise advice, to

1681
accept the report for the moment; it does not commit your Lordships in any way. I will continue to see whether I can initially mark time and perhaps later on move forward in step with another place.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who raised the subject of police costs, under paragraph 6, that I have not the figures here at the moment but I shall be delighted to show them to him afterwards if he wishes. This item was gone into very carefully by the Finance Sub-Committee. Of course police costs in this building are very high; this is a very difficult building to protect and it is greatly exposed to possible threats at the moment. I would myself think that the police do an extremely good job in protecting this very difficult place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la.

TRAINING IN INDUSTRY
3.22 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE rose to call attention to the present statutory arrangements for encouraging training in industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have pleasure in introducing the Motion standing in my name. I only hope that this debate can be as enlightened as the one we have just had, which was unscheduled. There were more speakers in that debate than there are going to be in ours. I am going to confine my remarks—because there is so much one could say on this subject —to the question of the industrial training boards which were established under the 1964 Industrial Training Act. I am limiting my remarks to those boards for reasons which will become obvious, and partly because it is those boards which are concerned with the training of the majority of people in employment in this country. It is those boards which have pioneered in this field in a remarkable way.
In an earlier speech, to which I shall be referring, I described the 1964 Act as one of the most enlightened Acts in the previous 10 years. It was remarkable in that it brought together representatives of the employers and the employees and the educational clement for the first time to study the problem of training in industry. In this role they did a first-class job. Apart from those training boards, I will not say very much about the 1973 Act, because in my humble opinion that was a bit of a disaster. It was unfortunate for the training boards that that Act had to come before Parliament at all. It came about only as a result of pressures from outside Parliament by people who were offended at any sort of interference in their activities and who made these complaints before the training boards had had time to get going. One might even say, from the point of view of the training boards but of course not from any other, that it was unfortunate that my noble friends and I got into power in 1970; it would have been much better if we had got into power in 1974. At that stage the boards were established and attitudes to them would have been much more balanced and sensible.
My Lords, having said that by way of introduction, I should now like to make some reference to a speech I made in your Lordships' House on 21st January 1970. That is nearly 10 years ago, and, most surprisingly—because I am sure most noble Lords, like myself, often regret what we have said 10 years before—in this particular case I do not regret it one little bit. In fact, I think that that speech represents my views very well now, though there are some remarks which I have made on this subject in the intervening years of which I am not so proud.
In this particular case there were three points I made which I am going to ask the Government to consider once again. Your Lordships must remember that this speech was made before there was any thought of a Manpower Services Commission. I suggested that it would take 10 to 15 years before we could tell whether the training board concept was a good one. It is now roughly 15 years since the Act was passed and the first boards were being set up, and it is just about 10 years since the board on which I had the honour to serve, the Distributive Industry

1683
Training Board, was set up in 1969. For that reason, this is an appropriate time to have this debate. That is why I put down this Motion and hoped to have an opportunity of presenting the argument to your Lordships.
Another point that I made in my speech at that time was that I recommended that boards should be inspected at intervals of five or six years. I thought that they should be left alone to get on with the job in the meantime but that there should be an inspectorate set up to examine them and to see whether they were doing the job properly. I shall return later to consider what the inspectorate should do. I also suggested in that speech that perhaps some 20 years after their establishment the boards might well be reorganised; some of them might be merged, some of them might be closed down. I shall return to that later. The reason why I chose time intervals of that sort was because training boards are in the attitude changing business and attitudes change very slowly. I am sure that any of your Lordships who have had occasion to try to persuade people to change their attitudes on a large scale, or even on a small one for that matter, will have found that it takes a long time for it to come about. Fifteen years is roughly half a generation, and it is roughly that sort of time that is required for what I call essential truths to sink in.
My Lords, I should like to invite the Government to consider two special measures. I should hope—though I am fearful that it is not the case—that they could do this without primary legislation. If not, I can see that it may take time, and I do not think that we have much time. We must get on with what has to be done in this area.
The first matter that I would request the Government to consider is relaxing what I call the "iron grip" of the Manpower Services Commission on the industrial training boards. I shall consider later how that iron grip is, in my opinion, misplaced and should not have come about. I should also like to suggest to the Government that the Department of Employment should resume responsibility for the money, and that the money should be controlled by the Department of State concerned and not through an extra outstanding commission.
I should like to invite the Government, in taking responsibility for the money, to take account of industrial training boards' net income from levy in deciding on a variable block grant to them. The problem is that some training boards have a great deal of money from the levy —indeed, it is still flowing in—while others do not have nearly enough. There is an imbalance. There are complications in what I suggest, because what I am effectively saying is that the amount of money from the Exchequer, if any, should be given to the boards which need it, but not to the ones which do not. It might be thought unfair by industries if Government money was given to some boards but not to others. However, the present situation is a nonsense.
I suggest that there should be a block grant for the money, rather than the very carefully controlled system that presently applies, because I believe that the boards would do a very much better job—and certainly would get on much better with the industries which they are trying to persuade to do good training—if they were freed from too much organisational control from above. So, let there be a block grant and then let them get on with the job.
Finally, as regards money, if there are any restraints perhaps they could be removed. However, there is quite a lot of evidence that many of the people who have the services of the training boards would be very happy to pay for them. If that is the case, I suggest that it is wholly sensible and suitable that those services should be paid for. The problem as regards allocating the services of the boards satisfactorily is that the people who really need the services—that is, the smaller companies—cannot afford to pay for them, but in many cases the bigger ones can and would do so.
I turn to the Manpower Services Commission. I suggest to the Government that it would be better employed getting on with the jobs which are not connected with industrial training boards, rather than spending an enormous amount of its time trying to direct training boards which are very well equipped and in all cases have very capable staff and do not require the backseat driving that they receive. The Manpower Services Commission, after all, has very important jobs

1685
to do that are not connected with training boards. For example, something like 25 per cent. of employees in this country are in nationalised industries or Government bodies of one sort or another and they need to be encouraged more definitely to introduce good training practices themselves. Some of them are good, but some are not so good.
There is the problem of the unemployed, which is part of the Manpower Services Commission's responsibility. That is a matter to which one would have thought it ought to devote its most important and capable employees. In another debate on this subject I suggested that it was time we stopped looking upon the unemployed as just statistics—which sadly they are—and turned them into names and involved the local authorities in feeling responsible for reducing the unemployment problem. That sort of situation could well be encouraged by the Manpower Services Commission if it devoted its main efforts in that direction.
The commission also runs the skill centres and the TOPS schemes, and that kind of thing, for people who are not employed in training boards, and it could give its efforts in that direction. It could also give encouragement to schools to prepare children for work—that is a whole area which again brings it into contact with the local authorities in which it could well do development work. As regards the industrial training boards, its role should be a liaison one rather than a controlling one. Of course, there is much they they can do together, but in partnership, not in the role of master and servant.
It might be thought that this debate is mistimed because the Manpower Services Commission is at this moment conducting an inquiry into the whole future of the national training problem or some similar subject. I would beg to differ with that view for two reasons. One reason is that I should have thought that this was the time to air the subject in your Lordships' House. The other reason is that with the best possible will in the world I do not think it quite appropriate for a body to conduct its own inquiry into itself. I should have thought it would have been wiser—and perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of this—if some external body could have reviewed
1686
the situation, or the Government themselves, but not a party to the process which will presumably come down in its own favour. Indeed, it would be very surprising if it did not do so.
I should like to pass on to what l call "lessons". Some of these lessons may not sound too good, but I shall start with one which might sound better to everyone. I think that we can take a lesson from the organisation of the Manpower Services Commission and its currently subordinate bodies. It is excessively over-organised. Similar bodies which were set up or reorganised at roughly the same time—and sadly they were all done by my noble and right honourable friends—were the Health Service and local government. In all three cases they were over-organised. I am certain that noble Lords opposite, if they found themselves in the same situation, would have made the same mistake in the early 1970s. It was done in what I call the age of the "management consultancy wizards ", who had the answers to every problem. They persuaded my noble and right honourable friends that if we had to have a new Health Service we had to have tons of administrators in all the right slots. They did much the same with the Manpower Services Commission, and that is part of the problem.
Another lesson which is parallel. but which might not be quite so palatable to noble Lords opposite, is what I call the Rolls-Royce and NEB situation. Rolls-Royce says that it does not want to have this body between it and the Government. Why should it not say that? It has perfectly capable people. I am saying the same about the training boards. There can be too many levels of command, and the more levels of command we have the further are the people who ultimately pay the money from those who know what is going on. Intermediate bodies like the Manpower Services Commission, worthy people though they are, are not capable of understanding all the problems at the working level of training in industry.
I turn to action. I would not expect my noble friend to make an immediate comment on what I have to say. Indeed, I would rather that he did not do so, because his remarks would be very much off the cuff. However. I hope that

1687
he will give very serious consideration to it.
I should like to see introduced an inspectorate of State-aided training organisations which would inspect the training boards and the Manpower Services Commission at about five-yearly intervals and in the meantime leave them to get on with their work. The present system, with a rolling budget or whatever it is called, means that the Manpower Services Commission is breathing down the necks of the training boards all the time, particularly twice a year. The members of the training boards are all very competent—they were even more competent when they were freer—and should be allowed to get on with their work in the meantime.
This inspectorate would probably best be housed—born for victuals, as one would say in the Navy—in the NEDO organisation so that it was independent. It would strictly be independent and, of course, have a very small staff. I should be happy to tell any noble Lord later how it would conduct its business, but I do not want to waste the time of the House now. Having been set up, in its first inspection its main task would be to assess whether or not boards have done their job and can be wound up. I believe that some boards have, or have jolly nearly, done so, and can be wound up with grateful thanks for a job well done.
The inspectorate should also look at whether some boards might be combined with other boards of roughly similar responsibility, so as to economise in the total effort. For example, in some boards of which I have a knowledge over half the firms that should pay the levy to them are totally exempted from paying it because they train well enough. There is every reason to suppose that they will continue to do so. But there would probably have to be some means of dragging them back if the board was wound up altogether. A possibility would perhaps be a merger. That would be the first thing to be done. It cannot be done by the Manpower Services Commission because it is too bossy. We need an external agency to do that job.
A third point, which would be a continuing one for every inspection—so would the other points but they would
1688
become less important as the years went by—is whether the operation of the boards was efficiently carried out. I fear that it is not always. Here I draw the attention of noble Lords to what I thought was a very inspiring article by my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Heseltine published in last Sunday's Sunday Times. He was putting on paper a talk which he gave to the Westminster branch of the British Institute of Management about three weeks ago. In it he drew attention to the fact that it is extremely difficult to find out whether a public body is efficiently run. Where a body does not have the discipline of the market forces, it is extremely difficult to make the right judgment. I commend to your Lordships—and this has nothing to do with politics—the article of my right honourable friend published in last Sunday's Sunday Times, because it sets problems to which he admits he does not have the answer, but to which we must collectively find the answers in dealing with this large number of bodies, which include central Government, local government and what people perhaps unfairly call Quangos.
Finally—and I am sorry that I am taking quite so long—I should like to conclude my remarks by setting out the basic points. We must have flexibility in administration, particularly in relation to the financing of the training boards. We must lessen the levels of authority between the boards and their ultimate paymasters, the Government. We must—and this is very important—restore the boards to their industries. The fact that they have been under the Manpower Services Commission for the last five years has meant that they have had two masters and all too frequently the master who has paid the money—the Commission—has taken more of their loyalties than have the industries which they were set up to serve. That is a fatal, divided control which must be removed. In conclusion, we must grapple with the problem of orderly control of bodies not subject to the market disciplines. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

BINGHAM REPORT: DDP's DECISION
3.45 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My

1689
Lords, with the leave of the House, it might be convenient if I now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place, or is being made at this moment. The Statement reads as follows:
" In 1978 the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs referred the Bingham Report to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether further inquiries should be undertaken with a view to possible criminal proceedings for breaches of the Southern Rhodesia Sanctions Order. Shortly thereafter leading and junior counsel were instructed by the Director to advise him whether, in the circumstances disclosed by the report, criminal offences appeared to have been committed and, if so, by whom. It will be appreciated that the Bingham inquiry was neither a police investigation nor a trial, and it was not therefore, conducted within the constraints of the rules of evidence or procedure applicable in a court of law.
" In February 1968 and again in February 1969 meetings took place between Her Majesty's Government and senior officers of Shell and BP. The outcome of those meetings (described extensively in the Bingham Report) appeared to have been interpreted by the oil companies, rightly or wrongly, as giving them tacit, if not express, approval to operate what has become known as the "exchange" scheme whereby oil and petroleum reached Southern Rhodesia.
" It was by no means clear whether and, if so, for precisely what length of time the so-called "exchange" scheme was operated thereafter.
" Against this background, the Director of Public Prosecutions appreciated that much more factual information and research into the legal problems were required in order to particularise offences, to identify the principal persons acting on behalf of the oil companies and to collect the admissible evidence. Accordingly a team of senior police officers was instructed to make further detailed inquiries, while counsel continued to review the material already available.
1690
" Steps were taken in April 1979 under Schedule I to the 1938 Sanctions Order to require the oil companies to produce all the relevant documents in their possession or under their control.
" It seems that there are over 20,000 files of which at least 14,000 are likely to be relevant. Bearing in mind the substantial amount of time and public money likely to be involved in analysing this mass of paper and investigating the evidentiary material available overseas, counsel were asked to give the Director of Public Prosecutions further advice.
" By the beginning of November 1979 in an Opinion running to almost 50 pages counsel advised the Director of Public Prosecutions of the great difficulties in the way of a successful prosecution.
"The Director of Public Prosecutions had to consider the following matters. "(1) The material disclosed by the Bingham investigation was wholly insufficient for the purposes of a criminal trial. Direct evidence by witnesses or from proved documents would be needed.
"(2) There was abundant material in the report which showed that, in the period following the meetings in 1968 and 1969, oil and petroleum products had been supplied direct by railway wagon to Southern Rhodesia. The question which arose in an acute form, however, was whether it could be proved by the strict rules of evidence applied in the Criminal Courts of this country:

(a) which companies had in fact made these supplies; and

(b) who, if any, among the officers, agents or employees of the companies during the relevant period were knowing parties to such supply.

It was also necessary to seek to determine whether these supplies had been made in contravention of the alleged understanding' with Her Majesty's Government.
" (3) Furthermore, it was material to have regard to the fact (emphasised in the Bingham Report) that many of the companies and their officials were sub-

1691
ject to the laws of States deeply hostile to the sanctions policy and were liable to penalties for any refusal or failure to supply oil on demand. There is no power to compel the attendance of witnesses from abroad.
"(4) The available material disclosed (and, indeed, the Bingham investigation found) that many of the principal officials concerned in the contraventions of the Sanctions Orders were not amenable to our jurisdiction. Some who appear to have been at the very centre of the operations had since died and others had retired. It was likely to prove difficult in the extreme to establish the complicity and knowledge of their successors.
"(5) Whilst the prosecution might confine criminal charges to the years 1971–77, the defence would investigate the entire history of events from 1966 onwards. Those events would cast their shadow over the whole case and this important factor would have a serious bearing on its outcome. Counsel were of the opinion that a jury might well be reluctant to convict if there appeared to be substance in the defence that those charged had acted in the belief that their conduct had the express or ostensible consent of the authorities.
"(6) Finally, it was apparent that as complex and prolonged an investigation as this would probably not reach the stage of a jury's trial in less than four years from now, particularly as the defence would be entitled to require full committal for trial proceedings and strict proof of the essential ingredients of the offences. Also the trial itself might occupy a jury for as long as 12 months with all the risks that attend such an extended hearing.
"(7) The Director has therefore reached the conclusion that further investigations and public expenditure would not be justified and the matter should proceed no further".
Then my right honourable and learned friend replies at the end, "T agree".
My Lords, I am afraid that I have to add certain words of my own, which I hope the House will indulge. I am
1692
particularly relieved to see sitting on the Front Opposition Bench the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who not only occupied my present position but also occupied my right honourable and learned friend's position in the House of Commons in the past. When I was told that this Statement was going to be repeated in your Lordships' House, it was called a "Statement about the Bingham Report ", and no anxieties filled my mind. However, when I read the Statement very shortly before I sat on the Woolsack this afternoon it occurred to me that it was nothing of the kind. It was, in fact, a Statement by the Attorney-General on the exercise of his quasi-judicial—I think the phrase is—responsibility as to whether to prosecute or not.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who knows it far better than I, will confirm, this probably circumscribes the extent to which I, in this House, am free to reply on behalf of the Government. I hope that when he makes his comments he will help me about this because I feel real difficulty about it. I invite him to do so consequently in the experience of two offices. I made certain preliminary researches into Professor Edward's book on the Law Officers of the Crown and have certain material here for the information of the House. At any rate, that is the Statement, and that is the note of warning which I now sound, with a plea for assistance from the noble and learned Lord.
3.54 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend the Attorney-General in another place, but I am not at all grateful to the Lord Chancellor for seeking to pass the buck to me, as he has apparently sought to do. It presents both this House and another place with difficulties. The decision of the Attorney-General is clearly a quasi-judicial decision, but that, however, does not mean that, certainly in another place, he may not be questioned about it. I am bound to say that in my time I did what I could to discourage any such probing of the decision of the Attorney-General in regard to criminal proceedings in respect of which he was expected to take—and I have no doubt

1693
the present Attorney-General is taking—a quasi-judicial attitude. I think, however embarrassing it may be for me to ask the questions or for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to answer them, that we are entitled to probe a little into this Statement.
The fact is that a large number of prosecutions were brought in respect of breaches of sanctions. Indeed, the record of this country in that respect has been as good as any. It is this particular area of oil sanctions breaches that has presented the special difficulty in which we have been placed. What has troubled me a little about the Statement is that it seems that the factors which have determined the decision not to go any further even with the continuance of investigation of inquiry seem to lie more in the domain of expense, time and convenience than in an examination of the merits and prospects of a possible success in prosecution at the end of the day.
Of course we cannot see the 50-pages opinion of learned counsel. I happen to know who those counsel were, and they are men of standing and distinction. I should have been a little happier if there had been an indication at some point that they themselves, in advising the Director, had considered the crucial question whether there was a prospect of a successful prosecution at the end of the day, however long it might take to arrive at a decision from the court or however great the expense. Noble Lords will be aware that in great fraud cases, for instance, a great deal of time is taken. The public interest in seeing that our own national honour is maintained is very great.
If the noble and learned Lord can help us a little more in the examination of this matter by giving an assurance that it is not merely the question of convenience and expense that has determined this decision, I think both the House and the country will be grateful to him, if he is in a position to answer the question. I appreciate his difficulty. One of the startling statements in the course of the Statement is that it is thought that it would take four years to continue the investigation. Well, really, why? Four years? Is it the position that there would be inadequate backing by way of support to those carrying out the inquiry?
Lord BYERS: It is the length of a Parliament, my Lords.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: The length of a Parliament. Well, I do not think that that governs criminal proceedings, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be. But it is something that I think the public will want a little reassurance about. Is the four-year period due to the log jam in the courts, for which I myself did my best to seek remedies? In other words, are we here grappling with practical problems or is the case frankly that in all the circumstances there is no real prospect of getting a conviction here, and in those circumstances, bearing in mind additionally the element of expense and the time involved, is it right, therefore, that the case should be taken no further?
May I ask a question which is not confined now to the field of criminal prosecutions? If this decision is maintained, does it mean the end of any further examination of the Bingham story? Is it now to be left to historians and no one else, and is nothing further to be done? Noble Lords will remember that this House differed from the views of another place as to whether there should be another inquiry, and did so by a large majority.
The House is also aware that continuing public concern is expressed and that the media are still pressing for further steps to be taken by way of inquiry of some kind, so that perhaps the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, might be less embarrassed in answering that part of my inquiry than in regard to the first part. However, I can only advise him, if I may do so without impertinence, that as for the first part, too, he must do his best.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I expected this afternoon when I heard that there was to be a Statement on the Bingham Report to be able to criticise the Government on behalf of my noble friends for announcing, as I had assumed they would, that they had abandoned all further investigation into what we regard as the quite disgraceful matters disclosed in that report and subsequently. But I accept that this Statement does not deal specifically with that matter but deals only with a quasi-judicial decision taken by the Attorney-General.

