Sitting of 7 February 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
  Mr. Speaker: It may be unnecessary, but I make another appeal for brevity.
  SCOTLAND

    Unemployment
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when last he discussed unemployment in Scotland with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has not specifically discussed this topic at any recent meetings with the convention. But over the past year he and I have had a number of meetings with local authorities to discuss unemployment in their areas.
    Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that the intolerable level of unemployment in Scotland is a damning criticism of five years of Socialism? He is always talking about jobs in the pipeline and job creation, but the level of unemployment remains extremely high. What help is he giving to local authorities, through their development committees, to remedy the high unemployment figures?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be encouraged by the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland show a decrease. There are 11,300 fewer unemployed now than at the corresponding time in 1978. I think that that is mildly encouraging, but my right hon. Friend and I are not complacent. We are doing all that we can to encourage firms to
    368
    come to Scotland. By measures that we have adopted through Government action, such as the Industry Act, we are doing all that we can to promote growth.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: What explanation will the Minister give to COSLA for the 40 per cent. drop in regional aid which was analysed by Professor Donald MacKay?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I have not seen anything of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question on the subject he will receive an answer.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that I tabled the very question that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) put to him as a supplementary question? The answer referred me to official figures that confirmed that the amount of assistance for industry, including REP and regional aids, had decreased substantially. That question was asked as recently as three or four days ago. Is not the hon. Gentleman ashamed that after four and a half years of Labour administration unemployment in Scotland has doubled and appears now to be increasing again? Does not that persuade the Government that their policies have been wrong and are still wrong?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that for some considerable time we have been in the midst of a deep recession throughout the entire world. We cannot cut ourselves off, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes, from every other set of circumstances. I indicated to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure—that is the figure with which we are all concerned—has dropped from the corresponding time last year. I take some little encouragement from that. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has the nerve to speak in the House about REP.

    STUC and CBI
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects next to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the spokesmen for the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I have accepted an invitation to address the STUC's annual

    369
    conference on 27 April. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the CBI (Scottish Office) as recently as 26 January.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the STUC some of the more distressing consequences of the present industrial action? Is he aware that Edinburgh presbytery has felt it necessary to advise mourners to stay away from the graveside when burials of relatives are delayed because of industrial action by gravediggers? Does he agree that there is something rotten in our state of industrial affairs when such advice has to be given?
    Mr. Millan: I am not aware of that advice. I doubt whether it is necessary, but I shall examine the facts.
    Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the CBI in Scotland and the STUC to stop pussyfooting about jobs and investment in Scotland? Will he tell them that the best way to increase jobs and investment in Scotland and to retain existing jobs at Albion Motors in Glasgow is by the direct channelling of Scottish oil revenues into the Scottish economy and not into the Westminster coffers?
    Mr. Millan: Scotland is already benefiting considerably from oil development in Scotland. The latest figures, which will be published shortly in the Scottish Economic Bulletin, indicate that the estimate of between 55,000 and 65,000 jobs arising directly or indirectly from Scottish oil exploration and development in the North Sea has been maintained.
    Mr. Buchan: Is it not humbug for Tory Members to complain about the present situation when we know their real attitude towards trade unionists and low-paid earners who are involved? Is it not time that both we and they realised that if we say that a group of workers should not go out on strike society must in return ensure that they enjoy conditions that mean that they do not need to go on strike? Despite the humbug of Opposition Members, a start should be made to provide such conditions for low-paid workers in Scotland and elsewhere.
    Mr. Millan: There is a problem about public sector pay in relation to what
    370
    happens in the private sector. Therefore, the Government suggested comparability studies in which comparisons would be made directly between what is happening in the private and public sectors. They suggested that comparability studies were a way forward.
    Mr. Younger: Does the Minister think it would be a good idea to discuss with the CBI and the STUC as soon as possible this morning's serious news that British Leyland is withdrawing plans for a further 2,000 jobs at the Albion works in Glasgow? Does he agree that that is regrettable, as labour relations there have always been good? It does not seem fair that Albion should suffer because of bad labour relations elsewhere.
    Mr. Millan: I do not accept the press reports about the loss of 2,000 jobs at Albion. I met the general manager of BL Scotland last Friday. He assured me that the jobs at Albion are safeguarded and will be safeguarded for a considerable time to come.