1695
In those circumstances I do not wish to pursue the other matter at all, but I would ask the noble and learned Lord three questions about the Statement. First, it states in paragraph 1:
" …leading and junior counsel were instructed by the Director to advise him whether, in the circumstances disclosed by the report, criminal offences appeared to have been committed and, if so, by whom".
May we know what was the advice that was given? Was the advice given—because it does not appear in the Statement—that criminal offences did or did not appear to have been disclosed?
Secondly, am I right in assuming from paragraph 4 of the Statement that much of the relevant evidence in this case—namely, the files—has simply not been examined at all? If that is right, is the position, as appears to be the case from this Statement, that the Attorney-General has come to a conclusion as to whether or not to prosecute without in fact investigating some of the most material evidence?
Thirdly, may I ask—really endorsing what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—whether this Statement comes to very much more than this; that the decision has now been taken not to prosecute because the matter is stale, because the trial may take a long time, because it would be expensive, because there are some witnesses from abroad and because the outcome of the case may be in doubt? If that is the position, those considerations would apply to at least half of the long fraud cases brought at the Central Criminal Court, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider with care whether this is really a satisfactory basis in this particular case for abandoning the matter.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for their comments. I should begin by accepting the final advice of Lord Elwyn-Jones —namely, to do my best—and I think the best thing I can do is to tell the House what the results of my own researches into the matter have been. They are naturally preliminary. When I saw the body of the Statement I naturally saw that this House, though not the House of Commons, was put in a slightly difficult
1696
position, constitutionally and I do not think the noble and learned Lord intended in any way to cast doubt on that preliminary conclusion which I formed.
Of course the first thing I did when I received these papers was to consult Professor Edwards' book on the Law Officers of the Crown as being the most ready source of available learning. He gives two crucial quotations, one from Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, and the other from my father, as he then was, as to the functions of the Attorney-General in this matter. The Hartley Shawcross quotation, to be found in Commons debates Vol. 483, cols. 683–4, is:
" The responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the Attorney-General and he is not to be put, and is not put, under pressure by his colleagues in that matter ".
That is to say, in deciding whether or not to authorise a prosecution,
" It is the Attorney-General applying his judicial mind who has to be the sole judge of those considerations ".
My father seems to have gone even further, because he said in Commons debates Vol. 177 cols. 686–7:
" I never took advice or counsel or brooked interference from any Minister or anybody else in the question whether it should be withdrawn ".
That is, a prosecution and of course that was in the context of the Campbell case, as the noble and learned Lord will realise.
" That was a matter which, rightly or wrongly, I regarded as my duty and a duty which I ought to exercise judicially and uninfluenced by any outside person ".
In commenting on this and a great deal of other matter, the learned professor writing on the Law Officers of the Crown, Professor Edwards, cites two principles. The first, on page 224 of the edition of his book in the Library, which I think is a later edition, is:
" Any practice savouring of political pressure, either by the Executive or Parliament, when reaching a decision ".
That is, whether or not to prosecute—
" in any particular case is unconstitutional and to be avoided at all costs ".
He goes on to say that there is a second principle, which might also be applicable in this particular Statement:
" After the termination of the particular proceedings "—
Of course these have not started, but I take it that that might include the present

1697
case (the author emphasises this by using italics in the book)—
" the Attorney-General may be subject to questioning by Members of the House".
He says" the House", which in the context I think means the House of Commons. This I think circumscribes, although of course my right honourable and learned friend can as part of the privilege of the House of Commons, have questions directed to him in his office as Attorney-General, as to the reasons which underlay his judgment. I think I should be extremely circumspect, not out of any desire to withhold information from the House—partly through inability to do so but partly for a good constitutional reason, for I speak on behalf of the executive Government, which is the only role I can play speaking from where I am and in this House. With that in mind, I shall now revert to the various questions put to me by Lord Elwyn-Jones and Lord Wigoder.
I do not read—and I am simply taking the document as I find it—the document as relying solely on questions of delay, expense and complication. On the contrary, I read it as being a professional judgment as to whether or not to prosecute entered into by the Director of Public Prosecutions taking into account all the factors which the Director normally takes into account in deciding whether or not to prosecute. One is the chance of conviction, another is the availability of admissible evidence, and of course one takes into account other factors too, as the noble and learned Lord knows better than I because I have never been in that responsible position.
I take it as a mixed professional decision by the Director in which the Attorney concurs, and therefore not merely time, not merely complication, not merely delay, not merely expense, but the whole merits of the whole case he as a responsible Director should have undertaken. However, that is simply reading the document personally and not for any other reason. I cannot answer the question as to why four years; that was the advice of counsel and I think the noble and learned Lord will realise that I must take the advice as I found it in the document. In this connection the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked a question about what was the earlier advice of the leading and junior
1698
counsel. I am afraid that I cannot answer that; but the second part of the second principle given by the professor was this —about how the Attorney would be expected to answer questions of that kind. It says here—and I am now quoting from the hook:
" The extent to which a law officer may feel prepared to give specific reasons for, and to disclose the evidence and other factors which led to his making, his decision in the individual case will obviously vary according to the particular circumstances."
What I can do for the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is to draw the Attorney-General's attention to the question which the noble Lord has asked, and I will ask him to write direct to the noble Lord in accordance with the principles stated in the book, if that is the correct principle.
Has all the relevant evidence been examined? I thought myself from the Statement that it probably had, but I have no knowledge at all outside the Statement. I had inferred from a 50-page opinion that there had been a fairly extensive investigation into particular documents, but I cannot give any personal assurance apart from that.
Is this the end of the story? That is outside the field of this Statement. If either noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, desires to put down a Question about that, possibly after the Government have had time to reflect upon the Attorney-General's decision, no doubt it will be answered in the ordinary way. But as I said the other day to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, I do not think that the question of whether or not to prosecute ought to be linked with the question of whether or not there is a further inquiry, because they seem to me to be separate questions. That is my best.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that three times I have asked this question about the follow-up to the Bingham Report and on each occasion, from both Administrations, the answer has been that the papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. So may I ask the noble and learned Lord, in pressing the second question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, is there not inevitably a link, which has already been given to me three times, between the Statement that has just been made to the

1699
House and the question of some form of parliamentary inquiry as a follow-up? Is it not the case that the Bingham Report revealed the admitted cognisance of British Ministers of breaches of the law which were again admittedly secreted from Parlaiment? Does this not call into question the whole integrity of the British parlaimentary and governmental system, and does the Government's apparent reluctance to pursue an inquiry frustrate the will as expressed in another place earlier this year? If the noble and learned Lord cannot answer this afternoon, will he convey to his noble, learned, right honourable and honourable friends the necessity of clearing the slur upon our parliamentary system by some further inquiry following this Statement?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was of course aware that the noble Lord had asked the question at least once before because he asked it of me the other day. I was not aware of the number of times he had asked it, but I was aware that he had asked it on previous occasions as well. That is the answer to the first point. I do not think that it follows from that that there is a link between the question of whether or not to prosecute and the question of whether a further inquiry is desirable. On the contrary, I have already expressed the view that they are separate questions and ought not to be linked.
I note that the noble Lord reiterates the Statement which I believe came originally from a Conservative source—that the whole integrity of the British parliamentary institution depends upon an answer to the non-linked question. I venture to think that as we have been in business for 700 years it is unlikely that the entire integrity of the British parliamentary system rests upon the matter with which the noble Lord is so preoccupied. I do not know whether 1 can really add to that at present.
The events which took place took place mainly under the Government of which the noble Lord was such a noticeable supporter, and so far as 1 remember, at the time I knew nothing whatever about them. Why the noble Lord should insinuate that the present Administration wants to cover up what mainly took place
1700
under the Administration of their opponents I do not know. I know only that we shall be considering the question, and if a Question is put down in the ordinary way, it will be answered with courtesy in the ordinary way.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he sees any inconsistency between the recent Zimbabwe Bill, passed only the other day, which contains amnesty clauses for acts perpetrated during the illegal régime, and the proposal to prosecute under the Bingham Report?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords, I do not think that I do. On Second Reading of the Zimbabwe Bill I explained very clearly that the power of granting an amnesty in respect of sanctions breaking offences was already granted to the Government by the Act of 1979 and not by the Bill which we passed through this House the other day. That Bill related to offences against the law of the United Kingdom, and I made an announcement, which I think will be followed by a Statement, about an amnesty for offences under Rhodesian law. The question of sanctions breaking offences was dealt with by a specific subsection which I quoted in detail, but which I do not have with me at the moment, and will be found in the Hansard report of my Second Reading speech. The question of prosecuting for those offences is the subject of separate provision in the other Act.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, in terms of any future consideration which may be given by the Government to any further inquiry into this matter, whether he is aware that many of us who have spoken against an inquiry by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses would be just as firmly and unequivocally opposed to such a procedure in the future, following this Statement, as we were when the issue was raised earlier this year?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says, and bearing in mind that it comes from a former Minister of a former Administration, I think that great weight ought to be attached to it. For myself I can say only that I do not think that the two questions

1701
should be linked. Now that the noble Lord has said what he has to say his views will be taken into account. This is evidently a contentious question.

TRAINING IN INDUSTRY
4.18 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject of industrial training. In the presence of what one might call current Government euphoria for levying cuts in expenditure without any apparent consideration of priorities we are indeed very alarmed that the axe may well fall on industrial training. Indeed, the debate last week in this House on the indiscriminating treatment being handed out to the universities gives us justifiable cause for alarm. This debate is therefore an opportunity of finding out what the immediate future holds for the industrial training boards, and I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for the information that he has given us about their operations and for his proposals for, if I may put it this way, amelioration of their situation. I found myself largely in agreement with his remarks so far as they related to the industrial training boards.
It is, and has been, an extraordinary aspect of our country that, whatever the level of unemployment, we are always short of skilled people. One would have thought that the obvious security of employment which, through the years, has resulted from the possession of trained capability would have resulted in an overcrowding of all the institutions of further education, but of course that has not happened.
I propose to tackle the subject of this debate from an unusual and, perhaps, a surprising angle. I want to deal with the subject very broadly indeed, because industrial training is, I think, a fairly narrow facet of something much bigger that of fitting people at all levels, in all walks of life, for creative ability at work. Industrial training is the tip of an iceberg, and what lies beneath is the attitude of parents, school experience, apprenticeship,
1702
what happens in Government training centres, in technical colleges, in polytechnics and in universities themselves. The fact is that a large sector of our society has literally turned its back on education itself, because it has not had what I would call education for capability.
My Lords, a group of people met last year—and I must declare my own interest, for I chaired their meetings—and they produced the following statement on this issue:
" We …believe that there is a serious imbalance in Britain today in the full process which is described by the two words ' education ' and ' training '. Thus, the idea of the ' educated man ' is that of a scholarly, leisured individual who has been neither educated nor trained to exercise useful skills. Those who study in secondary schools or higher education increasingly specialise; and normally in a way which means that they are taught to practise only the skills of scholarship and science; to understand but not to act. They gain knowledge of a particular area of study; but not ways of thinking and working which are appropriate for use outside the education system.
" We believe that this imbalance is harmful to individuals, to industry and to society. Individual satisfaction stems from doing a job well through the exercise of personal capability. Acquisition of this capability is inhibited by the present system of education which stresses the importance of analysis, criticism and the acquisition of knowledge and neglects the formulation and solution of problems, doing, making and organising, the constructive and creative activity of all sorts.
" The resolution of this problem in Britain has been vitiated by discussing it in terms of two cultures: the arts and the sciences. It is significant that we have no word for the culture that the Germans describe as 'Technik' or the mode of working that the French describe as a 'Metier'.
" We consider that there exists in its own right a culture which is concerned with doing, making and organising. This culture emphasises craftmanship and the making of useful artefacts; the design, manufacture and marketing of goods and services; specialist occupations with an active mode of work; and the creative arts; and the day-to-day management of affairs.
" We believe that education should spend more time in teaching people skills and preparing them for life outside the education system; and that the country would benefit significantly in economic terms from this rebalancing towards education for capability ".
That statement was offered to 400 people for their signatures in support. My Lords, 170 signed. They included 20 professors, 8 heads of polytechnics, 7 vice-chancellors of universities, 6 local authority directors of education, 47 chairmen or chief executives of our very large industrial companies and 22 noble Lords from this House. Since then, the Royal Society of Arts has taken over this initiative and is now planning publicity and

1703
awards for schemes which meet the aims set out in the manifesto which I have quoted.
Education for capability is one of the pillars which support the future wellbeing and wealth of our society: yet millions of people are alienated from education and, through that process, from daily work itself. In Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and in other countries, education tends to be regarded by most as the route to interesting, creative work and promotion. This difference between our country and some others is one of the sources of our own decline. For two decades politicians and Governments have been debating education largely in terms of its structure—comprehensive education or not comprehensive education. I have taken little part in that debate, but I have been amazed at the stubborn defence by the Conservative Party of a system of privilege which was largely abandoned by our competitor countries more than 50 years ago. Have they suffered as a result? I think not. But, leaving all that argument aside, I think we should have been concentrating on overcoming the deadening effect of much education at all levels (excepting, perhaps, at primary school level) on the minds of so many young people.
My Lords, how we can go on teaching, say, French to tens of thousands (it may be hundreds of thousands) of our children, largely in terms of French grammar, when we know perfectly well that not 5 per cent. will be able to converse in that language when they leave school, I do not know. Are we not all aware, from our own experience, that the moment when some item of important knowledge becomes fixed in our minds is when we discover its importance by usage? What I have said could too easily be construed as advocacy of narrow vocational training, but that is not the case. It is neither desirable nor, indeed, I think possible to prepare people to carry out specific work jobs either in school or in technical college, in polytechnic or in university. That is the task of Government training centres, apprenticeships and training courses run by employing institutions. But if we fail in education to stimulate that thirst for knowledge and its creative application to work, then training itself largely fails.
1704
I have here a quotation from Sir Alec Smith, who is head of the Manchester Polytechnic. I quote it to your Lordships:
" It seems to me that there are real educators in the primary schools. Thereafter, the process changes. The emphasis shifts so that it becomes more a process of teaching subjects. There are fewer educators in the upper reaches of education: they are mostly teachers of subjects. Within this process of the teaching of subjects, there is a very debilitating hierarchy of esteem of subjects which stands to the discredit of education. Subjects which are really valuable in the development of the young—subjects like moral education, health education, practical education—are more likely to come their way if they are deemed to be less able, the more able being fully committed to the classical academic subjects of high prestige ".
That is what I have been trying to say, but, having found that quotation, I think Sir Alec Smith says it much better than I have said it.
If one looks at the history of Government training centres one sees that by 1951 the number had fallen to 23, and by 1962 there were only 13 left. Then, under the stimulus of unemployment, the figures rose to 52 in 1972 and 64 in 1975. I have no later figures, but I hope that the Government spokesman will, if possible, tell your Lordships what the figures are today. These figures suggest that there is too little endemic thirst for training at all levels of employment—yes, in the boardroom, also. It means that too many are relying on the strength of their trade unions in bargaining to increase their material standards of living, instead of opening up fresh careers at higher levels by further education and training.
In a very small Scottish town in which I spend a few weeks every year, there is a dearth of joiners, electricians and mechanics; but the young unemployed reject grants which would take them to training centres. This is largely because their school education failed to excite them into learning and doing. I do not know how many noble Lords have read the report of Professor Archer of the Royal College of Art, a report which he made to the Department of Education and Science on the status of and the time spent on doing and making and creating in schools. It covers the theme which I am pursuing much better than I can. He points to the excitement created in children by allowing them to formulate their own problems and to seek solutions to them instead of always working on

1705
problems formulated for them in the creation of artefacts, drama, music and projects. He points out that this sort of activity takes much too small a part in our schools and that the teachers or those who instruct in these more practical arts are of lower status.
Another indication of the way we are heading is that, in the Department of Industry's design award scheme for schools, which is an excellent arrangement, out of 6,000 schools pupils from only 200 entered exhibits for this year's awards by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. They were magnificent and inventive exhibits but there were only 200 school entries out of 6,000 schools. This is to some extent a commentary on our schools. Many of the pupils who entered stated that their own headmasters and other staff were not interested in the pupils' contributions. For many years I have been associated with a small university whose four-year courses are based on the condition that every post-graduate spends three periods of five months in full-time employment during the course, whatever the discipline he studies. This year 72 per cent. of its graduates immediately entered employment—and largely into industry. That 72 per cent. is a higher figure than for any other university. I think that this is because they have experience of the application of knowledge as well as of absorbing it.
About a year ago it was reported in The Times that the Association of Teachers of Engineering in Universities had come to the conclusion that too much time was spent in teaching the theory of engineering and too little on its application to work. I merely comment: At last!—would that those involved in every discipline in our polytechnics and universities would come to a similar conclusion. Perhaps we are overcoming, at last, the widely-held but false view that practice in design or in devising solutions to problems of manufacture is a lowering of the level of university education. My view is that only by offering what the medical profession calls clinical experience can the level of education in universities and polytechnics be raised. Only by doing that will we attract into industry-orientated courses a higher proportion of the brighter school leavers.
I want to raise a special problem and to plead with the Government to take note
1706
of it. I need not dwell on the immense need for re-education and training of industrial specialists, as well as managers, already in employment, The growth in the field of micro-electronics alone is sufficient to point to its necessity. One of the ways in which this re-education need can be met is by post-graduate courses at universities and polytechnics. Such courses take two forms: full time and part time. Full-time courses usually involve a grant from one of the science research councils of about £2,000 a year as support for the student and something like £600 a year to meet the university fees. It also means release from employment, usually without cost to the employer. Part-time courses involve the student in paying his own fees—which the universities have to keep at a very low level, for otherwise there would be no part-time students. These fees generally come out at something between £150 and £200 a year. There is no recognised route by which the candidate or the employer can recover from the science research councils, from the Government or from local education authorities, even part of the cost of study of part-time students. Nor do the industrial training boards support post-graduate education as part of their function.
But that is not the end of the story, for the number of part-time graduate student enrolments are not taken into account by the University Grants Committee in determining the sums of money to be provided to each university each year. Thus, in the case of a university which has a large number of part-time students, the amount of money it gets per full-time student educated in the university is lowered by that amount, and it becomes poverty stricken. So the full-time candidates cost the Exchequer (by all the round-about routes through which you reach the Exchequer) about £2,600 a year; while those highly-motivated employees who are able to persuade their employers to release them for one day a week and who are willing to pay their own fees will cost the Exchequer nothing, except for some trifling expenses on travel and cost of books.
One of the courses at the university with which I am associated, just one of them, on digital micro-electronics—a field in which there is a desperate need for retraining managers—has about 400 student applications each year for this course of

1707
30 places. They can take only 30 students because the university is in enough financial problems already without taking more of these people who cost them money. It is already clear that we must rely on the universities for part of this vast re-education which is now so necessary and, if this is so, greater funds must be routed via the research councils; and their terms of support will have to be changed if we are to use this particular route of part-time students to meet the crucial necessity. I commend this to the Minister who will respond to the debate. It is interesting as a last comment on this that the performance of part-time graduates in these post-graduate courses is, on average, better than those who attend full time.
I turn to industry itself. Some pretty discreditable instances have recently been reported in the Press of people who take to their beds on night shift and so on. There has been constant comment for years about over-manning in industry. These and other apparently intractable problems have much to do with the subject of shop-floor management—yes, and of office management, too. In too many British factories one finds a plethora of roles variously called charge-hands, leading hands, supervisors, assistant foremen and foremen. In short, there is an organisational mess and it is very widespread in British factories.
Two years ago I was invited to run separate seminars for five Irish industries. I defined the term "manager" in terms of the minimum authority with which he must be endowed if he is to be able to be held accountable for the work carried out by his subordinates on the shop floor. All agreed that the definition of managerial authority was strictly logical. All agreed that, in those terms, real managers were too far removed from the shop floor; that there were not any shop floor managers in immediate contact with the rank and file. But all said it was impossible to institute shopfloor managers with real control because the Irish unions would never allow it. I conducted a similar seminar for about 40 Irish trade union officials and shop stewards and went through the same argument. They all agreed that it was logical; they said that it was about time that this mess on the shop floor was cleared up; but they added, "You will
1708
never do it in Ireland because Irish managers will never undertake to accept it."
That is the situation. It is a matter of training. If one looks, for example, at the German situation, one finds that the brightest of the apprentices are selected to go through special training courses and are set special examinations which they must pass before becoming craftsmen for short periods and eventually being appointed to the post of "Meister ". That is a very significant word. As a consequence, shop floor management really exists in most German factories and is a potent factor in productivity and in quality. It would be salutary if the trade unions, CBI and Government got together to tackle this. No doubt the Government in their present frame of mind will respond by saying that it is not their problem. But such an attitude is entirely inconsistent with their other stance that they are reliant on the improvement of dynamism and productivity in industry for the whole of their policies. If they reject the right to stimulate training of this sort, then they are willing the ends but abdicating from helping to achieve the means.
I now return to the somewhat narrower topic conveyed by the terms of the Motion before us by asking a number of questions of the Minister. What is the current number of places available in Government training centres? If these cannot be given in this debate, I shall quite understand; but I should like to have these figures later. What is the current number of trainees? What is the target number of places for next year? From the speech of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany in April 1978 in this House I learned that the then Government had spent £135 million to maintain apprentice intake into industry. Maintaining apprentice intake is vital. What is probably happening at the moment is that the reduction of demand and the stringency which industry is feeling is probably resulting in next year's intake of apprentices being reduced by most industries. If this happens, it will be a tragedy. Maintenance of that intake to me seems very important indeed. Are the Government going to maintain a similar or expanded rate of expenditure? I hope so.

1709
The industrial training boards are now, I understand, generally very worried about Government plans. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, refer to this, but I am told that there has already been a cut of £9·8 million made in the budget of the Manpower Services Commission which the industrial training boards fear may be a cut for them. What are the plans of the Government regarding the finances of the Manpower Services Commission and the future financing, apart from the levy, of the industrial training boards? Their establishment was a Conservative initiative, as has already been pointed out, and an excellent initiative too.
My last subject is this. One investigating body after another has called for Government action which would ensure that all young persons in employment should have the opportunity for day release to attend technical college or other institutions for training. I regret that the Labour Government did not introduce legislation on this matter while in office. The fact is that something like one-third of those approximately 700,000 school-leavers who enter employment each year do not get day release. A large proportion of these youngsters are employed in the services industries and do not get day release. Industrial practice with regard to day release is more enlightened than is the case in regard to distribution and office work.
Great changes in methods are now hit ting this service sector of our economy. The case for more training in that sector will get stronger every year from now on. For example, I have heard it stated that we already require 20,000 computer operators and analysts each year. That is one example of the need for training in that sector. Have the Government a policy about increasing day release? Will they do better than the Government of my own party in this respect? The prospect before the country today is a ghastly rise in unemployment stimulated by the Government's ideological commitment to the theories of Professor Friedman and Hayeck.
Out of that sad situation there does nevertheless arise the opportunity for a scale of training that has never before occurred in our country because of these
1710
unemployed. This opportunity coincides with a bigger need for training and retraining because of the acceleration of technological change which is upon us. Taking these two factors together, opportunity and need, makes the case for much increased Government support for training in industry today. Indeed, the present Administration's expressed reliance on the revival of industrial efficiency makes it totally illogical if they fail to give that increased support. But the question is: Are they going to follow the logic of their own expressed policy?
4.46 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his Motion. We have heard two most interesting speeches from him and the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I have to confess that both noble Lords are very much closer to this problem than I am. Any suggestions that I can make will be only of a minor nature. It is particularly disappointing to me that my noble friend Baroness Seear is unable to be present, because, as your Lordships know, she has taken a tremendous interest in this subject over the years. I am also sorry that we are not having a contribution in this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Bowden. I do not know how many of your Lordships will remember the spendid maiden speech that he made on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Industrial Training Bill in about 1968. I am sure he will not mind my saying this in his absence: it was not an ideal maiden speech. It had quite a bit of controversy in it and it lasted for 28 minutes. But it was a really spendid speech. T recalled it and refreshed my memory by reading it again last night. I recommend it to anybody who wants to read about that.
He doubted the adequacy of proposals that were then before Parliament. That was the Industrial Training Bill. He felt that it was not going far enough. Yet at that time the Government of the day were aiming for a four per cent. growth in the economy. Even with that great figure he did not think that it was going far enough to meet what the need would be. It is hard, looking back, to believe that such a figure was being considered at that time, about 15 years ago.

1711
As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, reminded us, the Employment and Training Act came along in 1973. The noble Lord seemed to consider that this perhaps was something which put an undue brake upon the work of the industrial training boards by interposing the Manpower Services Commission. He may well be right in that point. The Manpower Services Commission, as he says, has other duties as well. It has the two executive arms, if I remember rightly: the Employment Services Agency and the Training Services Agency. Perhaps the noble Lord's view is that it would be better to take the Training Services Agency out altogether. At any rate, we are entitled to say that, as today, with unemployment at the horrific level that it has reached, there are still reported to be shortages for skilled workers. In that condition, I am led to the inescapable conclusion that our present arrangements are inadequate. If we are short of trained manpower now, what desperate position are we going to be in when business revives? The machinery is there. It may be that it is not working correctly. At any rate it is not delivering the goods.
I may say that I have joined in this debate more to listen than to speak, because I want to hear the combined wisdom expressed by those who are speaking in this debate, so that I can find out what lies behind this failure to get enough skilled workpeople. I liked very much the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Brown: no thirst for training."
What has caused the situation? I feel we must not overlook one fact—and I think this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, in a recent debate—which is the effect of the erosion of differentials. Many people perhaps do not think it is worth while going in for training which involves extra work and, generally speaking, also a drop in earnings while it is going on, in order to qualify for what they think are inadequate awards. One reason for that which always occurs to me—and I have never been engaged in manufacturing industry—is the arrangement which is very fundamental to the thinking in the trade union movement: namely, that once a man is a qualified tradesman he gets the rate for the job, and that is that. But
1712
surely a man who has acquired the necessary skills through an apprenticeship and has qualified as a skilled worker will increase his skills with experience.
While I recognise that it must be very difficult to pay people entirely according to the extent to which their skills has developed, it seems to me that justice done would be slightly less rough if the skilled tradesman were paid a little less than the going rate in his first five years and perhaps a little more than the going rate after 10 years. After all, in management that is what happens. A manager, if he shows himself especially skilful, will be able to earn himself an increase; and if he does not get it from his present employer he will find another employer who will give it to him. They get a certain gradation as they gain experience and prove that they can use the skill they have acquired. It has always seemed to me that it would be much more intelligent for people to go in for skilled work on the shopfloor if there were some gradation in the rewards they got as they gained experience and hopefully improved their performance.
Another factor which undoubtedly has affected people, though not so much at the present time, I am afraid, is the fact that until recently young people have had opportunities to earn good money to a much greater extent than they would ever have dreamed of, doing unskilled jobs without any difficulty. Then their friends of the same age, who perhaps have some ambition to go further, have to show great strength of mind and a maturely balanced judgement to undertake any apprenticeship, with its low earnings over quite a long period for the sake of the skills to be reached later. I recalled this when I read the debate on the 1968 Bill: it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, spoke about the school-leavers and the desire which he had, with many others, that there should be an absolute right for people in first employment for day release. This is a matter of which I know my noble friends are very much in favour, and I strongly support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on that subject.
Then again—this is all part of the same picture—I should like to ask, what is the current attitude of the trade union movement and of individual trade unionists to

1713
maturer workers gaining skills? At one time I think I am right in saying that this was very much frowned upon. Unless a young man went through an apprenticeship at an early age and qualified, it was impossible for someone who had been working for five or 10 or 15 years to acquire those skills and to be recognised as a tradesman. Is not this rather like the very much criticised 11-plus system? Why should it be impossible for someone, once he has been on the shop floor for 12 or 75 years, to qualify as a tradesman? As I said earlier, I know so little about this subject that I do not want to detain your Lordships. Instead, I want to listen to the combined wisdom of those who are going to speak after me.
It is a vitally important subject. It is one where clearly we have gone wrong. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would think it is all due to bad organisation: he seemed to speak rather in that way. If the organisation of the training boards can be improved, well and good; but I am sure there are other and much more deep-seated questions. Indeed, I think we must all have been fascinated by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who really criticised our whole education system. The unhappy thing about approaching it from that direction is that it will take a tremendously long time to get it altered. Nevertheless, it is something which could be the subject of a debate itself on one occasion, and no doubt your Lordships will have the opportunity to discuss it.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this debate and for his excellent speech, which made me understand the working of the industrial training boards, which I could not understand when I read about it. So I speak on this subject from a certain amount of ignorance, though with much interest, and I wish to make some rather general remarks.
There have been several debates recently bearing on this subject, and I shall confine my opening remarks to the effects of the education cuts, which I think have had an enormous effect. The short, sharp, shock slogan—presumably to kill all known economic germs—cannot deal with such
1714
issues as encouraging training in industry. The cuts, in real terms, in Government expenditure on education, including the universities, are very large indeed. The proposals to cut the number of teachers, despite the falling numbers of pupils, are not good; but some of the most serious cuts concern non-advanced further education for the 16 to 18-year-olds, on vocational courses. The possibilities for training opportunities depend, I believe, on the availability of resources, the response of employers, the trade unions and the ability of the industrial training boards, and on the whole of the further education system to develop and provide trainee-ships.
When we learn that each year 200,000 young people are leaving school at 16 and taking jobs where further education is not available, and when we know that they do not receive or have access to any vocational training preparation, that is a sad reflection on a free, advanced country like ours. Many workers in this country are not as well trained or educated as workers in Sweden or Germany. So it seems to me that in this debate we have to establish ideas on a universal scheme for education and training opportunities.
Whatever I have read on this subject has stressed the voluntary approach, and I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did not think so much of the voluntary approach alone. Is there no place for Government planning or intervention in industrial training? Of course there is, and it should be larger than it is at the moment. There is a great place for Government action to give help in education and industrial training to young people who are taking up jobs for the first time. Surely the personal development of our young people is crucial for our economy.
We know that schools are not equipped or adequate to meet the needs of young people starting work in life. Here we need the co-operation of both the employers and the trade unions. We know that the 16 to 18-year-old group, who continue in full-time education after 16, benefit by this longer period of personal development before they take up their greater responsibility. Apprentices in craft industries have been shown to benefit greatly from training support. But I believe that we could upgrade our

1715
polytechnics in this field and give them far greater possibilities for training in industries, thus benefiting them and ourselves.
Our education system makes little provision for those young people whose confidence is undermined by lack of success at school and lack of academic qualifications. Their job prospects are not rosy. Too many of them become unemployed, and all of them could be helped by vocational preparation in all kinds of ways which we have not thought about enough. These young people are our social responsibility and it makes hard practical sense to expand their opportunities, especially in this technical and scientific age when new courses in education and skills are increasingly needed. So I deplore Dr. Rhodes Boy-son's remark that not many new courses will be approved. Why not? They are not outrageously expensive. This is a defeatist attitude, especially for the polytechnics. New courses are in the hands of local authorities and here, again, all the cuts which local authorities have to bear have a bad effect on education, too. Cuts in education expenditure will have a severe effect on our young people, and the divisive effects of these cuts will leave deep wounds on the next generation—the worst effects on our country for the 'eighties.
5.4 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on having introduced this important subject and for giving us an opportunity of discussing it. I want to speak briefly on one aspect alone—the shortage of skilled workers on the workshop floor. I am confining myself to that aspect, because it is second in importance only to the need for improved industrial relations.
This problem has persisted during the whole of the post-war period and we have had it in depression as well as in boom. We have it at the present time, with 1.3 million unemployed. For example, in the City of Portsmouth which, persistently, has an unemployment percentage higher than the regional average and somewhere near the national average, and which has a very high proportion of skilled labour because of the excellent apprenticeship
1716
scheme in the dockyards, we have a Government training centre which has no problem whatever in finding places for all that it can train. That is the extent of the shortage of skilled labour.
While the problem is primarily in engineering, it is not confined to that industry. Even though we are supposed to have a depression in construction, in various parts of the country there are shortages of plumbers, electricians and joiners. I can speak from practical experience in retailing, where there has been a shortage in such skills as butchery during almost the whole of the post-war period. It is almost impossible to get skilled butchers.
I should like, first, to look at some of the reasons for this shortage and to suggest possible remedies. Some of the reasons we can probably do something about, but there are others which perhaps we can do very little about, although it is just as well that we should know them. First, there are employers who regard apprenticeship as too costly or too troublesome, and they are quite content merely to poach when they want skilled labour. That is an accepted fact. Secondly, a shortage tends to perpetuate shortage. When there is a shortage of skilled labour, the employer is reluctant to allow that skilled labour to be used for training. He wants to use it to solve his immediate problems of production. He takes the short-term view rather than the long-term view. Consequently, a shortage perpetuates shortage.
Thirdly, the employer is very often afraid that he will be unable to absorb the apprentice when he reaches the journeyman stage. He believes that he may have trouble with the trade union if he wants to discharge an apprentice as being redundant. Another problem is that in the past—but I think the fairly distant past—the trade unions took a very considerable interest in apprenticeships, because they wanted to safeguard their members' cocupations. They limited the number of apprentices to the number of what they called journeymen, with some good reason. But I am advised by those on the side of management who should know something about this problem, that so far as the trade unions are concerned they have no great difficulty. I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord

1717
Simon, that earlier this year I visited the Government training centre in Portsmouth, where they can find places for all that they can train. They have no problem whatever with the trade unions; and I was relieved to hear that.
On the supply side, there is the problem that, although there may be youngsters who want to train for a certain occupation, there may be an absence of facilities or of a particular kind of employment in the area and, as we know, parents are reluctant to allow their children to leave home at a tender age. It has been suggested that, whenever the demand justifies it, there should be a training centre which trains on condition that after a certain period, probably two or three years, a youngster will be prepared to leave home and go to employment a reasonable distance away—perhaps within 100 miles—from which he will be able to get home quite easily at week-ends.
Next, we live in an era in which the great majority of our youngsters prefer labouring or monotonous repetition to learning a skill. That is largely because of the rise in the standard of living. The standard of living has increased, so people can get sufficient money for their needs without the mental trouble of learning a skill. That is the core of the problem.
Also, we live in an era in which employment is changed frequently, sometimes for the slightest reason—not because people do not like the master or the immediate supervisor, but because they do not get on with the person they are working next to. For the slightest reason there can be a change of employment. When that is the practice, people leave employment when they have only partly completed their training, and they may be lost completely. Next, I believe that the differentials for training have been completely eroded by the incomes policies of successive Governments—Conservative as well as Labour.
Next, we have important industries—the car industry is a good example—in which, although there is a great need for skilled workers, the vast majority do not need to have a skill. They are on the assembly belt; they are the majority. So they are in a position to use their representatives in the negotiations to favour the wishes of the unskilled majority against the wishes of the skilled minority. I believe that the un-
1718
skilled majority help to keep down the wages of the skilled minority. Those who leave their skilled occupation and go elsewhere because of redundancy or because they want a change of employment, very often do not go back to it; they find that they can have an easier life elsewhere with little or no loss of money.
I come now to a reason which is generally overlooked. I think it is a major reason why we have a skilled labour problem. During the last 50 years there have been vast improvements in educational opportunities. I have fought all my life for that and I shall continue to do so. I am glad that educational opportunities have improved. I am pleased, for example, that my children have had better opportunities than I had. But they have created problems and we should not overlook them; we should be prepared to face up to them. We should bear in mind that the strata of young people from which we used to get the best apprentices for manufacturing industry now go to university and completely bypass manufacturing industry. They are now to be found in service industries of all kinds. That is the major problem, and it is one which we have to live with and face up to.
How would I face up to that problem? I should do four things. Some of them are, in part at least, already being done. I think that it should be accepted, if it is not already accepted, that we cannot afford to leave training entirely to the individual employer. We know that this has failed in the past and we have to do something about it. It is not peculiar to this country; it has happened in all Western countries. It does not happen in Eastern countries because they have dictatorships and they can direct.
In every industry there should be a central authority which keeps a check on training, an authority which has a continuous record of apprenticeships and can make an estimate of the number of apprentices who are needed and the locations of that work, and, having made that estimate and having determined that there is a deficiency, can do something about that deficiency. I suggest that in any industry the best body for doing that is the training board. I believe that our training boards should give top priority to what I call real skills—that is, the

1719
skills which can be acquired only after years of training, not the skills which can be obtained after a few weeks of training. Those can be left to the employer. The training boards should concentrate on the real skills, which are largely apprenticeships.
Where the employer is willing, has the facilities and accepts the programme of training, including day release, he should be subsidised according to the number of apprentices he is prepared to train. And if need be, the levy upon the industry should be increased in order to meet that subsidy. So far as the Government contribute to that subsidy, this expenditure should be a priority. It is of so much importance to our economy. It is even more important than education itself.
When that method of increasing the number of apprentices is sufficient, well and good. When it is not, we should use the existing Government training centres and, where need be, we should have additional training centres. From past experience we know that the unproductive part of the training of apprentices is the initial stage, the first year or the first two years. After they have done a year or two, they are able to practise the skills they have already learned and can do productive work. Consequently, if one has apprentices in Government training centres it is possible after a very short period—say, after one year—for them to go into part-time employment and practise the skills they have already learned, but for the rest of the week to be in the training centres learning new skills. In due course, it would not be difficult to find them full-time employment within the factories, outside the training centres altogether. This kind of training, partly in the training centre and partly in the factory, is wholly practicable and is welcomed by many employers. It is already being followed in some of the training centres.
Secondly, I should like polytechnics to give more attention to the needs of industry and less attention to their desire to be universities. We have universities. In their desire to be universities, the polytechnics offer university courses. I have no objection to their doing so, provided university courses are not their first priority. The first priority of poly
1720
technics should be the training of people for manufacturing industry.
Thirdly, if we want an adequate pool of skilled labour in this country to service any boom, we have to be prepared to pay for it. The present differential between monotonous work and skilled work is not sufficient. In fact, there is evidence that we are prepared to pay for monotony but that we are not prepared to pay for skill. I am advised that people on the assembly belt in the motor car industry can earn far more money than the skilled men. I am advised that the toolmakers at British Leyland have a very strong case, despite their militancy.
If we are to get skilled labour, we have to be prepared to pay for it. If the trade unions, because the majority of workers are unskilled, are using their bargaining power against the skilled and in favour of the unskilled, then it is up to management, in its own interests, to use its influence to correct the balance and make sure that skilled people are paid an adequate differential. That is the only way in which we shall get an adequate supply of skilled labour.
Finally, so far as the development areas arc concerned, I agree that our first priority should be to take industries to the development areas. That is the best way of tackling the problem because it saves a great deal of social capital. But I do not believe that we should concentrate on that. I believe that the time has come to give more emphasis to the movement of skilled labour from the development areas into the areas where the skilled can get employment. I believe that can be done by facilitating interviews; I believe it can be done by making offers of housing to rent. It is much better that skilled people should be working in a prosperous area than that they should be wasting their time and their skills by remaining in a development area and being paid the dole. That is the kind of programme which I should like to see from any Government, whether it is a Tory Government or a Labour Government. It is a programme which we need regardless of politics.
5.21 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and if I