    Fish Processing Industry
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to protect employment in fish processing.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 17 January.
    Mr. HendersonThe Minister's reply on 17 January was to the effect that assistance would be available under section 7 of the Industry Act. Is it not the case that the industry has been in discussion with the Government for almost 18 months and that it could have been given that reply 18 months ago? There is nothing new that the Government have added to the situation. Will the Minister say specifically what assistance will be available to fish processing, in which so many thousands of people in Scotland are employed and which is under such grave threat at present?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that the hon. Member was not here on Monday night when we discussed these matters in some detail. The discussion with the industry did not take place 18 months ago. The complication was that the herring processing industry asked for special assistance.

    371
    As I explained on Monday night, it is the only industry I know of that is in difficulties as a result of a shortage of raw material. Consequently, we do not have powers to deal with that situation. The powers of the Industry Act have always been available to the industry. We are being as helpful as we can.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend able to offer any explanation of why Scottish National Party spokesmen find a cloud in every silver lining? Why is it that when a genuine offer of financial assistance is available to the industry, instead of encouraging companies to apply for assistance, they constantly say that it is no good and therefore discourage applications? Will my hon. Friend undertake to give us a month-by-month report on those companies which apply and what assistance they receive?
    Mr. Brown: The provision of such reports must be subject to the fact that some of the information on the activities of individual companies is confidential. We had a meeting with the industry. We followed that up by writing and offering whatever advice, information and help we could give. We offered to hold a seminar in Aberdeen or any suitable place to advise on what is available under the Industry Act. Certainly I shall arrange to keep my hon. Friend informed.
    Mr. Grimond: While accepting that the difficulty of this industry is a lack of supplies, will the Minister give us an indication of when the Government hope to make an estimate of what supplies will be available in the coming year?
    Mr. Brown: Supplies of what? If the right hon. Gentleman refers to herring, the indications are that in 1979 it is most unlikely that there will be any relaxation of the present ban in the North Sea and off the West Coast. We are not in a position to say what the scientific advice will be for 1980. So far it is not particularly encouraging.
    Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept, further to my representations on behalf of the processing industry on Monday evening, that I am equally worried about the future of the haulage industry should the intrusion of East European factory ships be continued?
    Mr. Brown: As I said on Monday night, the catching side of the industry is indebted to anybody who will buy the fish that it catches. This applies to the mackerel referred to by the hon. Gentleman. This has not taken anything away from the haulage industry. It has merely been another outlet for the catching industry.

    Lanarkshire Health Board
    Mr. George Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the way in which the Lanarkshire health board is administering the area under its jurisdiction.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The Lanarkshire health board inherited considerable problems in its area in 1974. I am satisfied that the board is tackling these as effectively as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Robertson: Will the Minister take note of the comments that I made during the Adjournment debate on Monday night? Will he make arrangements to meet urgently the Lanarkshire health board and ask it or his Department to investigate the serious worries expressed by people in the area of Stonehouse hospital?
    Mr. Ewing: I apologise to my hon. Friend for my inability to be present at Monday night's debate. I read the report of the debate with great interest. I intend to arrange to meet the Lanarkshire health board at an early date to discuss the problems raised by my hon. Friend and the other problems that the Lanarkshire health board is attempting to handle.

    Hospital Services
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an up-to-date statement on the operation of all National Health Service hospital, medical, ambulance and emergency services, in the interests of the health and well-being of citizens throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the effect on patient care of industrial disputes in the National Health Service in Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: Most hospitals are providing normal in-patient and out-patient services, although in some areas admissions are restricted to urgent cases and there are reduced laundry and catering facilities. Normal ambulance services are available for patients in most areas, but in Aberdeen only accident and emergency services are being provided.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will take all necessary steps to ensure that the lives of those in hospitals throughout Scotland are protected?
    Mr. Milian: I give that assurance. In all the circumstances the welfare of patients must come first.
    Mr. Fletcher: What advice has the Secretary of State given to hospital authorities to enable them to cope with the serious disruption that may occur on Monday if the unions fulfil their promise to take further industrial action? Will the Secretary of State say that he will encourage volunteers to cross the picket lines and give of their services in hospitals, wherever they are required?
    Mr. Millan: We are now dealing with situations locally. I am glad to say that the health boards are basically coping with the difficulties. If the situation were to become worse, with widespread industrial action, I should certainly consider sending them further advice. I do not think that is necessary now. They know the position and how best to cope with local situations as they arise.
    Mr. Sproat: Is the Minister aware of the desperate anxiety in Aberdeen, especially among the sick and elderly, about the fact that only an emergency ambulance service is now being offered? What later steps has the Minister taken to persuade the ambulance men to return to a full service as soon as possible?
    Mr. Millan: Steps can be taken to persuade people, but at the end of the day I am not able to compel them to go back to normal working. The police are helping us to cope in Aberdeen. If the situation there became worse, we could still cope with it. I want to see normal services resumed everywhere. I am sorry that we have this difficulty in Aberdeen.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State accept that his initiatives
    374
    with the four trade unions involved in this dispute in Scotland have met with widespread approval there? Will he continue to make it his first priority to obtain a long-term settlement of this dispute and ignore provocations, from wherever they come, that would exacerbate the existing situation?
    Mr. Millan: As I made clear to the House yesterday, the industrial action that has taken place in Scotland so far has been limited compared with what has been happening in England. I hope that that situation will continue. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the various negotiations should proceed as urgently as possible. In so far as I have an influence in these matters, it will be directed towards that end.