1721
had no single contribution of my own to make this afternoon I could do no better in fact than to repeat what he has said to us. The noble Lord, together with other noble Lords, has emphasised the differential between craftsmen with skills and those without, and certainly in the industry about which I wish to speak this afternoon this is very much evident. If one is going to encourage youngsters, either boys or girls, to take up skilful employment as distinct from just getting a job somehow when they leave school, one must get them to see right at the start what the opportunities are for acquiring skills which will last them and benefit them in the years ahead and not only in the immediate future. I believe that many of our young people give this matter some thought at 15 or 16 years of age, and where they cannot see an advantage they give up and say, "I will take a job "—or not, as the case may be.
Perhaps in the road transport industry, with which I have had some little dealing over the years, I could point to another failure. I think the failure has been adequately described in the road transport industry training board's publication of last year which they entitled Managers in road transport: a study of who they are and the jobs they do. Out of this 240-page document there came a mass of statistics, only a very few of which I wish to put before your Lordships. In my view they were absolutely staggering, in an industry which is so important.
This study showed that of all the companies in the scope of the board there were 52,850 managers. Incidentally, there were only 1,585 women among that number. I think that is rather a shame and I would remind your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench, of the great difficulty which was fairly widely reported, that the young lady at school had in taking up a metal work course. It must be a devastating failure on the part of the education system that an opportunity cannot be found for a girl to take up this kind of training. There must be some place within a mile or two from where she goes to school—or one could be found. Out of the 52,850 managers only 25 per cent. belong to any kind of professional body. Thirty-three-and-a-half per cent. of them had no qualifications whatsoever and only 6.2 per
1722
cent. had a qualification above HNC. So the vast bulk of managers really had an appallingly low qualification.
How does one really expect to attract into the industry skilled, well-qualified people when management itself is unqualified? If in fact the training boards can identify this need and persuade managers and their employers to release them, not for the statutory holidays, whether two, three, four or five weeks, but for four or five weeks' educational leave to get qualified, these young people will make better employees, and the rest follows. Indeed, my experience in industry is that much of the trouble comes not from the shop floor, who are, in terms of 50 years ago, better educated and less afraid; there is a demand for higher and better skills of their masters also, and unless the industries and the employers make due provision we shall not get that. I think it is a condemnation that in 1980—in a couple of weeks' time—we shall arrive at a major industry in which there are so few managers who are reasonably qualified.
Turning to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone both made, speaking about the intervention of the MSC, I may say that I noted in the industry training board's report and statement of accounts for 1978 that they say in their introduction:
" Apprentice intake was encouraged by a further special measure scheme and an all-time record of over 13,000 recruits was achieved by the industry. Unfortunately the board was unable to obtain approval for schemes similar to that for 1976–77, and the final scheme offered by the MSC, supported by £4·65 million from public funds, led to an excessive demand for places which could not be satisfied ".
It seems to me, my Lords, that there is a difference of view and possibly a difference of approach between the MSC, through its two arms, and the industrial training board, and I should think that it is fairly reasonable to suppose that that difference follows through other industrial training boards. Their record since 1966 has been very good. When they started out they were opposed by employers, largely because of the levy. Now most employers derive greater benefit, both by grant and the return of trained personnel, than they do in paying the levy. So it would seem to me that in any review of the activities

1723
of the training boards there should be some emphasis, or some re-emphasis, on their role within their own industries, which they seem to serve better than by the intervention of a central body such as the MSC. I think it is quite reasonable that the employers invited to pay the levy should know more directly how their levy is going to be spent so that it comes back into the industry which they serve.
My Lords, there is only one other point which I should like to make, and it arises out of the very telling point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on education for capability. I paraphrase what he said. Under that heading he spoke of the thirst for training and the thirst for training from the boardrooms, and the part trade unions could play in this. I do him an injustice by embracing all these together. If education in the earlier stages is to play any important part then there has to be a much greater dialogue between industry, whether manufacturing or service industry, and the teachers. It is sad, to my mind, that there are so many teachers who have no idea, no experience of practice, and certainly no conception of what it is that industry wants or what it is like to be in industry.
Furthermore, the boards of companies for whom I have worked are, alas, singularly ineffective in selling their own employment opportunities; that is, via apprenticeship or other skills. They do not seem to mind; they seem to leave it to a personnel officer, who sets out a job specification and that is that. It is not that at all. They should be going to the schools, as indeed the banks do, and the accountants and other professions; they are always to be found at careers afternoons and evenings. They know so much better what it is they want than do, unhappily, very many of the careers teachers.
So far as the trade unions are concerned, many boards in the smaller service industries are afraid of trade unions. I believe that they are afraid of them as a result of their own ignorance. It would be better if the trade unions would encourage higher skills, not only through trades and craftsmen but through management personnel accepting that there are to be greater rewards, accepting that throughout a company those who have qualifications which offer the opportunity to enter
1724
the institutes and associations and societies of the trades should be and could be rewarded better. I do not see this problem as being at all one-sided. There are three arms to it; there is the governmental agency, there are the employers and there are the employed, as represented in most cases by trade unions, and there should be a body that can identify the needs and work together to achieve them.
5.33 p.m.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I was not intending to intervene in this debate, but some of the speeches I have heard I have found highly stimulating, and I should like to refer to one or two aspects of this problem which I do not think have received adequate consideration. There is a shortage of skilled labour in this country. I believe that the shortage is by no means confined to this country; I have heard much the same complaint in other countries of Europe, despite the fact that in these other countries the systems of vocational training through education were traditionally much more highly developed than they were in this country, where we relied mainly on apprenticeship for the training of skilled workers. Moreover, the shortage is not confined to skilled workers. There is also a shortage of workers willing to do dirty jobs, unpleasant jobs. I believe most of these shortages may have a common cause which is not always realised, and it is not an easy one to see.
The traditional doctrine of Economists dating back to John Stuart Mill had been that earnings differentials must reflect the net advantages of different types of work. These net advantages offer a complex idea; it includes pleasantness, unpleasantness, danger, hazards, et cetera; it includes also loss of earnings during the years of training and the effort involved in training and so on—what the Americans call investment in human capital which should be rewarded by additional income in later years. When we look back on the pre-war world, one thing is clear, the earnings differentials were not in accordance with the net advantages of different types of work. It may be that in some cases these differentials have been eroded since the war—I am not saying that they have not—but clearly even before the war it is true to say that the least pleasant jobs were not the best rewarded but the worst rewarded, and that

1725
people did not choose between skilled and unskilled work or between this and that occupation freely according to where they expected the highest net advantage relative to rewards.
The answer to this problem is, I think, that up to the Second World War we had except in wartime, an unemployment economy. In an unemployment economy it is generally difficult to get jobs of any kind. A youngster's problem is mainly where he can find work; and this business of finding work or of securing a livelihood is a primary one and an oppressive one. Under that system net advantages, or earnings differentials in relation to net advantages, do not matter, or do not matter very much, because people automatically sort themselves out in different types of jobs according to the demand for labour. You get enough skilled workers because if you train yourself you know you will get a job in the end, whilst without the training you get no job. You get enough navvies or people who have to work very hard in dirty surroundings because you know that unless you take that work you get no work at all.
So in economy with mass unemployment there is a far more primitive form of market selection, shat some economists call the stock adjustment mechanism, which means that stocks get automatically replenished from a pool. That ensures that skilled and unskilled workers, navvies, assembly line workers or building workers or engineering workers, sort themselves out in the proportion in which they are required in the economy. It was not relative earnings which did that job; it was a far more primitive mechanism of selection; that is, they had to take the job where they could find it. So long as the demand for labour overall is so much less than the supply, or the potential supply, this mechanism works. In a full employment economy it does not work, or it works much less well. Therefore, earnings differentials become much more important. Therefore I would put less emphasis on the fact that earnings differentials are eroded, and more emphasis on the fact that the pre-war differentials which were sufficient in an unemployment economy, may be quite insufficient in a full employment economy.
Let us look at another aspect. Since 1973 there has been considerable unemploy
1726
ment in a number of countries—not only our own. There are 1.5 million unemployed in France, which is a unique phenomenon in French history; it has never happened before. There are 1 million unemployed in Germany. Despite this fact, they did not, by any manner of means, send home all their foreign guest workers. I believe that there are still 2 million guest workers working in Germany, and at least as many or more foreign workers working in France.
The reason is—and I am sorry to say that this is equally true in our own country although people do not like to speak about it—that the post-war foreign immigrants took over the dirty jobs which the local people were no longer willing to take when they had other, more pleasant employment opportunities which had not existed previously. I mention that last fact as an example, showing that in a full employment economy we are up against the problem of how to secure adequate numbers for jobs requiring different degrees of skill and different types of labour, which does not arise in an economy where jobs are hard to find so that people automatically take the jobs they can get.
5.42 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I think that when my noble friend Lord Mottistone looked at the list of speakers for his debate today, he might initially have had some feeling of disappointment at there not being rather more speakers on what is obviously an immensely important topic. He may have thought to himself that the proximity to Christmas and so on would account for that fact. My noble friend need not be in the slightest bit disappointed, because, as is very often the way in your Lordships' House, the shorter debates are more succinct in material as well.
We have had extremely good, acute, analytical speeches about the whole range of training across the economy at this time, at the end of the 1970s, and I, as a Minister, with direct responsibility here, have found it extraordinarily interesting and useful. I have not found it pleasurable for one reason only; namely, that the normal course of events is that the Minister makes a general statement on the Government's position, and then later he, or an associate, winds up and tries to

1727
deal with the individual points made in the debate. I now somehow have to concertina the two together at what is a reasonably late hour, with other business to come, and I shall therefore have to go at a bit of a gallop and somewhat "transistorise ", if I may put it that way, my remarks.
I should like to try to get out of the way one misapprehension that was expressed most clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, when she spoke about cuts and also gave, in her courteous and subtle way, the air that in some way matters of training were to be left to the free market, voluntarism, this, that or the other.
The Government are in some considerable economic difficulties—as your Lordships know—because they have not, in fact, cut public expenditure in this year: they have increased it. They have succeeded with considerable skill and courage in stabilising it over the programmes that were planned for last year, and it is an essential part of their counter-inflationary policy that there should be progressive stabilisation of public expenditure.
When we look, as the noble Baroness drew our attention, to the world of education which is, of course, intimately involved—and we should all like it to be even more involved—with the world of training, we find that the cuts taking place even adjusted for rates of inflation, are simply not there. What has happened is that we are not adjusting expenditure to take account of this year's or the next year's round of pay claims, and that is why there is a conflct between people's claims as regards wages, particularly in local authorities, and the services that can be given. That is an inevitable consequence of any counter-inflationary activity and would be a consequence even if alternative methods involving, say, a pay policy, were involved.
I am happy to give way to noble Lords, but it would be better if, having made that general counter-inflationary point, I went on and perhaps later in my speech the noble Lord or the noble Baroness would like to intervene.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I wish to ask just one question. Is the noble
1728
Earl's claim to have increased public expenditure in real terms or in money terms?
The Earl of GOWRIE: In real terms, my Lords. The noble Lord has touched on the exact point. It has actually been increased in real terms and that is why we are in such thundering trouble.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, has it really been increased in education?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is well aware the educational budget comes out of the local authorities' rate support grant. The rate support grant has been stabilised—in fact, it has marginally increased in real terms and not in inflationary terms. What has not been built into it is provision for increased wages on anything like the scale which looks like happening. That is where the money crunch and the wage crunch will be felt. That is an inevitable consequence, as I say, of any counter-inflationary policy. It does not matter whether it was the counter-inflationary policy of the last Government or of this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, quite fairly—because his general remarks, as was appropriate to this subject and this debate, were very bipartisan and very sensible in the main, and I shall come to them in a moment—teased me about Milton Friedman or Hayek in these counter-inflationary matters. As I have made clear to noble Lords during many debates on the economy, the people I follow in counter-inflationary policies are not Dr. Friedman or Mr. Hayek, but Mr. Healey, the noble Lord, Lord Lever, and Mr. Joel Barnett during the one period of their tenure of office when we felt that they met with considerable success. But pressures of another kind unfortunately from their point of view and also from the point of view of the economy—led them to abandon those policies. With that out of the way, I should like to say that I welcome very much the subject chosen for today's debate and am most grateful to my noble friend.
In the manpower field few issues are more important than the development of adequate arrangements for industrial training—important because of the need

1729
for a system able to respond rapidly to changing needs at a time of great technological change; and because of the need to tackle skill shortages which can stand in the way of industrial growth. I say can ", but I should say which" are "standing in the way of industrial growth. They are also important because training enables individuals to improve their employment opportunities and develop their talents to the full and find fulfilment in the world of work.
I should like quickly to explain how our present statutory arrangements for encouraging training in industry have developed, and to outline the work that the Manpower Services Commission has in hand at the moment to improve the effectiveness of the arrangements. To put this in context I must first say a word about the labour market and the role of training policies generally.
It is the labour market which brings together the diverse needs of enterprises and employees' needs to have their skills used and rewarded. Good policies can help to reconcile those two sets of needs, but the question of what skills are required or are in demand at any time is decided by the interplay of many factors, most of which are not under the control of the Government, but which include technology and the supply of labour in areas where jobs are available.
At any time there are in the labour market imbalances between supply and demand for skills. This is a cry that has gone up continually since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, one could say that it was a sine qua non of an industrial society. Nevertheless, the labour market is in a constant state of adjustment through the action of employers in bringing their labour force size and structure into line with production requirements, and workers who move as their work needs change. As a result, most labour force imbalances are temporary and easily accommodated and have no substantial effect on production.
But some imbalances can persist more generally and, when they do, they impose a heavy cost on the economy and on individual firms. One example is, of course, in the jargon of the employment trade, geographical mismatch between people and jobs. Everyone knows by
1730
simply looking around that there are more skill shortages in the South-East than in the rest of the country. There are indeed a few other areas where a relatively low level of unemployment co-exists with a substantial munber of unfilled vacancies. Yet worrying rates of unemployment show no signs of easing in places like Merseyside, Glasgow and Wearside.
Another example is occupational mismatch, and these areas were touched on by several noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Skill shortages persist in spite of high unemployment and some skills are in short supply even in unprosperous areas like the North-West. These shortages can result in low output or quality, higher costs and a lower rate of economic expansion because the "bottleneck" effect can seriously constrain production.
The reasons for skill imbalances are numerous, often interrelated and not always to do with training. For example, the reasons may be poor employment policies, inflexible use of labour, outdated or rigid manning practices, employment legislation, protective demarcation practices and immobility of labour. It is too late to get into a lengthy debate about housing issues in this country, but the nature of housing in this country has, in my view, been a profound disincentive to the mobility of labour. Over the last few years successive pay policies, whatever their other virtues—and your Lordships are well aware of my scepticism there—have hit the skilled man by squeezing pay differentials. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who is a doughty champion of pay policies, was good enough to admit that defect at least. Small wonder that many craftsmen have left skilled occupations for equally lucrative but less demanding jobs. Now that employers can pay craftsmen according to their market value or according to what wages are agreed through collective bargaining, differentials are beginning to widen again and we can expect rather less wastage of skilled men looking for greater pay elsewhere.
I should like to say a few words about the 1964 Act. The Act had three main objectives: to ensure an adequate supply of trained men and women at all levels of industry; to secure an improvement in the

1731
quality and efficiency of industrial training; and to share the cost of training more evenly between firms. Industrial Training Boards—ITBs—were set up to look after the training activities of particular industries. Today there are 24 ITBs covering about half the employed population. Therefore, they are very extensive in their coverage. It was quite right of my noble friend Lord Mottistone to direct the main thrust of his speech and of this debate towards them. In my own ministerial capacity I have visited a number, notably the Construction Industry Training Board's activity at Kings Lynn, which is a magnificent and marvellously equipped centre; in my capacity as your Lordships' energy spokesman as well as an employment Minister, I have also visited the Petroleum Industry Training Board's fire-fighting establishment in Montrose, Scotland. Your Lordships will be aware that if one works on an oil rig and something goes wrong in that highly volatile and dangerous atmosphere, one cannot call out a marine fire brigade, so every single man jack on a rig has to be highly trained in firefighting. I was most impressed by what I saw there.
I should like to direct a few remarks to the impact of these boards. They have important achievements to their credit. They include a much greater awareness of the importance of training, new thinking and new initiatives in many areas of training, and more specialist training of officers and instructors employed in industry. Systematic off-the-job training has also increased substantially, and senior management now recognises more widely the value of training. Whatever the occasional grumbles to which it gives rise, broadly speaking, the levy system has settled down well. Group training schemes of particular benefit to small firms have also been promoted by the boards and we wish to see this continue. But some weaknesses-and irritants in the system did become apparent which generated pressure for further change, and after a review and consultations we had more legislation in 1973. My noble friend spoke about his criticisms of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
That Act brought about a number of changes in the way in which boards operated—mainly related, of course, to
1732
levy—but confirmed the authority and responsibility of individual ITBs for securing adequate training within their industries. But as far as the institutions set up by the 1964 Act were concerned, the 1973 Act represented adjustment rather than any radical change. It also established, as the House is well aware, the Manpower Services Commission to take over responsibility for the manpower services, including the training services which were previously administered by the Department of Employment.
I say to my noble friend that it is open to argument whether, with the benefits of hindsight, one would have hived off so much activity if one was starting again now. However, it would be the height of folly for any Government faced with our agreed needs in training, and also with the present economic situation and the need to reduce inflation, now to start looking again at rather massive across-the-board structural changes.
The MSC has done a magnificent job in most areas of its activity. Inevitably there are areas of disagreement between aspects of its work and the views of those who pay for the work. Nevertheless, it is important that the system should continue to settle down in new and often harder circumstances, and I am most anxious to give my support to it.
The first of the MCS's key training programmes was, and remains, to help meet the direct training needs of industry. The main instrument for advancing this programme, as I said, has been the ITBs. The challenge to the Commission has been to co-ordinate the work of the ITBs and at the same time ensure that the boards continued to have the automony necessary to retain authority in their industries, which my noble friend found most important, and to pursue policies suited to the varying needs and circumstances of those industries.
A moment ago I referred to the impact which the 1964 legislation had had and to the improvements which it had set in motion throughout the system. The 1973 Act removed some of the most obvious weaknesses and created a better climate in which improvements already evident could be strengthened. Over the last 15 years much has been accomplished. Perhaps the main advance has been the almost

1733
universal acceptance of the need for planned industrial training. Senior management is far more committed to formal training plans and consequently there is far greater acceptance among employees at all levels of the need for training.
In addition, new approaches to training problems have been developed by various Governments and the MSC in co-operation with the ITBs and other training organisations. As time is passing, let me give just two quick examples. First, there are the Special Training Measures. The advent of recession in 1975 once again threatened a severe cut-back in the training opportunities for young people, especially in those occupations requiring long and costly training. The future supply of those skills needed by industry was at risk. The MSC, in co-operation with the boards and other organisations, therefore, introduced a scheme of Special Training Measures to safeguard the intake of young people and to ensure that industry would not be subsequently deprived of the skills it needed. Of course, such a scheme could not ensure that there would be no skill shortages today, but the special measures, which have cost over £120 million in total since 1975, have helped to provide training opportunities for some 140,000 young people, some three-quarters of whom are in craft or technician occupations.
Then there is the Training for Skills Programme. In 1977 a task group, which comprised eminent experts representing the ITBs, employers, unions and the education service, considered a more permanent approach to the problem of skill shortages and the extent to which training measures could alleviate them. The groups' report and recommendations form the basis of the publication Training for Skills, and these recommendations are now being implemented through and with the support of the ITBs and also through other organisations in the non-board sectors.
The essential feature of the programme which has the backing of the present Government is that the ITBs and other training organisations in all parts of industry and commerce, in both the private and the public sectors, should draw up realistic assessments of manpower needs and take appropriate action to prevent
1734
shortages. MSC's financial support in obtaining these objectives is provided where needed, but is conditional on the strategies and plans of industry moving—and of course this can only move voluntarily—towards meeting certain criteria. For instance, the need for schemes to take account of how they can be applied both to young people and to adults; what the standards should be; how recruitment for young people should proceed; the length of craft and technician training; the flexibility of age and entry into training, and negotiations with the unions about that; and that there should be opportunities for the later acquisition or updating of skills.
May I now come quickly to some of the individual points made to me during the debate. I would say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, that it was the view of the Government in 1973 that the users of the employment and training services should be involved in the development of policies and programmes, and so the Commission was primarily set up to provide such a focus by appointing CBI, TUC, and local authority commissioners. Of course, the funding of the MSC is through public money sponsored through my department, and that is where Ministers are daily and intimately involved.
The 25 per cent. of the labour force in nationalised industries and other sectors are not in the scope of the industrial training boards, and that is a matter of concern to us as well as to the commission. The proportion is now about 40 per cent., and the MSC has positively encouraged liaison and co-operation with the organisations in these sectors. It has also encouraged some of the sectors to set up voluntary training boards. For example, in the last 18 months a voluntary training council has been set up in the fishing industry and also in the freight forwarding industry, and I would expect to see that continue.
The noble Lord made several points about the present industrial training system, including the role of the commission in relation to the ITBs. He said that we must relax the iron grip of the MSC there. We do not have closed minds on any of these issues. In setting up the review of arrangements for promoting training under the 1973 Act, the MSC recognised that the time was ripe for a fundamental review of

1735
the whole industrial training system, and since taking office again we have indicated our concern that arrangements in this field need to be related closely to the present and prospective skill needs of industry, and to be cost-effective.
To this end we have set in motion a review, and the commission are aiming to report to us in the summer of 1980 with their recommendations following the review, so that we can then decide with them the future of the training arrangements, including the ITB system. Since I shall myself be involved in this review I shall of course put into it the points raised by the noble Lord.
Apart from his brief and teasing remarks about Dr. Hayek and Dr. Freidman, I found myself in considerable agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, had to say. Indeed, one of the reasons that I stand here at this Box and work in your Lordships' House is that I was for 10 years a university lecturer, and though I enjoyed that period of my career I found that what I was teaching and, above all, the qualifications that I was, as it were, handing out to the students concerned were increasingly irrelevant and not adaptable to the world of work in which they would find themselves. That is why, with some reluctance, I left that particular and rather enjoyable career and entered a new one. So I am in wholehearted agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that we have to rethink this at the school and educational level. I, even in a difficult atmosphere, have given all the backing I can to the work of the careers service in this context, which provides an admirable link between industry and local authorities, and we are doing all we can in a difficult and restrictive atmosphere to help them. My noble friend Lord Lucas also had things to say about where our educational system might have gone wrong in that context.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, asked me a particular question concerning figures. At the end of March 1979 there were 69 skill centres and 32 annexes with altogether 22,738 places. In addition, 37,000 or rather more places have been used in colleges of further education, and nearly 10,000 in employers' training establishments. With regard to the noble
1736
Baroness, I have to some degree tried to meet the point at the beginning about education cuts, but one of the things that we have maintained and indeed increased in terms of its provision is the youth opportunities programme, which is trying to provide some training and a link with the world of work for particularly disadvantaged or the unemployed young people. I must say to her that of course the Government are massively involved in this area.
About a quarter of a million 16 or 18 year olds in employment receive day or block release. Both the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Viscount asked me about day release. Most of them come from the engineering and construction industries, which are of course vital to our general industrial regeneration. I am rather sad that the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, did not use this debate as an opportunity to make his maiden speech because he is so experienced in this area. But most young people in employment are in occupations where organised education and training is not common. This situation, I agree with all noble Lords who made the point, contrasts unfavourably with most of our main competitors abroad.
Our manifesto committed us to a review of the relationship between schools, further education and training. No decisions have yet been reached on the extent of the review, but aspects of it will he undertaken in the MSC's review of the Employment Act and in the recently established Department of Education Joint Working Group chaired by my honourable friend Mr. Macfarlane. This group, which first met on 1st November, and which I have attended, will consider, within the wider context of education, training and employment of young people, those aspects of educational provision for the 16s to 19s for which the Education Department and LEAs are jointly responsible. But anyone who has been involved in the world of education will know that Governments have to tread extremely delicately in questions of syllabus or what is taught. We are going to tread delicately but firmly because the commitment is as strong there as it could possibly he.
May I look forward quickly and finally to the future, and to the skills needed in

1737
this next decade. The Government, the ITBs and others involved in training cannot, and must not, be concerned solely with traditional skills. We must all pay attention to the skills demanded by new and changing technologies which will be the key to the wealth-making performance of British industry. In its current plans the commission is giving high priority to training in these areas where shortages are most likely to damage the economy, and these include all skilled computing occupations and training needs for the commercial exploitation of microelectronics. It has been announced that I have become intimately involved in this, because I have been given my own department's remit to look into the application and employment effects of micro-technology.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that I understand a few ITBs support some postgraduate training appropriate to their industry. I had in mind particularly the EITB, which provides support to the advanced technology courses for professional engineers, and these are relevant of course to applications of micro-electronics.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I assure the Minister that they do not support postgraduate part-time MSC students in universities. The ITBs have stated that it is not in their function to do so.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I was in fact answering another point which the noble Lord has made, my Lords. I recognise he is concerned about postgraduate training and, if I may, I will look into that and see what we can do there.
Last May the MSC launched a three-year programme to boost computer training and help overcome shortages of skilled staff. The programme will provide up to 3,000 training places in each of the next three years; and this is in an atmosphere of considerable financial stringency —so that is quite an achievement. It includes extra computer training under TOPS, the Training Opportunities Scheme. and training under the Threshold Scheme which is administered by the National Computing Centre on the MSC's behalf for unemployed young people.
The bulk of the MSC's programmes were concerned originally with the training
1738
needs of industry, but no less important are the training needs of the individual, and that is catered for under TOPS. The scheme provides opportunities for adults who are unemployed or who wish to change their occupations, and that change of occupational training is particularly relevant to the needs of women, which my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned.
Some 70,000 adults completed training under TOPS last year. Of these, about 18,500 were trained in engineering and automotive skills. Following recommendations of the review, training in the important technician and computer related fields has as I said, been expanded and will continue to expand despite some cuts in the overall programme. Again, when we talk about cuts we are talking about cuts in planned expenditure, not cuts in absolute terms this year. We welcome the MSC's efforts to strengthen TOPS' contribution to immediate skill needs and generally to increase the cost-effectiveness of the scheme.
I come quickly to public expenditure cuts and the training services. Some cuts were made in the MSC's planned expenditure on training in 1979–80, both on TOPS and on expenditure in the running costs and grant expenditure to ITBs. This does not mean any lessening in our concern to achieve an efficient training service. We did consider, however, that the MSC's programmes, which have expanded so rapidly in recent years, could not be exempt from the expenditure reductions we were determined to find in relation to our fiscal and counter-inflationary problems, and indeed pumping more and more public expenditure into the training system is not the answer to the problem of skill shortages. Within the training programmes the cuts were applied selectively. For example, under TOPS the main reductions were centred on courses in commercial and clerical subjects while plans for training for technicians, the main computer-related occupations and the main craft occupations in skill centres, were largely unaffected.
My own view is that what is needed at the moment is not so much money but a revitalising of attitudes which gets more people out of the service sectors, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and others have referred, and into the manufacturing

1739
sectors, which originally made us wealthy and which we would hope, given the new technologies and given getting inflation down, will turn the economy round and, we hope, help us again.
I hope I have been able to indicate the importance the Government attach to making sure we have an industrial training system which is geared to meeting current and prospective demands for skills and which enables individuals to make the most of their talents. Much has been achieved in recent years but much remains to be done, not least to avoid the bottlenecks of shortages of skills which we seem to run into even at times of relatively high unemployment. This is a well-timed debate, as I said at the beginning, enabling me to bring to the attention of the Commission's Review Body the points made in the debate today and to bear them in mind when we receive the commission's recommendations.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank very much those who have taken part. As I had hoped, their contributions were complementary, wide-ranging and covered the subject as fully as they could in a short afternoon. I thank my noble friend Lord Gowrie for his reply and for undertaking to look at some of the points I made to him. It is perhaps unfortunate that he is still leaving the Manpower Services Commission in the position of examining its own affairs, which is slightly unfair for it, and perhaps he would give another thought to that. On other points, I should be grateful if at some time he would let me know which ones he would particularly like not to do, so enabling me to know which to plug the hardest. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FURSKINS BILL [H.L.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Paget of Northampton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of export of furskins]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after (" article ") insert (" derived from any animal captured by any of the means specified in Schedule 2 to this Act ").
The noble Lord said: When I had recovered from the body blow inflicted on me and those of like views as a result of the Division on Second Reading, I looked around and felt that the correct stance I should take was to try to improve it as much as I could according to my likes. With that end in view, I approached my noble friend Lord de Clifford and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who unfortunately cannot be with us tonight, and they agreed with me in principle. I then went ahead and wrote my amendments and, perhaps a little too enthusiastically and exuberantly, they agreed with the amendments I had drafted.
However, none of us in our thoughts examined what I might describe as the acid test, which of course in your Lordships' House as elsewhere is the question, "Do you believe that once the amendments have been discussed and, hopefully, agreed to, the Bill will be improved to your satisfaction?" That was brought to my attention only this morning and, in view of the vast number of amendments appearing on the Marshalled List, I had in all honesty to say to those noble Lords with whom I had spoken privately and to members of the public outside that I really did not think that that would in fact be the case. Therefore, with the agreement again of the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Wynne-Jones, I do not propose to move any of the amendments standing in any of our names on the Marshalled List.
[Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 not moved.]
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(3) Where any furskin or any piece or cutting of any furskin is being exported, or has been brought to any place for the purpose of being exported, a person commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a person authorised by them may require any person possessing or having control of the furskin or piece or cutting to furnish proof that its exportation is not unlawful by virtue of this section; and if such proof is not furnished to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners the furskin or piece or cutting shall be liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act 1952.").
The noble Lord said: T thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the line he has taken, and I intend to follow his example; like him, I do not propose to move an amendment. When the Bill leaves your Lordships' House it either dies or gets accepted by the department. Its acceptance by the department will be the job of my friends in another place; they will have to do their thing and then, if the department accepts it, the department will then put in any amendments it considers desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, suggested on Second Reading an amendment on these lines. The draftsmen who helped me with this matter drafted this amendment, and if and when the Department come to consider it, it will decide whether this is a suitable form or whether another form would be suitable; but so far as I am concerned I do not feel that it is at all necessary for the purpose of my Bill. My Bill is a very narrow one and a very short one. It is intended quite simply to prevent our wildlife from being upset and to prevent poaching from being encouraged on a large scale to comply with a temporary European fashion. If it is illegal to export these skins, one will have the full co-operation of the fur trade in not exporting them, and without the fur trade's participation I am sure that they will not be exported. If anybody tried to do so, I think the fur trade would very soon see that nobody "horned in on their racket ", if T may put it that way. So I am quite confident that this will be a self-policing Bill, and therefore I do not move my amendment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord DE CLIFFORD: May I say at this stage that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and I felt very strongly about the Bill, and I must confess that I still do, but I totally appreciate the reason why it is inappropriate that we should go on with it. There are certain basic points in the Bill that I do not like. One point which made me very reluctant to agree with my noble friend was the fact that one of the propositions that we wanted to include here related to the method by which these wild animals were taken. I considered this matter rather carefully and I thought that in view of the fact that the Government were not immediately producing a wildlife Bill this would be a moment when we could perhaps put a little pressure on them. I fully appreciate what my noble friend has said and I do not propose to go any further with it. However, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, will consider that we might advance a little in the protection of our wildlife and give more haste to the new wildlife Bill that is coming.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON I had intended to speak on the Question, that the House do now resume, but as my noble friend has started a discussion perhaps I should come in at this juncture. We all recognise the work that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has done in preparing amendments designed to give the Bill a clearer aim and a semblance of enforcability, and to cure some of its many other defects. I appreciate also what the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has said about his amendment. I must say to him, rather briefly, that any proposal that enforcement of this export prohibition should be undertaken by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise must be considered against the background of the need for economy in both expenditure and manpower in the public services. However, I am grateful that he has not moved the amendment because, as I see it, there is little future in trying to turn this measure, which we consider is a bad measure and is not needed, into something quite different,

1743
dealing with a matter which is already adequately covered by existing legislation or with points which we have already indicated will be covered by our wildlife and countryside Bill. We see little point in trying to convert this defective Bill into anything else, so I welcome wholeheartedly the decisions of noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing with me that the Bill does not need to be altered into anything else. I certainly do not want it altered into anything else, and when close discussions later take place in the noble Lord's Ministry it will be found that the Bill makes no real charge on expenditure in regard to enforcement. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

THE BRITISH COUNCIL: GOVERNMENT'S FUTURE POLICY
6.26 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY Lord HATCH of LUSBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their future policy in regard to the functions and responsibilities of the British Council in view of the cuts in public expenditure. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. We are meeting tonight and discussing this question under a cloud of sadness. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in expressing our deep shock at the disaster which has befallen the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, a former chairman of the British Council, and in hoping that in the expressed affection of his colleagues here he will find some little comfort in his great loss.
In discussing the future of the British Council and asking the Government to state their plans I intend to begin by reverting to a theme which is now almost hackneyed, at least from these Benches, when asking the Government about their future plans. We understand that the
1744
Government's central policy is to increase trade, particularly overseas trade, and thereby to inspire an industrial revival. But, my Lords, there are times when it appears as though the Government, in their determination, and obsession regarding cutting public expenditure, are throwing away the seed with the chaff. I believe that one of these instances is to be found in the subject that we are discussing tonight.
After all, overseas trade depends essentially upon communication—communication in all its aspects—and British trade depends upon British communication with overseas peoples. In this respect surely the British Council has played an outstanding part, and should have a crucial role to play in the industrial and economic plans of the Government; and at this stage I am speaking specifically on the industrial, economic and trading aspects of the council.
The British Council is today represented in 82 countries. It is a specialist in the teaching of the English language. It engages in and facilitates the interchange of personnel; it organises training programmes; it recruits teachers from overseas; it is responsible for the organisation of advisory visits; and, not least, it takes throughout the world the drama, the music and the exhibitions of the people of this country. This is communication, and it is communication in all its aspects—a vital foundation on which to build our overseas trading programme. It creates a climate for the sale of British goods and for the sale of British services abroad; and, incidentally, it is specifically engaged in exporting educational materials, not least books from our publishers, as all the educational publishers will assure the Government if they are asked.
Now we are told that in the next financial year, 1980–81, the budget of the British Council is to be cut by 11·5 per cent.; but because of redundancies in addition, this means that in effect the real cut next year will be in the order of 14 per cent. What does this mean? It means that the services of the British Council will be reduced, that our educational exports will be reduced—and I understand it is estimated that, in the case of books, this means a reduction in book exports by the British Council of 15 per cent.—and that in the case of books

1745
supplied to British Council libraries overseas the cut will be as much as 48 per cent. It means that the advisory tours, which can so oil the wheels of communication in the industrial world, arc to be cut by 15 per cent.; and that British Council scholarships may very well be harmed. It means, at the same time, that the felowships provided by the British Council will be terminated; and, surely, fellowships, with all the resources of research and knowledge which they both bring to this country and take abroad from this country, are one of the foundations of our cultural exchange overseas. It also means that the Council of Europe scholarships will come to an end, that the Commonwealth university interchanges will have to be brought to an end, and that the academic interchange between this country and Europe will be terminated. I understand that three specific schemes for scientific and university interchange with the sub-continent of India are already marked down for termination.
In this country, the United Kingdom regional network is to be reduced; and that most important institution, the London Students' Centre, will have its services reduced and possibly will have finally to close. The promotion of arts will have to be cut by 25 per cent. I know it is fashionable in certain circles to decry the British Council's support of the export of arts overseas. I repudiate that charge entirely; but I would say to the Government—because I usually find it is better to talk to the Government in business terms—that the idea that the export of arts costs this country something is really quite untrue. To give your Lordships just one instance, in the last financial year for which we have figures, 1977–78, the British Council spent £650,000 on music, drama and exhibitions overseas. The actual cost of those performances was something over £2 million; and that brought back to this country and added to our balance of payments £l¼ million. So even applying a business test the export of arts was profitable. But, of course, it means a great deal more than this, and I have no doubt that when I have sat down other noble Lords will expand on the value of taking the art of Britain to the rest of the world.
I am particularly concerned about the effect within the Commonwealth of the cuts on the British Council, because it
1746
seems to me that at this time, when the Commonwealth has played such a vital part in our political history and when it has such potential for increased influence in the world and for an increase in British influence in the world, this is a particular disaster. There are planned withdrawals in a whole range of Commonwealth countries, from Australia to Bangladesh, from Nigeria to India, from Sri Lanka to Malaysia, and elsewhere. I particularly deplore the need to cut down the activities of the British Council within the Commonwealth.
Then there is its special role in the teaching and promotion of the English language, about which the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, spoke so eloquently in the debate on the report that we had two years ago, in November 1977. Surely the teaching of the English language —an international language, the language of technology and of science, the language of the future—is in itself an investment for the British Isles. I have listed some of the effects that have already been foreseen of the cuts which the Government have imposed upon the British Council, but there is a further danger. We know that there is an inter-departmental review. There are fears that this inter-departmental review will increase, exacerbate and deepen those cuts. If it does, then they will have (as indeed the present cuts will have on an organisation like the British Council, as I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will recognise) and exponential effect; and further cuts can quite seriously endanger the future of the British Council itself as the kind of organisation we have known.
So much, then, for the business, economic, materialistic effects of the cuts on the British Council. But before I sit down there is an aspect of this subject which, to me, is of even more profound importance. We are, after all, in this rapidly shrinking world, seeking a world culture, and we believe that we have a part to play in that world culture. It will not be one culture; it will be a complex within one unit. We have every reason to be proud of the contribution we have made, but we have no reason to bring that contribution to an end.
I am not one of those who chauvinistically considers British culture as the finest culture the world has ever known, but we have a contribution to make to the present