    Liquor Licensing Laws
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the workings of the Scottish liquor licensing laws.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Generally speaking, yes, but misuse of alcohol remains a most serious problem in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend has expressed his concern to licensing boards about the operation, in some areas, of the provision on regular extensions to permitted hours.
    Mr. Knox: Will the Minister confirm that convictions for drunkenness have declined since the law was liberalised in 1976? Will he take this opportunity to advise his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the great improvements which have accrued to the people of Scotland because of the liberalisation of the licensing laws and suggest to him that similar advantages could come to the people of England and Wales if the English and Welsh laws were liberalised?
    Mr. Ewing: Far be it from me to get involved in a battle between England and Scotland, but I can confirm that drunk driving offences have indeed decreased since the new Act was introduced in 1976. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will note what the hon. Gentleman has just said in his supplementary question.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Although, naturally, we are pleased that the number of offences concerned with drink has been reduced, will my hon. Friend keep a very

    375
    close watch on the matter? There are public houses which open at 9.30 in the morning and remain open all day. While it may be that drunkenness, as reflected in offences, has declined, might it not be that the consumption of alcohol overall has increased? Does he agree that that ought to be taken into account?
    Mr. Ewing: We set up a survey before the new licensing Act was introduced, and the survey continued after its introduction. We are just analysing the early results from that survey, and therefore I do not have any evidence to suggest that the consumption of alcohol has increased. But the fears of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) are rightly expressed, and my right hon. Friend and I will keep a close watch on developments as time goes on.
    Mr. Thompson: In view of the increase in the practice of having bar lunches in Scotland, has the Under-Secretary of State made an estimate of the extent to which publicans and hoteliers have been willing to use the possibility of providing facilities for people to take children with them and to enjoy a bar lunch separate from the public bar?
    Mr. Ewing: This is one of the great disappointments of the Act. When it was introduced it was hoped that publicans would set up separate facilities so that children could be taken there. Our information to date is that only two establishments—one in Aberdeen and, I think, a provisional one in Kirkcaldy—have attempted to take advantage of that provision in the Act.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister agree that the Edinburgh licensing board has been frustrating the intentions of Parliament by not insisting on an afternoon break, except in exceptional circumstances? What does he intend to do to try to ensure adherence to the original purposes which Parliament had in mind when passing this legislation?
    Mr. Ewing: It was not only Parliament which had the original purpose in mind. It was also the licensed trade. When we were putting this legislation together it was our intention to make the afternoon opening or closing discretionary. At the request of the licensing trade we made it mandatory. Now, lo
    376
    and behold, we find a host of establishments represented by the licensing trade applying for all-day opening. My right hon. Friend has issued a circular to licensing boards expressing our concern about what has been happening in these applications.

    Industrial Disruption
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the number of persons laid off work and of the value of production lost in Scotland as a consequence of strikes since 1 January 1979 to the nearest convenient date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: The recent road haulage dispute led to an estimated peak of 34,000 persons being laid off in manufacturing industry in Scotland. In the past week the numbers have dropped steadily and now nearly all employees are back at work. A wide range of companies were involved and in many cases the lay-offs did not last long. An overall estimate of the value of lost production is, therefore, not possible.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is not that a condemnation of the Government's industrial relations policy for Scotland? Is the Secretary of State aware that this situation has now extended to local government? Will he be more forthcoming than he was yesterday and tell us what advice he is giving to local authorities about the level at which they are to settle the claims that are being made?
    Mr. Millan: This is a question about road haulage, and I answered the other questions yesterday.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the recent outbreak of strikes in Scotland and elsewhere is the intolerable situation that many workers, particularly in the public sector, are taking home less than £40 after a 40-hour working week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to eradicate this problem is to have further discussions with the trade union movement about getting rid of low pay, instead of listening to some of the hypocritical gestures from Tory vultures perched on the Opposition Benches, such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who was making completely a false allegation recently about

    377
    pickets in a squalid attempt to discredit the trade union movement?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the purpose of Question Time. I deprecate the description of hon. Members as either birds or animals.
    Mr. Canavan: If I called the hon. Gentleman a dove, you would not object?
    Mr. Millan: I do not accept what my hon. Friend said in the part of his question which referred to take-home pay. It was a gross exaggeration of the general position in both the National Health Service and local authorities. But there is, of course, a problem of low pay, and the Government have made certain suggestions about how it should be dealt with, in both the public and private sectors. The trade unions also have a responsibility here. If we are concerned about the problem of low pay, it means that there has to be some restraint among people who are better paid, and at the moment that restraint is lacking.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the damage that will be done by the strike of offshore oil construction workers, what action has the Secretary of State taken in connection with it and what proposals has he in mind for a possible settlement of that strike?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Energy, in particular, has been active in trying to find a solution to some of the problems arising from the dispute, which is unofficial. A lot of effort is going into trying to get a settlement, but I do not think that there is much that I can tell the House this afternoon.
    Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, as a result of the transport strike, the cash flows of companies in Scotland will be seriously affected in the next few months and that profitability during this year will definitely be affected, with consequential effects on employment and investment?
    Mr. Millan: Yes, I made that clear while the dispute was on. With regard to cash flow, I gather that the Scottish banks have said that they will, in appropriate circumstances, try to help firms which are in difficulties short-term because of the strike. But there is always bound to be a residual long-term effect.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: I accept what my right hon. Friend said about an onus on the higher paid groups to exercise restraint, but does he recognise that after these higher paid groups have failed to show that restraint, and after the Government have facilitated a high settlement in the lorry drivers' dispute by tampering with the instructions to the Price Commission, it is pointless to expect the National Union of Public Employees to advise its lower-paid members to settle for an immediate payment of 8·8 percent.?
    Mr. Millan: I do not think that it is at all ludicrous. It is in the interests of every worker in this country that restraint should be exercised. If there are excessive settlements there will be a return to an inflationary position, which at the end of the day does more damage to the low-paid than to anyone else.

    Art Students and Teachers
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had about the provision of courses to enable Scottish art students and teachers to convert to the equivalent of CNAA honours degrees; and what action he intends to take.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I have received 55 letters on this subject. The art colleges in Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen are considering the question of the provision of bridging courses to enable holders of the Scottish art diploma to obtain honours degrees of the Council for National Academic Awards; the form and content of such courses would be subject to the approval of the Council.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread dissatisfaction and anger among Scottish art students and art teachers because of their inferior status, with higher qualifications, as against English students and Scottish students who graduate in England? Is it not time that he met the Educational Institute of Scotland and the other body concerned to ensure that the position is cleared up as quickly as possible?
    Mr. McElhone: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate on this subject on Monday

    379
    night, so no doubt he will have another chance to raise it then. It was the teachers' side on the Scottish teachers' salaries committee which pressed this matter, supported by the management. In the circumstances of the 1967 Act, the Secretary of State had no alternative but to accept its recommendations.
    Mr. Carmichael: Will my hon. Friend accept that I understand that this is a much more complicated matter than is suggested by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)? Nevertheless, I feel that every encouragement should be given to art teachers in Scotland, on an in-service basis, to increase the qualifications to make them equivalent to those which obtain in the higher grades of English courses.
    Mr. McElhone: That will be the intention of the meetings that are king place involving the three colleges, my Department, and, of course, CNAA. I shall do my best to ensure that we get these bridging courses so that graduates can achieve honours degrees.
    Mr. Reid: Does it not follow from the Minister's answer that Scottish art students should apply to English colleges, from where, after a year's less study and fewer qualifications, they can return to Scotland and make substantially more money than Scots candidates?
    Mr. McElhone: It is a strange attitude on the part of the SNP that we should look to England for guidance. I repeat what I said, that it was the teachers themselves who pushed this issue at the Scottish teacher's salaries committee. I have discussed this with the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, and I have to accept that it was the teachers themselves who wanted this.
    Mr. Dewar: I welcome the measures which are being taken to sort out the problem, but will the Minister accept that the original difficulty sprang from the reluctance of the Scottish teaching profession and the Scottish art colleges to accept honours degrees and a differentiation between students within the Scottish art colleges, and that to that extent this is a self-inflicted wound?
    Mr. McElhone: In 1972 my Department encouraged the three colleges in
    380
    Scotland to go for associateships leading to honours degrees. I am sorry that only one college in Glasgow accepted that.