1747
and the future of international cultural contacts. I believe that the British Council is one of the principal agencies capable of doing so. We have seen many previous cultures reduced to the dead, archeological tourist spectacle. There is a danger that if we allow the present-day inward-looking trends in this country to overcome what has been for the past three centuries an outward-looking concept, the British culture itself will follow along those lines.
But modern technology has given us much greater opportunity than in the past. Modern technology makes communication swifter, information better known and wider known. We have this opportunity. We have no longer the opportunity of sending our gunboats to enforce our will in other parts of the world; but our ideas are wanted; knowledge of our institutions is valuable and our language is international. If we are concerned about the heritage which we pass on to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, surely it must be a heritage which is based upon our self-confidence that we have a part—only a part, but an important, crucial part—to play in the development of the international community of the 21st century.
So I ask this of the Government tonight. What are their plans as far as the British Council is concerned in the functions which I have outlined? Not, let me add, what can we afford? As I pointed out, what I am asking is this. What are the Government sowing for the future, and how do they see the British Council within their plans for expansion in the future; expansion in the field of trade, of economic activity and of the exchange of goods? Above all, what are their plans for the contribution which Britain can make, through the British Council, to the development of a British aspect of a world culture?
6.42 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and to the House for not having been in my place for the first minute or two of the noble Lord's speech. I am afraid that I did not realise that the previous debate was to be over so soon. I had been assured that it would go on
1748
longer. I am sorry. I hasten to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for drawing attention to the very substantial cuts which the Government are making in the budget of the British Council. Unlike other organisations, the British Council is not in itself, as we know, presided over by some powerful Minister and it has no lobby which can be easily mobilised on its behalf. Nor has it gone out of its way to publicise itself. Perhaps, for that very reason, its superb work all over the world, though much envied by our rivals, is largely unappreciated by the British public.
It has, however, one great friend who has always stood up for it, the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I join with the noble Lord in saying that we must share the grief of one of our most lovable Members at the tragic accident which resulted in the death of his wife. Had it not been for his sudden bereavement, he would have been here this evening pleading, at least, for a stay of execution, as it were—as he did with marked success two years ago when the House debated the famous Bell Report.
Your Lordships will remember that that report recommended for consideration two options. Option "A" involved the complete abolition of the Council and the taking over of some of its duties by Government departments and agencies, notably the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the ODM. But the report itself recognised—and I refresh my memory on this—that there were, to say the least, considerable disadvantages in following the course of total abolition. Option" B" involved the retention of a separate Council of the United Kingdom undertaking all educational recruitment and placement for the ODM and the Crown Agents. However, the Council's representation overseas under this scheme would, for the most part have been, incorporated in diplomatic posts. In any case, there would have been a considerable reduction in the staff employed overseas and in London.
Your Lordships, or such as those who took part in the debate on the "Think Tank "report, rejected with horror Option " A " and did not approve either of Option " B ". Nevertheless, I think that it is rather in this direction—or perhaps in the direction of something even more undesirable than Option " B "

1749
—that the Government seem to be tending at the moment, if rumours which reach us are reliable. They may not be envisaging the actual winding up of the Council; they are rather preferring to apply over the next two or three years the old Chinese torture of the thousand cuts. If the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, were present today he would be pointing out that, at the least, such a policy would be counter-productive. It may be necessary to save money and make economies in every Budget; I do not deny that. When arguing against the policy of the Government on overseas students, it is true, I rejected the whole proposal for what the Government called economies because they simply were not economies and could be shown to the contrary (even from the strictly financial point of view) to be simply suggestions for cutting off our collective nose to spite our collective face.
In the case of the British Council, it is different. If you are going to reduce their budget by the equivalent of, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said, 11·5 per cent.—for that is what it apparently in reality would amount to—it would save the taxpayer only £10 million. But the consequences of such an economy would be very severe, as the noble Lord has said, resulting, for various reasons, in a reduction of some 14 per cent. of the general activities of the Council everywhere. Already the Council has had to trim its expenditure on books. I do not remember the percentage; but it has had to trim already £600,000 off that part of its budget. This means that all over the world, the thousands who flock into the libraries of the Council to find out what is happening in Britain, from the scientific, literary, technological and political point of view, will be disappointed and, no doubt, will drift elsewhere to find out what is happening in Paris, Moscow or Bonn. The sale of British educational goods will suffer a heavy blow, particularly in the Gulf States, which is a very good market; and the teaching of English, one of the chief functions of the British Council, will be very severely affected. Most damaging of all, I believe, is the effect on the amount of scholarships financed by the Council. These will drop—I do not know how much; but I believe about a half—to the disadvantage, above all, of the poorer
1750
countries which I believe it is our bounden duty to support.
Is it really necessary for us to undergo as a nation such deprivations? Is it not thought that the more money we can spend for propagating the English language and British political conceptions is money well spent, however broke we find ourselves to be? Do we not recognise that before the present cuts—and if I am wrong perhaps the Government spokesman will correct me—the French were spending on educational and cultural projects over three times as much as we are, or were spending? In the case of the Germans it is no fewer than four times what we spent. We may take the view that the rich Germans can afford to do this; but the French are, like ourselves, in financial difficulties. Yet the last thing they will cut will be funds devoted to the spread of French culture and the use of the French language.
More generally, it should be noted that the Council has been "reviewed" no fewer than 12 times since the war. No organisation can stand being perpetually torn up by the roots in order to see how it is getting on. All sense of purpose will be lost if this process continues. Though battered, it may yet, I suppose, survive the existing cuts of 11 per cent, or whatever they are. It can hardly survive if it is proposed to subject it to further cuts of unknown size year after year. If that happens, we shall wilfully destroy the best instrument we have—apart from the Overseas Services of the BBC—of getting, as it were, into intimate touch with those nations which we must, if we can, keep in the democratic fold in the company of those who appreciate the Western way of life in some association of the free.
As the slump continues, the clouds of totalitarian philosophies are gathering fast over many countries in Africa, South America, the Caribbean, South East Asia and the Middle East. Now is emphatically not the time to weaken our efforts to counter such tendencies by demonstrating that freedom is still preferable to dictatorship, that Communism simply does not pay. It is for these broader reasons that I beg the Government at least to stay their hand and in the forthcoming departmental review not insist on any further cuts in the Council's

1751
budget other than those already in application.
6.52 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the words spoken by the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Gladwyn, in the message of sympathy they sent from this House to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. Lady Ballantrae was a person who was very talented, a personality in her own right. Many in this country and in New Zealand will remember her with respect, admiration and affection. Our thoughts go out to the noble Lord very much this evening.
Some two years ago in a debate in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, recalled, we talked about the British Council and the Overseas Services of the BBC. The value to this country of both of these was strongly underlined. I was one of those, together with the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, who asked the Government of the day to avoid cutting their budgets. I had not anticipated then—no one could have done who had not seen the national books—the extent of our over-commitment of expenditure in the public service sector which was in fact later revealed. That entailed an outlay far in excess of anything that Britain could earn at the present day at the present rate of productivity.
In these circumstances, I cannot see how any responsible Government could have avoided the cuts across the board which they have asked of all Government departments. When such an operation is conducted—and we have seen these operations before—no Government activity can claim an alibi. Anybody—civil servants or Ministers—is very good at pleading his own special case; but it is impossible in a cut across the board to allow any of those claims in whole. Therefore some services, in themselves desirable and meritorious, have to be curtailed and clipped. It is very unwelcome.
This matter is not for debate today, but one must say that the remedy for this situation is in our own hands. More and more it is seen to concentrate in the word "productivity" which I have mentioned. If we increase productivity, then we can
1752
spread our wings again, but not until then. So I conclude as a matter of hard realism in the present circumstances that the defeat of inflation has to take priority and that the British Council will have to acquiesce in the reduction of its budget in phase 1 in the programme of economy. I hope, however, that the Council, together with my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, will have another look at phases 2 and 3.
No one at the moment can foresee with any certainty the economic prospects ahead. We trust they will improve. Even if they did not, and the economy was to remain tight, I have no doubt which of the services of the British Council I would strain every nerve to keep intact. It is the teaching of English. English is destined to be the language of science, technology and business. The more people who speak English, the more people who think in English; and when they begin to speak in English the spin-off—if I may use one of the modern technical phrases—in terms of banking, insurance, trade and commerce is of course very great and very profitable. The common language of English, by and large, is better taught by Englishmen, and it is good business when English is taught overseas in our Commonwealth and other countries.
We might mark, because it is rather satisfying, that English is becoming the second language in a lot of countries where it was not so before. Therefore, I hope that the Council and my noble friend will be able to consult and find ways and means so that the British Council can fulfil its purposes overseas. I believe they pay to this country a handsome dividend. They should be preserved in future years. I hope, therefore, that in due course—and one cannot expect an answer from the Government today about phrases 2 and 3—some modifications in these stringent requirements will be made so that we can have the benefit of these services in future years.
6.58 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I should like to join noble Lords who have spoken in their sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, in the loss of his wife—a very distinguished woman in her own right. I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Home, regarding how far by dedication to the English language we can

1753
maintain the principles of the British Council. One can teach people the English language and still miss the whole meaning of English culture. We had the great battle—some here are old enough to remember it—at the end of the war when there was again an assault on the British Council. We managed, in the terms of Lord Home's contention, at least to demonstrate that in fact we were replacing with English what was then the vacuum in the scientific, academic and other fields of the German language. At the moment we must persist in the British Council activities. The Germans are moving in in great force all over the world. As has been said, the French will never give up their claim to promote French as the cultural language of the world. Also, if I may say so—nobody has mentioned it, thank goodness! because we are not looking for "Reds under the beds in this debate—the Russian language can assert itself by our default. We are talking now about scientific and cultural inputs into the Third World, and that vacuum will be filled by others.
I want to say categorically, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships will agree with me, that you cannot "moth ball "culture; you cannot wrap up culture and put it away for another day. It is a continuous and living thing and the goodwill we have established through the British Council in all these countries has been to the envy of other governments all over the world. The Americans have never succeeded, even with the English language, in establishing the objective authority of the British Council.
I say this with some feeling. The point is that the British Council is a presence. It is an identification with everything we are supposed to stand for; but it is not an aggressive presence. It is not trying to promote or over-sell Britain. It is demonstrating what Britain really is and not just boasting about what we think we are. This is tremendously important. I speak as one who has seen in situ a good deal of the British Council, and in most cases the British Council's activities, centres, institutions an so on, are a rendezvous for people who are Anglophiles. Not only that, but they are a rendezvous, as for example in Warsaw, of people who identify with and believe in the kind of things Britain stands for.
1754
This is not a question of going in as a "Trojan horse" to promote British interests. We are there to promote the ideals for which Britain stands and we can demonstrate what they are. This is something we cannot afford to neglect: we certainly cannot afford to lose it. If the Government cut even 11½ per cent.—and we could go into all the details, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has done—we must ask: what is the effect of those cuts on the activities of the British Council? As I have said on a previous occasion, we are not now cutting branches but we are cutting the roots of our influence.
This is a fatal thing for Britain to do. As has been demonstrated by my noble friend Lord Hatch, commercially, economically and in every other way the British Council works to our advantage. It is even more important, as he pointed out, that we arc there demonstrating our real, genuine contribution to world culture. We cannot allow that to be taken away. So we are here in a very contradictory position, if I may say so, where my noble friend Lord Hatch and I, who have been talking all these years about colonial freedom, and so on, are now standing here and saying: "If we withdraw the British Council and what it stands for from our old colonies and dominions, we are betraying our subjects (because that is what they were) because we are suggesting that somehow the culture we represented is demoded and no longer worth while. In fact we have lost our self-confidence as a country and as a nation ".
The British Council demonstrates our self confidence, our confidence in our arts, our science, our ways of living and our attitudes to life. This is something of which we arc now going to say: "Take it away: let it go. It is cheaper not to have it ". It is the most expensive sacrifice to make and I commiserate once again with noble Lords sitting opposite. This is the fourth time we have been round this course. We have fought the Government about the world services of the BBC; we have fought them over the Ministry for Overseas Development, we have fought them over students' fees and we are now fighting them on the British Council. This is really a shameful thing: that—no matter how desperate our situation is—we have lost not just the money values but the real values of what we stand for and what we represent, which no money can replace.

1755
We are talking about something which countries in the rest of the world are trying to buy, to build on and to find the accesses to: we have got them. The British Council is in living terms within the communities where it works with its identification with people; face to face with the people; and in terms of the people they bring to Britain, in terms of the students they educate, the science that is transmitted to them and the books we sell to them by creating a demand—these are the things which the British Council represents. It is not something which is a cost to this country; it is an actual, genuine asset. It has great returns which we are ignoring. My Lords, we cannot afford to do it.
7.7 p.m.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for having introduced what has been already a very interesting debate and one which I am sure will continue to be interesting. I should like also to associate myself with the messages of sympathy that have been extended to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I had the great pleasure of staying with him in New Zealand and I think it is true, without question, that he and his wife were more loved by the New Zealanders than any other Governor General and his wife since the war.
I agree completely with Her Majesty's Government that public expenditure has to be cut again, and cut severely. A family with an income of £100 a week and which is spending £120 a week must economise or get into debt and finally go bust. The question, therefore, is: what share, if any, of the cuts in Government expenditure should be borne by the British Council? No family that I know would reduce its spending evenly over its whole budget. Some items they would preserve and others they would slash or even cut out altogether. The Government are in that position, with due respect to my noble friend Lord Home; otherwise we should not have spent more on the police and on defence. We are not spreading the cuts exactly evenly even now.
Therefore, what is the standing of the British Council as a candidate for the
1756
"chopper"? I think that to answer the question one has to ask a prior one, namely: are we in a period of major and irreversible decline, with no hope of recovering our manufacturing strength and our influence overseas? If that were true, there would be some sense in reducing our overseas information and cultural services, because we should have less reason to talk about ourselves to foreigners. However, I am quite sure that your Lordships will not accept that we are in a period of permanent decline. The Prime Minister's speech last night in New York completely refutes such an idea. If, then, our difficulties are only temporary, it must be wise to show the maximum confidence in our recovery. Therefore, how do we do that in our Overseas Services? Should we mute our voices at this point in time, or speak out even louder and clearer?
I think that I could take an example from private life. Some of your Lordships may have had occasion to negotiate an overdraft, and in preparing for the visit to your banker did you discard your best clothes and put on your oldest suit, reach for your battered hat and shuffle out in shoes which anyone could see required mending? Of course not. You took care to look prosperous, even if for the moment you were not making both ends meet. The common sense decision when in temporary trouble is to keep up appearances, and that holds good for a country just as much as it does for an individual. It is the role of the BBC and the British Council to reflect our long-term confidence in our future, and how can they do this if their budgets are cut?
Some rearrangements of where and how the Council spends its money is always worthwhile thinking about, and I should like to remind your Lordships that in the promotion of our culture, which is a kind of fairy godmother to our trade, we have this enormous asset, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, in the English language. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Home, that more of the Council's resources should be given to this side of its work.
We recognise that it is the power and pre-eminence of the United States that have consolidated English as the world language. But a great part of the world wants to learn English English, rather than

1757
American English. Not that we find anything objectionable in the American accent. From personal experience, your Lordships will no doubt agree that the Americans pronounce the word "darling" in a totally beguiling manner. To express a dramatic situation, they also choose words more economically and often with much more bite than we do ourselves. Nevertheless, there are countless people in the developed and developing countries who instinctively prefer not to be too closely identified with the most powerful nation in the world, and they are asking to be taught English English.
In spreading the knowledge of our language, the Council has the great advantage that in most countries-I wish I could say in all—it is not looked upon as a branch of the British Embassy or the British Government. It is seen to represent our culture, free of pressure to put across this or that political doctrine and. like the BBC, the British Council is often a lighthouse in conditions dark with local censorship and restrictions upon personal freedom. In such circumstances, the political independence of the Council is of the greatest value, and not long ago I saw it for myself in Poland.
In this field, it seems to me that the Council could do more to cover part of its expenditure with earnings. For too long, it has fought shy of engaging in the direct teaching of English—that is, inviting pupils to come to classes and charging them fees—and to meet the ever-increasing demand for this kind of English teaching private agencies have taken on the work. I suggest—and I should be glad if my noble friend would give us his opinion on the suggestion—that the Council should either itself engage more widely in the direct teaching of English, or go into partnership with the private agencies such as International House. I am envious when I see packaged courses in English—almost all American sponsored —making profits running into millions of dollars, while our chosen instrument stays outside this lucrative market.
The Council's business is to make known the treasures of our heritage, our language and our contemporary culture. Because of our temporary difficulties in this country, I consider it more than ever important that it should do this and do it with ample resources. But there is another
1758
reason that is beginning to make itself known, why this is so much more important than in the past. As secondary and university education begins to spread among the people of the developing countries, they need more than ever to hear what are the values by which the Western democracies stand.
Look, my Lords, at what is happening in Teheran. The Americans did more than any other country could conceivably have done to build up Iran's industry and defence, but they failed to make the Iranian people, especially those who are newly educated, understand what are the values which they, the Americans, and we hold, and by which they and we stand or fall. There is a lesson to be learned from what has been happening in Iran. It is that as education spreads across the world we have to do more, not less, to make our values open to those people who are so easily influenced by other trains of thought and doctrine. Therefore, I ask the Government to reassure us this evening that whatever cuts they have decided to make —I do not know what they are—will be extremely short-lived, because this is an instrument which they simply cannot afford to cut down.
7.18 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in expressing sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, on the sudden and tragic event which is responsible for his not being here tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, to whom we are indebted for this debate, described in considerable detail the effect of the cut of rather more than 11 per cent. which the Government have decided upon. It really is a substantial cut, as noble Lords will recall, in the teaching of English, trade promotion activities, the supply of books to Council libraries—there is a cut of 48 per cent., incidentally—professional and academic exchanges and the promotion of the arts. That 11 per cent. cut has already involved a reduction in the London-based staff of 368 persons and in the locally-engaged staff of 179.
I suppose that that cut of 11 per cent. must, in the circumstances, be reluctantly accepted. If that be so—and I assume it with reluctance—the consideration is:

1759
what more will there be? I understand that a departmental committee has completed its study and reported to Ministers, but as yet Ministers have not decided on what action should he taken. It seems to me that the crucial question is this: Should there be a cut greater than the 11 or 11½per cent. already determined? I wonder whether the departments represented on that inter-departmental committee have agreed to cuts of 11½per cent. in their expenditure?
The item upon which I want to concentrate, because I have some experience of it, is the work of the British Council relating to books. For four years I was responsible for the co-ordination of overseas information. During those four years, I saw British Council activity in at least 20 countries, as well as in Europe, and I recall that in India and Pakistan two important problems stood out regarding the availability of books. The first stemmed from the fact that the Russians and the Chinese were pouring into India and Pakistan books in English, beautifully got up, at subsidised prices. I recall that they began with Dickens, no doubt to develop the theme of poverty in capitalist countries, and with Gals-worthy, no doubt because of the property association with his name and work. But they were beginning to pour in technical books of all kinds, and we were not competing.
The Americans, it is true, were providing at subsidised rates some books in English but, naturally enough, they were concerned with the interests of America. I remember going into the American Library in Mogadishu and a young, shining American asking me to name a book; he was sure he could find it. I asked for the works of William Skakespeare. His reply was prompt. William Shakespeare was not an American. They were concerned, naturally enough, with their own products in the English language.
The second problem was that students were able to borrow books from British Council libraries and other libraries, but only for a relatively short time. You could borrow a book for a fortnight or a month, but what you needed to do was to be able to borrow a textbook for a term, or even for a year. Because technical books were not available, the result was
1760
that tatty lecture notes were being sold at high prices. The second of those two problems was not difficult to solve, provided additional money was made available for a greater number of books in British libraries. Then books could be loaned to university students and others with a limitation on the number of hooks borrowed but not on the time during which borrowing was permitted. That was relatively easy.
The other problem was that of competing with the Russians and the Chinese. We had opened the door with the teaching of English and they were going through it for propaganda purposes. The larger problem was how we were to compete. It seemed obvious that we should need the co-operation of the publishers and of the Government in making available subsidies and that a great effort would be needed to introduce a low-priced book scheme. I recall that the publishers were most co-operative in the negotiations. An advisory committee was set up. Government resources were made available and the Govermnent of the day approved the scheme. It was successful. If I may give the figure, over 21 million textbooks have been sold under the cheap book scheme since its inception and they have been sold, in the main, to university students. We now supply under that scheme the bulk of the textbooks used by students in many countries.
The effects, whether they be cultural, commercial or technical, must be enormous. Is this scheme—for it is now funded by the ODA—to be preserved from future cuts? I shall be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply will answer that question. Quite apart from the returns to this country, it seems to me that the scheme has been of immense value when we consider the contribution it has made to education, particularly in India and Pakistan but also in a large number of other countries.
If I may turn to the libraries, in 1978–79 there were 6·7 million book issues from 2·3 million books. Over a third of a million people are members of and borrowers from British Council libraries. May I ask the Minister whether there are to be cuts in British Council libraries—or, to he more accurate, may I ask him whether there are to be further cuts in British Council libraries? It would be