    Roads (Gritting)
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the relevant authorities in Tayside concerning the gritting and salting of roads during inclement weather.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My Department's officers have been in frequent contact with the region's road engineers during the worst of the weather.
    Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that the gritting and salting of roads on Tayside and elsewhere in Scotland was much more efficiently and speedily carried out before regionalisation? Does he, therefore, agree that the regions should be scrapped so that once again local people can provide local solutions to local problems?
    Mr. MacKenzie: Only one complaint was received by my Department about the gritting of roads in the Tayside region. That complaint was made by an official of the Road Haulage Association immediately after a very heavy fall of snow, when local authority staffs were already out working to clear and grit trunk and principal roads. I know from experience in the Strathclyde area that people had to cope with considerable difficulties in getting the roads properly gritted. To try to bring in the question of the future structure of local government with the question of gritting roads takes, I must say, a bit of a nerve.
    Sir John Gilmour: Is the Minister of State satisfied that there is sufficient liaison between the regional and district councils on the clearing of footpaths and unadopted roads?
    Mr. MacKenzie: That is a matter to be settled by the regional and district councils. The regional councils in some cases act as agents of my right hon. Friend in respect of trunk roads, but we hope that the regions and districts can get together on these matters.

    Industrial Training Courses
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people on industrial training

    381
    courses in Scotland at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: On 31 December 1978, 6,200 people were on training courses provided or supported by the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland. These figures do not include the very large number of people on training courses and schemes organised by industrial training boards or by employers as part of their normal training provision.
    Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite those figures and exceptionally high unemployment, a large number of employers are still unable to get the skilled labour they require? Does not that suggest that the present arrangements are not working? Will he, therefore, expand the training done in private industry, with Government assistance, to make sure that the right people are trained for the skills needed?
    Mr. MacKenzie: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman not very long ago on this subject and indicated that we were concerned about certain skill shortages in Scotland. This is a matter that my right hon. Friend and I have discussed with the Manpower Services Commission. Reports from the Commission indicate that it is conscious of the difficulties and is bringing in future programmes to deal with particular skill shortages.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister satisfied that we are getting value for money for all these courses? Is he aware that some people going on these courses and training, for example, as boilermakers, are subsequently unable to get employment because they cannot get union cards from the boilermakers' union?
    Mr. MacKenzie: The example cited by the hon. Gentleman is not known to me. Of course, we appreciate that it is frustrating for young people trained in particular skills not to be able to get jobs. We all understand the economic difficulties. But I repeat that, with the help of the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission, we have been able to identify particular skill shortages and the House can be assured that the MSC will be putting on courses suitable for these groups.
    Mr. Buchan: Is there not a great contrast between the effort and money put in
    382
    by the community to bring about training and the failure by private industry to expand in this direction? Is not this another example of failure to invest properly in British industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is disgraceful in view of the record profits some companies have been making during the past few years of wage restraint?
    Mr. MacKenzie: Individual companies could do a bit more, but the Manpower Services Commission has been helpful to individual employers who want to train their people. I understand that in December 1978, 6,239 people in Scotland were taking part in such courses. We are working with the industrial training boards and with private companies to provide the best possible training.

    North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends next to meet the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
    Mr. Millan: I am to meet the chairman of the Board later today.
    Mr. Gray: Will the Secretary of State draw the attention of the chairman to the Board's abysmal record in employment in Ross and Cromarty? Will he suggest to the chairman that, at the very least, he should reopen the area office at Dingwall, and that, at best, he should move the whole of the headquarters of the board to Dingwall, thus escaping the domination of the central belt, from which the Highlands have suffered for so long?
    Mr. Millan: I have heard that before. I wish I could say that I had invited the chairman here to listen to that. The question of area offices is a long-standing grievance in certain parts of the area. I have no doubt that the chairman will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Whether he will act on it is a matter for him.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the chairman to explain why an EEC grant, for the stated purpose of extending electricity supplies in the Western Isles, will not make the slightest difference to the rate of the Board's programme?
    Mr. Millan: I should want notice of that question, but I doubt whether it would make no difference at all.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern throughout Scotland over the appointment of the former Mr. John Smith, first as a member of the House of Lords, secondly as Minister of State at the Scottish Office and now as chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? Does he agree that it is about time that such public patronage appointments were made accountable to Parliament, as proposed in my Private Member's Bill during the last Session?
    Mr. Milian: I have scored my hon. Friend off my list now. My information is that the appointment was very well received.
    Mr. Grimond: I have no wish to defend the right hon. Gentleman against his hon. Friend, but will he take notice of the important point that this organisation should have its headquarters in the Highlands? I am not a Dingwall nationalist. I suggest that Kirkwall would be a good place for the headquarters. In any event, it should be within the Highland area. To have it in Edinburgh is ridiculous.
    Mr. Milian: That is a matter for the Board. I gather that the number of people employed at the Edinburgh headquarters is limited in comparison with the total number of the Board's employees. There is some advantage in having the Board's head office in Edinburgh because the area covered by the Board is not just the Highlands. It extends to a good deal more of Scotland. It is a matter for the Board where its headquarters are situated.

    School Building (Inner City Areas)
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards outdated school buildings in inner city areas.
    Mr. McElhone: Following my Department's discussion paper on school accommodation, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Department have set up a joint working party to consider proposals for a full review by the
    384
    authorities of the potential of the existing stock of schools. In the meantime, authorities have been given increased provision for expenditure on school building improvement. It is for authorities themselves to decide how to make best use of the resources available.
    Mr. Cook: Will my hon. Friend, in a spirit of comradeship, come with me to visit Tynecastle secondary school in my constituency and there take note of the frustrations of some highly committed teachers who have to watch while new buildings and modern teaching aids are lavished on every area outside the inner city whereas they are asked to work in the oldest buildings with the oldest aids to combat the effects of one of the worst multiple deprivation areas in the whole region?
    Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend knows that the allocation of resources within the region is for the education committee. Nevertheless, if time allows, I am prepared to look at the position of this school, in concert with the regional council, with which I must work, to see whether we can achieve a satisfactory arrangement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the problem raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). But will the Minister not lose sight of the question of growing communities, such as Portlethen outside Aberdeen, where, as a consequence of oil and other developments, these new communities are growing up with virtually no facilities? Will he do his best to ensure that communities such as the one that I have mentioned are given facilities, both educational and otherwise, which are necessary if we are to have balanced communities in these areas of development?
    Mr. McElhone: I shall obviously have to consider that matter.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have written to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. McElhone: I get many letters from hon. Members asking for more and more money for school building. Hon. Members will find that, compared with the previous three years, in the period 1979 to 1981–82 we are proposing to increase substantially the amount of money for school improvement. As a former

    385
    Minister in the Scottish Office, the hon. Gentleman will know that roofs over heads and provision for basic needs are not subject to public expenditure constraints.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that there is a serious problem in inner cities where a combination of a fall in the population and a sharp fall in the birth rate has brought some school rolls in primary schools down to a very low level? Is the hon. Gentleman and his officials looking at Scotland as a whole in this regard? Does he agree that there could be a serious problem of school closures as a consequence?
    Mr. McElhone: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understood my answer. We have set up a working party to look at the question of spare school accommodation. The first meeting of that working party will take place on 15 February. I understand the dilemma of falling school rolls. The Strathclyde region, in order to ensure that I do know, has chosen my area to close the first two schools.

    Referendum
    Mr. MacCormickasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the final arrangements made for the referendum on 1 March.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MacCormick: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that, as the "Yes" campaign in Scotland is being very successful, at the same time it would be extremely frustrating if too many people were not allowed or were unable to vote? Will he look again at the arrangements which have been made or promised for taking into account, for example, all the young people in the Highlands and Islands who will be away at university at the time of the referendum on 1 March?
    Mr. Ewing: I agree that the "Yes" campaign is being very successful and will be more successful.
    I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in relation to the other points that he raised, there is a later question on the Order Paper which my right hon. Friend will answer.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention to produce a final figure which will take account of the deductions from the total electoral roll before the referendum on 1 March so that we know exactly on what figure the 40 per cent. will be calculated?
    Mr. Ewing: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend will make an announcement to that effect before the referendum takes place.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman take an interest, with a view to being helpful, in the present shambles over the broadcasting arrangements for the referendum?
    Mr. Ewing: That is not a matter for me as the Minister responsible. I am tempted to say that I have an interest in all the present shambles, but I should prefer to leave it at that for the moment.
    Mr. Heffer: If my hon. Friend is to take into consideration the various anomalies which have arisen from the referendum, will he also take into consideration the anomaly of the Scots who live in England and Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom who are not to be allowed to vote on this question, but who also have a view on the future of Scotland?
    Mr. Ewing: With respect to my hon. Friend, the House has decided who shall have the right to vote in the referendum. The House has made that decision, and that is the end of the matter.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In the interests of fair play, will the Minister reconsider his original reply to the question? I am sure that he and his right hon. Friend will want to ensure that the referendum is conducted fairly. As the question on the ballot paper refers to "Yes" and "No" votes only, how can he be satisfied with the present broadcasting arrangements? So far we have had two party political broadcasts on the "Yes" side. Unless an arrangement is made soon, the charge must be levelled at the hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend and other members of the Government that the whole referendum campaign is being rigged in favour of a "Yes" vote.
    Mr. Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the day will ever dawn when the Tory Party has an influence on what