1761
tragic if the provision of more books to solve problem 2 and the low priced book scheme, which has made such an enormous contribution, were in any way to be affected by Part 2. They have been affected enough by Part 1. I hope that we shall be reassured that there is no question of any further cuts being made under that particular heading.
Other noble Lords have referred to the teaching of English and to the advantages, both to those who learn English as a second language and to ourselves from that teaching. The question which naturally arises is whether it would matter if there were to be fewer English textbooks and if the number of students of English were to fall. In my view, that would be a disaster, too. The trouble with the British Council is that it is impossible precisely to calculate the results of so much of what it does. Indeed, many people cannot, in the nature of things, know about the work of the British Council, as seen from overseas. When I first took on the co-ordination of information services I knew nothing about the British Council. Indeed, I suspect that I had been contaminated by the Beaverbrook Press of the day who wrote about Morris dancing in Madagascar, and so on. I came to be immensely impressed, and that was expressed by the fact that during my four years Government provision for the British Council was doubled. I have no doubt whatever that, however intangible and incalculable the effects are, they are very real indeed.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the general doctrine which lies behind this work, and I should like to emphasise a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. Despite our capacity for criticising ourselves, if we go abroad we realise the esteem in which this country is held. We need a little more pride. The fact is that we are no longer a military power of much consequence. Indeed, we are no longer an economic power, compared with what we were. But there are very many things in this country which the world envies. Whether it be a capacity to make democracy work, of serenity and respect for the law—call it what you will—it is this kind of attitude of mind to this country which has been so brilliantly developed by the activities of the British Council.
1762
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for heaven's sake tell us that enough is enough, at 11½per cent., with the consequences of which we have heard. It really is a nonsense further to cut this maybe invisible but immensely important work to this country. Let us have a bit of pride and at least continue substantially to support a body which is concerned with presenting this country to the world, not through propaganda but through creating a picture of what it really is. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us that there will be no phase two or phase three: phase one of 11½per cent. has been enough, and more than enough, and I hope we can be reassured that there will be nothing else to come.
7.32 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, I, too, would like to associate myself with the words of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I, like many others, have always regarded him as one of the most endearing and gallant men in this House.
The very drastic cuts which the Government intend to impose on the British Council are perhaps being imposed because they are the kind of cuts which will be received with the least public indignation. For a long time the Council has had a poor image in Britain—but only in Britain, not elsewhere. For a long time it has been the butt of the cheap satirist and the intellectual snob, and of the little Englander who fears that his patriotism would be diluted if he allowed it out of this country. Of course the most powerful enemy, as the noble Lord said a moment ago, was Lord Beaverbrook. One side of him was a shrewd, sophisticated politician; the other side, a small-town Canadian of the last century. When I worked for him I never knew whether he hated the British Council because it was led by Lord Lloyd, or whether he hated Lord Lloyd because he was then the head of the British Council!
At this moment I should like to say how glad I am that this debate has been started from this side of the House by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, because my party, too, for many years was sceptical about the British Council and that scepticism had a great deal to do with Lord Lloyd, whose concept of

1763
imperialism was too high even for the Conservative Government of his day. One of the results of the Express campaign has been that journalists on other newspapers, always looking for some kind of worthy cause to knock, have taken their cue and have attacked the British Council.
I wonder whether the Government looked at this cut in the Council in isolation or in conjunction with the cuts in the BBC Overseas Service and the fees charged to students from overseas. All three are concerned with one thing; namely, the sharing of our British culture. By that I mean our high culture and also our social culture, our technological culture—our sharing of all that culture with people of other lands. All three of these bodies are concerned mostly with the young, with tomorrow's men and women of power and influence. Whatever stream of culture these younger people pursue, they do it through the English language. This, as we know, the Council teaches in a style that is known to be admirable, and the BBC teaching of English in the World Service fortifies rather than supplants what the British Council does.
One question that I should like to ask the Government is: What are their proposals for the British Council in countries like Greece, where they earn money by the teaching of English? As the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, suggested, we are behaving not just as if we were caught in a lean year, but as if we, in this country, were permanently impoverished. If we take our propaganda for an excellent cause, for the unfair size of our net contribution to the European Community, nevertheless there is a danger that we shall take too seriously the propaganda side of it and this will mean that we may finish up with a miser's mentality. We may seem poor in comparision with Western Germany, but to many of the people who are the recipients of the good works of the British Council we look to be a very prosperous country indeed and our pose as ragged trouser philanthropists is not very convincing. Again, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, why do we not have the confidence that the French have—and always have had—in their own culture, and indeed that the Germans are developing? In this House we have benefited from the good work of the Goethe Institute.
1764
From time to time statesmen of both parties think that it might be necessary to emulate General de Gaulle. But if they must do this, let it not be his petty side, not his selfish, narrow, nationalist aims which he had from time to time, but his European pride and his grander vision—the de Gaulle who, among other things, appointed that fine man André Malraux to be his Minister of Culture. We tend to shrink from the word "culture ". We did it in this Chamber in a debate only a few weeks ago, either because we are philistines or because there is a kind of snobbish Oxford pose based on a dread of appearing to be earnest or too zealous.
The British Council has had a lot to put up with, including the Think Tank report, which I am glad to hear has been repudiated tonight. It reminds me of the homespun wisdom of the wayside pulpit—the people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Of course the Government have put themselves into a difficult situation. I do not want to be political in any way whatsoever, but when the Government impose cuts, such as on children's meals, which excite maximum indignation, it is very difficult to defend other cuts on something which arouses less indignation. That is the situation which I think we are in. One of the arguments which is being made is that if we cut all these things every other cut can be justified, even if it is not a very wise or prudent cut.
Finally, I should like to say that I sympathise with the staff of the British Council in all the investigations which they have had and in facing now a dark, uncertain future. I hope the Government will say something definite and that they will really see a future—and a considerable future—for the British Council and give this reassurance, because this kind of work can only be done if the staff are full of enthusiasm and if the whole of the Council has a high morale.
7.39 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I wish to join all other noble Lords in saying how my heart went out to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, when I learned of his bitter tragedy. It was especially poignant for me as a pupil Member of your Lordships' House because I recall so vividly the way in which he opened the debate on the Berrill

1765
Report, so brilliantly, so wittily and with such laudable passion. That such a tragedy should befall the great and the good makes it no easier to bear.
I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, to put the underlying point behind the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, any better than did the noble Lord, Lord Saint Brides, in his memorable maiden speech on the Berrill Report. I make no apologies for quoting his wise words, for I believe that one should never tire of quoting the classics. He stated:
" To my mind, a country which can no longer achieve all its ends by sheer weight of military and economic power needs to put more, not less, into the protection of its interests by other means. Britain's position in the international community has certainly changed since 1945. But the means of maintaining and developing influence in the world have changed, too. They have become less palpable. They require more intellectual and imaginative effort and less brute force. In the new, much more open, situation which has resulted, we can more than hold our own if we wish, and provided that we continue to manifest a will to excellence and the desire to compete, and if possible to lead, which goes with it.
" Given the wealth of human talent and originality that exists in this country, we have much still to do in the world, and it is not least with the help of such proven instruments of communication and dissemination as the BBC, the British Council and the Diplomatic Service, as they now stand, that we can do it, provided that as a country we have the vision and good sense to use them as we could, and to give them the backing which they need ".—[Official Report, 23/11/77; cols. 885–6.]
With your Lordships' permission, I wish to broaden the Question a little in order to illustrate the pitiable support and backing which this country gives to these essential services, of which the British Council is only one. Using the figures of the Government's Expenditire Plans for 1980, our overseas expenditure, other than direct aid and other than our contribution to the EEC Budget, will amount to a miserable 0·6 per cent. of the total public expenditure. Putting it another way, in 1974–75 our overseas expenditure, as above defined, amounted to 1 per cent. of the total. By 1980–81 it will have been nearly halved to 0.6 per cent. In 1974–75 the outturn was, to the nearest, £700 million; currently it runs at £400 million only. It is a sobering thought that we spend more on the London Borough of Wandsworth than we do on the whole of our diplomatic and consular services.
1766
I keep asking myself, does this state of affairs really reflect Conservative stated policy and thinking? Has this Administration got the national priorities right? I believe most strongly that in this respect it has not. What I find most difficult to reconcile is a policy to increase expenditure on defence and yet decrease expenditure on foreign relations, for foreign relations are nothing other than the peaceful demonstration of a national defence strategy.
Referring specifically to the British Council, it is interesting to note that every single one of the front-line Presidents, excepting the Portuguese front-line President, and including Messrs. Mugabe, Sithole and Nkomo, owe some of their education to the efforts of the British Council. One can but wonder whether our noble friend the Foreign Secretary would have enjoyed the remarkable success he has were it not for the influence of the British Council, however small it may appear to have been. My Lords, I beseech the Government, not to spend more, but solely to get their priorities in order. I fear that otherwise our country's influence, and thus its power and authority, will be eroded, permanently.
7.46 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, may I at the outset declare an interest. I have been on the executive of the British Council since 1966 and I have for some years been deputy chairman. I am not here to speak formally on their behalf, but I have been asked to speak and I do so with great willingness, because if there is one thing which is very necessary it is that some words should be spoken by someone officially associated with the Council to improve the morale, to which these proposed cuts have obviously done damage, as far as the staff is concerned.
May I first say how much we feel for Lord Ballantrae on this occasion. I have been supplied with the text of the speech that he would have made, and with your Lordships' permission I would venture to make a short quotation from it, because it illustrates that exceptional colloquial elegance of which he is such a master and of which he has such an exceptional command. The opening paragraph of the speech which he would have delivered

1767
but for the tragic circumstance which prevented him reads as follows:
"I realise the danger of banging on …"
—a characteristic phrase, if I may say so—
"…too long and too often about the British Council and its future, with the consequent risk of alienating your Lordships' collective sympathy. At one time in the war in Burma veterinary surgeons removed the vocal chords of mules to stop them braying. I do not want to tempt anybody to cite that as a precedent in my own case. But at least this time the Council is actually the subject of the debate, whereas the last time I referred to it a month ago we were supposed to be discussing something quite different, the abuse of the English language, mixed metaphors and so on. Since then I have spotted a beauty: a headline in a Scots newspaper which read 'Cuts beginning to Bite'.
That was the opening, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote the final words:
" My last word is to implore your Lordships to toss your weight into that scale, which will reprieve the British Council, free it from all sense of doom, and enable it to carry on with its work all over the world".
If I may venture to say so, that encapsulates precisely what everyone who supports the Council wanted to say this evening.
I think I might be permitted to make a general observation about cuts. We have been invited to say that it is a sensible and heroic attitude to accept cuts across the board, and the noble Lord, Lord Home, whose authority is immensely high in this House, made that suggestion. I venture, with great trepidation, to disagree. I think that cuts across the board imply that one would have confidence in the people making them that would invest them with an absolutely phenomenal infallibility. If they were superhuman beings it might be possible to say that they could determine cuts of this character without any attempt at a scientific assessment. I should be much more confident of cuts which suggested five per cent. in one direction, three per cent. in another, no cuts in another and some minute increase in another. This would show at least that a very relevant attention had been given to the matter, which seems otherwise to be dealt with in a very haphazard and slapdash fashion.
So far as the British Council is concerned, it will continue to operate—I think I can say this, and I have heard it said within the Council by more informed
1768
and authoritative voices—whatever cuts may be administered. But that any institution can survive the treatment that the Council has received is almost miraculous. It is to he remembered that the staff of the Council are enlisted over the years by suggestions that they have a long time and a safe and secure career. They enlist in the Council largely people with very few materialistic aspirations. They are people who join because they want to do a job of public service divorced from the general rat race, because they think they have something to bring to the national interest, which makes it possible to carry on life on reduced returns and rewards so far as material considerations are concerned. This is an exceptional feature of the Council.
I have not travelled so extensively that I am familiar with every Council station, but I have visited a good few. I have always noticed that the people serving in those stations are people of very high human quality, and often people of quite exceptional intellectual and academic distinction. I remember when arriving in Australia I discovered the Council representative in Australia had recently written a book about Holbein, establishing, I am sure to the satisfaction of few, that most Holbeins were in fact forgeries. But, however authentic his view may be, it indicates the sort of person who serves and the sort of interest he has, and why the Council is, on the whole, able to compete with the similar institutions established by the French and the Americans, which are much more lavishly endowed. We may not have the money but we have people of such moral and intellectual qualities and such transparent integrity that they more than compensate for the money which is lacking.
I would cordially invite the Government spokesman here tonight to say something generous and kindly to the Council that can be conveyed to the staff. I think it is very important that they should realise that, whatever these cuts may be and however arbitrary, this is an organisation which is wanted, in which they can have confidence, and in so far as they are not going to be axed, can continue to serve, not with the heavy heart which at the moment actuates so many of them.
I should like to hear from the Government something that is sufficiently

1769
generous. The Council is, in my view, an extremely valuable organisation. It is an organisation that works on the most economical basis. I visited Council institutions and Council stations in many parts of the world and, although perhaps it was because they knew I was teetotal, I was never offered a drink and I never saw any evidence of a drink that could be offered to others who were less abstemiously inclined than I.
The Council conducts its affairs on the basis of exemplary economy. I do not think that a penny is wasted. I doubt whether any organisation in the world could conduct the number of stations that the Council conducts on that sort of budget. It is, if I may say so, extremely unwise. It is a remarkable indication of penny wise pound foolish that the Council should be subjected to economies of this kind. The Council does a job of work which is immensely valuable in terms of trade and in terms of the income that it generates, so far as publishing is concerned; so far as the propagation of British books is concerned; so far as the sale of British educational equipment is concerned and the establishment of schemes for universities and schools. The Council's work cannot be over-valued. To economise on that is, in my view, a really awful mistake. It is an awful mistake, based on the belief that one has to demonstrate that everyone is being similarly sacrificed. It is rather—and I speak in the presence of a very eminent doctor—as though I were to say that, having been so advised, as I often have, to reduce my intake, I propose to reduce by 10 per cent. all nourishment, including my pills. That is the type of logic that attaches to this kind of economy. It is a totally false, mistaken logic.
1 beg your Lordships to remember, when talking about phases 2 and 3, that the present phase is a lethal one. It involves an economy of 14 per cent by the time we take into account the expenditure on redundancies. Fourteen per cent. is a massive sum of money and for an institution to have to make economies of that kind it might well be fatal if it were not an institution of remarkable resilience and courage. A message should go out to the staff that they are wanted; that the institution is wanted; and that the Government are adopting a policy which, right or wrong, is one that they think appropriate
1770
in the present circumstances of desperate economic necessity, but that when the day comes the Council will still continue to operate as effectively as it ever did and that so soon as possible the resources taken away from it will be restored.
It must be remembered, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, that we appear to be budgeting for permanent poverty, permanent indigence. That is a very poor policy if we arc to encourage the country to return to prosperity. We cannot restore stations that are closed. We cannot replace the enthusiasm and goodwill of people who have been "axed" and removed from their jobs. However, what we can do is to instil in those who remain a sense that, on the whole, it is a temporary setback and that, if they soldier on, the position will be restored. At this time of night I have kept your Lordships too long. I would only like to say that the Council would be grateful for any expression of confidence and goodwill that may be uttered here this evening.
7.53 p.m.
Lord PERRY of WALTON: My Lords, I speak not on behalf of the Council, but as perhaps a very large-scale user of the services of the British Council. For 10 years the Open University has been a focus of interest for the educational authorities of well over 50 nations. There has been a tremendous surge of interest in distance-learning systems of which the Open University is a prototype. So, we have been called upon to provide advice, materials and know-how in many lands. Sometimes the initial contact has been made through the activities of the British Council. Sometimes direct contact has been made and the follow-up has been channelled through the British Council. In all cases we have found the offices and representatives of the Council helpful, and often we have found them quite invaluable. Their knowledge—political and demographic—of the local educational scene has made our task much easier. However, perhaps more important than that is that we have tried to provide those services—that advice and those materials—on a commercial basis.
In 1977 and 1978 our total earnings in overseas currencies were well over £1 million. That may be small money, but the cuts that are being proposed are not

1771
all that much bigger. The existence of the British Council representatives was undoubtedly effective in helping to achieve this; but the British Council will get absolutely no credit for that.
I should also say that I have noticed, and welcomed over the last decade, an increased awareness on the part of representatives of the Council of the need for this country not only to exert cultural influence overseas, but to make economic progress. Many people have said tonight that it would be a retrograde step, both culturally and economically, if further cuts in the Council's budget were to be made. I can only echo that and ask that the Government use discrimination in making cuts and do not make cuts across the board.
7.56 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I must apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. However, as three noble Lords whose names were down have been scratched from the list I think that I can safely take some of the minutes that they would have taken. I wish to support my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby in his plea to the Government on behalf of the British Council. The Council is a goodwill organisation, but it has a quite open, selfish motive. It is in British interests to promote personal exchanges with other countries and that is something that we should face. It is partly a matter of getting a showing overseas for British achievements, but even more, a way of assisting harmonious relations, and that is in the interests of world peace which must be a major British interest. In addition, it creates an atmosphere which is sympathetic to British trade.
The Council has the great advantage—and my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder in fact contrasted the American situation—that it has no responsibility for representing Her Majesty's Government in their current policies: the information services do that. The Council's mandate is long-term cultural relations and its staff can usually go on beavering away at, for example, medical and educational exchanges and English teaching even when political relations are strained.
1772
A noble friend earlier mentioned Poland as a good example. The British Council has been working in Poland ever since the war. It has not been affected at all by the fact that the ideological situation in Poland is different from that in this country. The Council has just opened an office in China. I am quite sure that again the type of work that it will do in China will have the same sort of effect. The Commonwealth is another example of the value of the Council. When independence approaches the Council plays a valuable role when the United Kingdom, as ruler, is about to disappear and when a new relationship is about to be established.
We have a current example in Zimbabwe. The Council has, in fact, been enabling 1,400 Zimbabweans to be trained. This year it is hoped that there will be an increase to 2,000; and, of course, with Zimbabwe becoming independent, in effect it will probably have to provide help and training for many more. At present the same holds good for Zambia, because the Council has been carrying on technical co-operation with Zambia, which I have no doubt will become more and more important now that, as we hope, the bombing of Zambia has ceased and the people of Zambia are able to develop their country without that sort of disturbance. Those are examples of what happens in the Commonwealth.
But what distinguishes the Council's work from aid programmes as such is that it is essentially concerned with individual people. I have made some notes on this. In 1978–79—and I saw the annual report—the Council helped 300,000 people come to Britain from 160 countries; 17,000 people went abroad to 120 countries; 23,000 young people took part in youth exchanges; 750 people worked abroad on educational contracts; 1,600 people went abroad as lecturers, advisers and tutors; 1,000 academics received grants to attend conferences or to take part in interchange schemes. That is the sort of work that the Council does, people-to-people. It is of the utmost importance.
For more than 40 years the Council has been concerned with making friends, and in more than 80 or so countries in which it has had staff there are many individuals for whom it has made efficient and happy arrangements when they have come to the