    387
    is said in a Labour Party political broadcast, he is living in could cuckoo land. The parties are responsible for what they put out on their own party political broadcasts. In the democracy in which we live, the hon. Gentleman should not want to change that situation.

    Building Regulations (Frost Damage Precautions)
    Sir John Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities in repairs as a result of burst water pipes during the new year cold spell; and if he is satisfied that current building regulations ensure adequate means of turning off and draining water from empty dwellings.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The cost of repairs to local authority premises is a matter for the local authorities concerned and I have no estimate. Water installations used in connection with the public water supply are covered by local water byelaws. These require premises to be fitted with drain taps to prevent frost damage and require occupiers to turn off the supply and drain the fittings where practicable before vacating the premises.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, from reports of what happened in some of our cities during the cold spell, that is not happening? With knowledge of what happens in Canada from relations living there, may I ask whether it is not true that other countries provide much better facilities than we do for preventing frost damage in dwellings? Therefore, is it not high time that we altered our regulations to save this waste of money?
    Mr. Brown: No. I think that we all appreciate the unusual circumstances with which various authorities were confronted during the recent cold spell. But the byelaws and building regulations are adequate. There may be a lack of education on the part of private owners or councils, but the facilities are there. They are required to be there. Perhaps people should make better use of them.
    Sir. J. Gilmour: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Western Infimary, Glasgow
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the future development of the Western infirmary, Glasgow.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: The Greater Glasgow health board and Glasgow university have agreed that the phase II development originally planned for the Western infirmary site should not now proceed. A unified medical teaching campus and the acute beds required for the Western district, together with the services appropriate to a major teaching hospital—about 720 acute beds in all—will be developed on the Gartnavel site.
    The use to be made of phase I on the Western infirmary site has yet to be decided, but account will be taken, among other things, of the proximity of the science-based university departments at Gilmorehill.
    Mr. Galbraith: Why does the Under-Secretary of State keep on washing his hands like Pontius Pilate and hiding behind the Glasgow hospital board as if he had no responsibility for the proper development of hospital services in Scotland? Can he imagine a better set-up for a teaching hospital than existed with the Western infirmary next to the university? Surely any change from that is planning madness. Will he explain why he has concurred with that madness, or is he responsible for it?
    Mr. Ewing: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not wash my hands of this matter. In fact, I raised this matter with the Greater Glasgow health board on 4 October 1976. If acute and geriatric long-stay services are to be developed properly in Glasgow against the background of a declining population, they will have to be done in that way. That is why I agree with the joint decision of the university and the Greater Glasgow health board.
    Mr. Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend accept that that will be welcomed in the west end of Glasgow? Does he agree that the long and almost intolerable delay in making a decision was caused by the most appalling medical politics? I am sure everyone is pleased that a decision has been made. May I suggest that perhaps part of the Western infirmary

    389
    which will now not be fully utilised be made the new Partick health centre?
    Mr. Ewing: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the Partick health centre. I, too, am concerned about a decent site for the Partick health centre, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. The future use of the Western infirmary will be subject to consideration by a joint planning team of the health board and Glasgow university, and we shall see what comes from that.