1773
United Kingdom as students or as specialist visitors and/or with whom it has become friendly through its activities. At a time of acute crisis—and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, mentioned what was happening in Iran—I am sure one would think that all this work was not worthwhile. But that is not true; it is the other way round, because storms pass and when there are signs of calm it can be very useful to have people around who are in the professions, in administration and even in the arts, who have the habit of working with Britain through the British Council.
That, briefly, is why I think the taxpayer should be very pleased to spend money on the Council. Of course, some cuts can be supported, tolerated and accommodated. The danger is of heavier cuts next year which will mean withdrawals from certain countries. I am most worried that cuts will cause redundancy and may seriously damage the Council's ability to recruit and retain staff of the high quality which is essential. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, referred to the period of the Beaverbrook campaign against the British Council. The consequence of that campaign was that between 1949 and 1956 it was not possible to have any career recruitment in the British Council. What was worse was that the universities used to advise graduates against the British Council.
In the late 1950s and in the 1960s there was a transformation in thinking, and Her Majesty's Government, through the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, urged the British Council vehemently to open up in many places and develop its work. The Council had difficulty in doing so. My fear is that the pendulum will swing again, and that again the Council will have to say to Her Majesty's Government that it is not possible to recruit the trained staff required. In 1956 the Foreign Secretary had to write to every vice-chancellor in the United Kingdom giving reassurances about the Council. The Council then resumed career recruitment, and it has built up an excellent service which is the envy of other nations. Had the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, been here he would have told us how highly he esteemed the staff of the Council, because he has visited a great many of its overseas posts. I wish to join other noble Lords in
1774
expressing my sympathy to him in his recent bereavement, to tell him how sad we feel for him and how we all grieve for him on this occasion.
That is the situation. Unfortunately, although envied abroad, the British Council is not known at home and there is no political steam behind it. I should like to suggest that we had better give it some. The British Council serves British interests very well and serious cuts to it are damaging to British interests. I should like to conclude on a personal note. The new Director-General of the British Council, John Burgh, was my colleague in the Community Relations Commission—we were joint deputy chairmen. I merely beg the Government not to let him start his job with his hands tied behind his back.
8.7 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I begin by joining my sympathies with those of other noble Lords for the appalling tragedy which the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, has suffered. If the middle of his speech was as good as the beginning and the end, we have missed something very good. We miss him here and we send him our sympathy from the bottom of our hearts.
My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby has achieved the remarkable success of having the whole House behind him. It is not something that happens every day of the week. I hope that in due course the Minister will not be totally opposed to what my noble friend has said. Noble Lords opposite are slightly more in favour of general cuts than we, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, are. Basically speaking, however, we say and many other speakers say that the proposed cuts are too hard. But what everyone says is that the Government must stop there. That is the point. We hope that we shall be given something constructive from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, because until we are, the Government's position needs a good deal of explanation.
The British Council was founded 45 years ago and was given a Royal Charter in 1940 in which it was told:
" To promote a wider knowledge of Britain and the English language, and to develop closer cultural relations with other countries ".

1775
Over the years it has worked out various means of doing that, all of which have proved fairly effective. But as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, it has been constantly sniped at, often, 1 fear, as a result of Treasury scepticism; and perhaps because it is an outstation of the Foreign Office it has hardly ever had the departmental defence which it was entitled to expect. As has already been said, there have been no fewer than seven inquiries in the last l3 years, and one is just reporting at the moment. The Government must decide whether they want to reverse the Royal Charter or to continue it. After all, the Council will go on spending £40 million of the taxpayers' money, even after the cuts. If this is £40 million well spent, then the Government must show their confidence in the job which, under the Charter, the British Council is doing and which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of 12 speakers from all sides of the House today, it is doing extremely well.
I can only find the present attitude of the Government—and that is before the noble Lord the Minister has clarified it—somewhat half-baked. I hope very much that he will be able to convince us that he knows what he is trying to do, and explain the reasoning behind these severe cuts. Do the Government, for example, think that some of the things which the British Council is doing are not worth doing at all, and can be dispensed with? If so, which? Or that some of them are done too well today, and can afford to be done less well? Or that some of them are too wide in scope and should be reduced? If so, which and why?
The Berrill Report, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, took the line that most of what the Council does is not worth doing at all and should be scrapped. My Government rejected that view, and I think the Opposition agreed with us. Are the present Government taking a different view and supporting the Think Tank's thinking? Let me list once again—my noble friend Lord Hatch did it originally but it is some time ago—the main functions so that the Minister can tell us what he is prepared to do without. The most important, everybody has agreed, is direct teaching of the English language abroad, com-
1776
bined with running the libraries of English books. We know that this is being cut severely. Is it the intention to reduce this, or is it something that has just happened by default? Then there are the interchange of professional people, academics and students; in particular helping foreign students on their arrival here for study; training programmes and recruitment of teachers for overseas posts; advisory visits in response to overseas needs; and presenting the best in British art in drama, music, and the visual arts.
May I add a gloss to the last two headings. In 1974 I went on a British Council sponsored visit to Thailand at the request of the Thais to help them in one particular thing in which they were interested and which I happened to know something about, and I was followed by the chief officer of the Inner London probation service. As a result of these two visits they have set up a probation officers' training course, an after-care service has been created, and a central probation bureau established. This is one tiny thing that I happen to know about. I do not know to what extent England is helped by looking after a certain number of Thais, but this is part of the whole approach which the speakers here have been trying to impress on the Government has to be made.
As to the arts, I went to enough functions abroad when I was Minister for the Arts to know personally at least what the effects seemed to be of the Scottish National Opera at Aix, the Prospect Company's Hamlet in Teheran. Incidentally, one noble Lord—I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—suggested that if we had done more selling ourselves in Persia we might have eased things there. I believe in fact that this is one of those rare cases where the opposite is the fact. I think there is a real resentment on the part of the religious fanatics of Western culture and Western art. I think that to have done it better might not have been the best thing to do, but this is a side issue. I am perfectly sure that, as a result of seeing the marvellous Chinese acrobats and jugglers, I take far more interest in the Chinese than I would have if I had not.
Quite honestly, nobody can put figures on this sort of thing. We all know that. But there is not the slightest doubt that

1777
it is important. As various noble Lords have said, the Germans, who after all are so much more successful than we are in all commercial matters, have no doubt at all of the value of exporting their art. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said that they spend four times —my figure is five times, but we shall not quarrel about that—as much as we do. They issued a formal statement saying:
" The Federal Republic of Germany's position and reputation in the world do not depend solely on this country's political weight and economic capability, but just as much on the legitimacy of our claim to represent a civilised country. Therefore the Government considers cultural exchange, along with political and economic relations as equally ranking aspects of foreign policy ".
Really these activities need no defence in this House.
May I quote further from The Times leader when it was attacking the Berrill Report.
" The values by which a country lives, or strives imperfectly to live, are simultaneously a contribution to the world as a whole, a justification of that country's own existence, and a measure of its own sense of worth and purpose. In this area it is not possible to separate giving from receiving. Britain's ' values ' have been formed by centuries of international traffic in culture and information. If Britain ceases to attach high importance to continuing participation in this traffic, loses faith in the contribution she makes to it, and fails to respond to the demand which her excellence generates abroad, her own cultural bloodstream will become that much poorer, her self-respect that much lower, and in the long run her international influence that much smaller ".
That is, roughly speaking, what every noble Lord has said.
May I ask the Minister again: Do the Government think that these activities are important and desirable, or do they take the purely negative view of the Berrill Report? Incidentally, even that negative and, in our opinion, wrong-headed report made one useful suggestion which I pass on to the Minister with urgency; namely, that the Foreign Office should lay down a clear policy, and clear guidelines, on which the British Council should in future act. And, may I add, having done so, should leave the Council to get on with it. Can he allay my fears, and those of the Council's employees, whose morale is as low as it could be, and tell us that, having imposed these drastic cuts of 11½ per cent. involving the loss of 368 posts in London and 179 overseas, the Government will now call a halt? This was the message which nearly every speaker brought out.
1778
May we look at the cuts as no more than a temporary economy, a contribution to solving the nation's problems? Are the Government content and happy to spend, and go on spending, £40 million or so a year on this important work? And will they lay down policy and guidelines and then leave the Council to lick its wounds and go ahead with the work it has developed over the last 25 years without further cuts, inquiries or hindrances? Nothing else, nothing less than this assurance, will restore its morale; and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to say something encouraging.
8.18 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I desire at the outset on behalf of the Government to be associated with the remarks made about the awful tragedy that has befallen the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and to join with other noble Lords who have extended their sympathy to him.
I am particularly glad to have the opportunity to answer this Question tonight because, in addition to enabling me to take up some of the points made by noble Lords, it also enables me to make three major points about the British Council which I hope will help your Lordships: first, because the British Council's work is not as understood or appreciated as widely as it should be; and secondly, because I shall have the opportunity of restating and emphasising the value which the Government attach to this work. I find myself able to agree with many, indeed most, of the things which noble Lords have said about the Council in the course of the debate tonight. The Council deserves the support it has received from so many worthy protagonists. The third major point is that it gives me the opportunity to explain the implications of the reductions that have recently been agreed.
The Council is our main instrument of cultural diplomacy. If there are some of your Lordships who find that a bit woolly, perhaps I can put it in other words. We live in times when the projection of British excellence abroad is of special importance, an importance which your Lordships may think increases as our capacity to influence events by other means diminishes. It is the Council's

1779
responsibility to ensure that British intellectual and artistic achievements, past and present, receive the international recognition which they deserve. It is their job to ensure that the English language maintains its unique position in the world and that the highest standards of tuition are maintained in its continued expansion, and I shall say more about that in a moment. It is the Council's task to administer an important and varied system of exchanges covering academic, educational, scientific and artistic activity. These must be tailored to fit the requirements of particular countries abroad, but they are also designed to meet the overall interest of Britain.
Apart from the not inconsiderable revenue which the Council derives from English language teaching and educational projects, the overall value of these activities cannot be quantified; the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that and knows it from wide experience. The Council plays the major role in the projection abroad of Britain's achievements in the arts at a time when their reputation stands higher then ever. In many parts of the world modest support from Council sources produces a contribution some ten times greater from the host country. The Council's worth is fully recognised by those concerned with the promotion of British interests abroad and I am happy to underline this point on behalf of the Government this evening.
Another whole area of the Council's activity is its work in administering major aspects of the ODA's programme of aid to education in developing countries. The Council has considerable expertise and experience in this field. It has built up an extensive network of professional contacts in Britain and abroad. It is therefore a most valuable source of professional advice both to Government departments and to our missions overseas. We also look to the Council for specialised services in a number of other fields in which its skills are universally acknowledged, above all in English language teaching, which is a major priority of the aid programme as well as an activity which serves our national interest in its widest sense.
On a personal note, a few months ago I was in Ecuador on Government business and I there visited the British Council's
1780
school in Quito for the teaching of English. I remember meeting the director of the school, Mr. John Foley, and I recall being particularly impressed by the efficiency of the school and the enthusiasm of its staff. This was emphasised by the fact that they were fully occupied and were, I believe, turning away students for whom space could not at that time be found. I remember noticing particularly how efficiently it was run and how much of the equipment—they had some recording and electronic equipment as part of the language laboratory—had been made by the staff locally, a very laudable example indeed.
Then there are a number of schemes of technical co-operation on behalf of and under the policy control of Ministers. The largest of these is the ODA's training programme under which students are brought to the United Kingdom from developing countries. The Council administers this and other training programmes, including the placing of students at United Kingdom institutions under government to government schemes. Other programmes which the Council manages for the ODA are concerned with filling key overseas posts to develop local capacity for the teaching of the English language, particularly "English for specific purposes "; in-country seminars for teachers; provision for educational books and development of libraries; and educational technology. All these activities are conducted within the framework of the Government's aid policy. We highly value the work which the Council has done and continues to do in the execution of this policy.
I turn to the question of cuts in expenditure. The spending plans which the Government inherited were based on assumptions about economic performance and growth which have proved to be unrealistic. To meet the overriding need to set our economic house in order, some very painful decisions have had to be made in many areas of the economy. The Government decided that as a State financed organisation, for that is what it is, the British Council could not be exempt from this exercise. As a result, a reduction of some £5 million in the Council's budget for 1980–81 has been decided on and accepted by the Council. Like the Civil Service, the Council has also had to reduce its staff costs by 3 per cent. from this year

1781
and is subject to cash limits. No one can deny that these reductions were painful, but Her Majesty's Government considered that the wider need to restore our national economic well being must in present circumstances be the first priority.
In finding savings for 1980–81, there were close consultations between the Council and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The aim of both was to maintain the Council's overall capabilities and to avoid as far as possible the closure of the Council's overseas representations, and that answers one question asked by Lord Donaldson. This has meant that a greater share of the reductions for 1980–81 has had to fall on such things as the Council's capital works programme, supplies and services, and home based activities including the Council's various functional programmes. The decisions of detail—I emphasise this—have been taken by the Council itself, because it is an independent body under Royal Charter.
Before I leave the 1980–81 savings, I would emphasise two things. First, conscious of the national need to which I have referred, the Council co-operated with admirable public spirit in identifying the areas in which savings might be made, an attitude, sadly, not always evident elsewhere. Secondly, they did so in the knowledge of the regrettable but unavoidable effect which the reductions agreed would have on the morale of their staff. I should not like to let this occasion pass without paying them all a tribute and have been asked to do so by several noble Lords. They are in the very front line of our diplomacy, often quite literally. The difficulties and dangers they face in the field are considerable—their library in Islamabad was sacked by a mob only days ago—and their spirit cannot be too highly praised. I wish to emphasise that the Government share the high opinions expressed of the quality, loyalty and integrity of the British Council's staff, and, within the limits of our resources, we shall capitalise on this asset.
I now take up some of the specific points that have been put to me in the debate. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel asked me about the English language teaching programmes. These are, by and large, self-supporting because fees are in general charged to the students. Many of them take some time to reach
1782
that point and have to be supported in the interim, and sometimes local conditions make it difficult for these courses to reach self-sufficiency as soon as we should like, but we shall continue to support them within the limits of our resources. Regarding the English language teaching in Greece, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, I can assure him that no reduction is planned in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, in a typically colourful and emphatic speech, used words like "shameful" and expressed regret at what he referred to as our loss of self-confidence; but I would suggest to him that there is nothing shameful in declining to draw cheques when there is no cash in the bank. Continuing that analogy, my noble friend Lord Eccles explained how one always put on one's best suit and polished one's shoes before going to see the bank manager about increasing the overdraft. But we are not trying to increase the overdraft; we are trying to reduce the one we have.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, asked me specifically about the various book programmes. I know that there is concern about these schemes, which make valuable contributions to education in developing countries by bringing the cost of text books within the reach of students. In the year 1979–80 (the current year) we are spending £1.7 million on the English Language Book Society scheme, as compared with £1.5 million in the previous year, but I am afraid that a modest reduction is inevitable for next year. There is another scheme called the Book Presentation Programme, which I think the noble Lord knows about. This, too, is a valuable programme, but I am afraid that it must bear a share of the cuts in bilateral aid. Spending this year is expected to be just under £1 million. Nevertheless, we expect to fulfil existing commitments and to continue the programme at a substantial level.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, in a typically thoughtful speech, reminded us of some of the famous and not so famous people who have had the benefit of British Council schemes. I do not think that I should want to swap names with him tonight, but I shall certainly study what he has said and keep it in my memory bank of useful information for the future.

1783
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred to the philosophy of cuts and he explained—I think quite rightly—that a policy of even percentage cuts across the board is not necessarily always the best way to do it. I should say to him that in the situation in which we found ourselves when we came into office recently, when cuts of some kind were vitally and urgently necessary, there really was not then time to make a detailed critique of every area of Government expenditure and discover those areas where more than a fixed percentage could be allowed and some other areas where nothing could be cut.
I am not privy to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in store for us for the future, but I should expect cuts in the future to be more selective. There must be some areas of Government expenditure—and I am certainly not specifically referring to the British Council here—where the Government have no business to be at all. Those kind of areas can be cut not by 5 or 10 per cent., but by 100 per cent. There are other areas where the Government do have business to be and which ought not to be cut further at all; and we have already said that defence is one of those areas.
There is one other point I want to deal with before moving on to the future. It was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who referred to the training programme that we have for Rhodesian personnel. Yes, my Lords, that is the largest single programme operated by the British Council at present. I have no doubt that it will remain so, and we look forward to setting up further schemes with the new Zimbabwe Government when they come into being in the near future.
I am also reminded by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton (who spoke to me sotto voce just now) that recently there was a most important exhibition of pictures in Munich—it is still going on—sponsored by the British Council. That exhibition, which has enjoyed wide success, contains 360 British pictures, including some lent by Her Majesty the Queen; and the fact that it is such a huge success is of course due to the fact that it was opened by my noble friend.
Now to the future, my Lords. The level at which the Council will be enabled to
1784
discharge its aid functions will clearly depend in part on future decisions relating to the aid programme itself. But we expect the British Council to continue to play a significant part in our aid to education in developing countries. Meanwhile, the overriding national need to seek further economies over a wide field, where-ever these are possible, remains; and it was with this need in mind that the Government decided to set up an interdepartmental review of the British Council to consider the position in succeeding years. The British Council has been closely involved in the work of the review, and its staff side has been able to make its views known to it. The review committee has now completed its task and has reported to Ministers. The decisions taken in the light of the report will be made public.
In reaching their decisions, the Government will take into account the views of those outside, both in this country and overseas, who are, or have been, involved in the British Council's affairs. We have received representations from many important academic and cultural organisations and individuals, as well as from industrialists and exporters, which testify to the value that they attach to the work of the Council. May I mention one example of how we have also taken into account the views of the staff. My noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary received a delegation from the staff at the height of the Lancaster House Conference last week and expressed to them his support and appreciation of their work.
We will also take into account the British Council's own views. We shall pay full regard to their own estimate of the continued importance of the Council's work, to which I have already devoted some necessary, and I hope emphatic, words. Above all, we will take careful note of the views heard in your Lordships' House tonight.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the main economic issue that I put to him? Do the Government consider that the work of the British Council is an agent for economic, commercial and industrial revival, which should be fostered for that purpose, or do they discard that role entirely?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we accept all these important roles for the British Council. The difficulty is that we cannot write cheques when there is no money in the bank.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not think it discourteous to the very courteous and detailed reply that he has given if I ask to be permitted to correct one impression that might be very unfortunate. He gave the impression that the Council had co-operated in relation to the cuts with a degree of enthusiasm that might he described as almost masochistic. I hope he will allow me to say that the Council, which regards itself as a law-abiding body, of course conformed to the directions that it received, but at all times made dignified and strong protests against what it believed to be unjustifiable cuts.

  BRITISH AIRWAYS: AMERICAN AIRCRAFT PURCHASES
  BRITISH AIRWAYS: AMERICAN AIRCRAFT PURCHASES
  SEALS: LICENCE TO TAKE
  SEALS: LICENCE TO TAKE
  POLLUTION OF THE SEA
  POLLUTION OF THE SEA
  FIELD MONUMENT WARDENS
  FIELD MONUMENT WARDENS