    SHERIFF OFFICERS
    Mr. Canavanasked the Lord Advocate whether he will issue a code of conduct for sheriff officers.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have no responsibility for the conduct of sheriff officers. A sheriff officer is an officer of the court and is answerable to the sheriff principal who appoints him and from whom he holds his commission.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the grave public concern throughout Scotland about the recent case where three children were dragged from their beds at half-past four in the morning, and also the grave concern about the involvement, either directly or indirectly, of certain sheriff officers in private debt-collecting agencies, is it not about time that these people were told that that kind of activity is completely unacceptable and unethical and in danger of bringing the law into disrepute?
    The Lord Advocate: I do not accept that my hon. Friend has stated the facts accurately. It was children who were being collected and not a debt. Having said that, I would say that this was an unfortunate and regrettable incident. I agree with my hon. Friend to that extent. However, the sheriff principal inquired fully into the matter and was satisfied that an error of judgment had been made and that it would not be repeated.
    Mr. Buchan: I thank the Lord Advocate for that reply. That was a difficult case and one which, as he knows, I have been aware of for some years. The incident itself was not only regrettable but deplorable. I am glad of the assur-
    390
    ances that I have had from the Lord Advocate's office and the sheriff principal that this will not happen again. May I add a rider to that? If sheriff officers are used—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is quite right. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.
    Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "In addition to my question". In cases such as this, involving deep social work matters, it would be valuable to have the presence of social workers at any such incident.
    The Lord Advocate: I agree with my hon. Friend that the incident was deplorable. However, I think that the matter has been adequately dealt with by the sheriff principal, whose concern it is. I note the second point put to me by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend in a position to instruct sheriff principals to give some guidelines to sheriff officers in carrying out their duties? For example, should they not be instructed to stop selling household effects on warrant sales at bargain basement prices which bear no relation whatsoever to the value of the person's property, and thereby stop adding to that person's misfortunes?
    The Lord Advocate: I am very much aware of the point that my hon. Friend has put to me, but that is not the matter which this question raises. A code of conduct related to an incident involving children is what I have been asked about. Perhaps I could put the matter more generally. It would be constitutionally quite improper for me, as a member of the Executive, to give instructions on such a matter to the sheriff principals. That would be a most extreme constitutional anomaly. If it were desired that the Executive should play some part in this, the constitutionally correct procedure would be for legislation to be introduced to that effect.

    PICKETING
    Mr. Youngerasked the Lord Advocate how many reports he has received since 1 January 1979 regarding

    391
    alleged criminal offences by strike pickets; and on how many he intends to authorise prosecution.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Lord Advocate how many incidents involving breaches of the law, in relation to picketing, have been reported to the Crown Office; and how many incidents involving alleged intimidation, in relation to picketing, have been reported to the Crown Office.
    Mr. Buchananasked the Lord Advocate if it is possible to have lawful intimidation on the picket line in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Lord Advocate whether he will make a statement on the law of Scotland with regard to picketing.
    The Lord Advocate: I refer to a statement on the law of picketing in Scotland which I made on 31 January 1979 in answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), where I stated that peaceful and orderly picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute, whether primary or secondary, is not a criminal offence in Scotland. But if what is done in the course of picketing involves a criminal element, such as assault, threats of assault, intimidation, extortion, or breach of the peace, then it constitutes a criminal offence and is accordingly unlawful. Intimidation covers threats of violence or other acts intended to induce a person through fear to act or not to act as he is lawfully entitled to do. Since 1 January 1979 I have received seven reports of alleged offences in connection with picketing, including three where there were allegations of intimidation. Criminal proceedings have been instructed in five of the seven cases. In one of these five the accused pleaded guilty and was fined £15.
    Several Hon. Membersrose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Younger: We are grateful to the Lord Advocate for making that statement on this serious matter. Is he aware that it has been admitted by Mr. Alex Kitson that, in many cases, his pickets
    392
    were demanding money for the crossing of a picket line? Does he agree that that amounts to extortion? Will he give an assurance that he will seriously consider prosecuting any such cases that are brought to his notice?
    The Lord Advocate: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has put what Mr. Kitson said fairly. However, I shall respond to his wider question. As some of the cases where I have instructed proceedings involve extortion, these matters are sub judice and I had better make no comment on them.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to condemn intimidation unequivocally, and is he aware that if he does issue such a condemnation it will be warmly welcomed throughout Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate: I am happy to respond to that invitation. I do condemn intimidation, whether by threat of violence or otherwise, as an indefensible inroad into personal freedom. I am sure that all responsible trade unionists would agree with that. But personal freedom includes freedom to withdraw one's labour and to make lawful protest against injustice.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate agree that neither in his written reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), nor in his reply today, has he made any reference to any concept of lawful intimidation? Does he agree that this extraordinary aberration invented by the Attorney-General has no place in the law of Scotland?
    The Lord Advocate: The idea of lawful intimidation originated not with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General but with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who is not present. It is not terminology which I myself would choose.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Answer the question.
    The Lord Advocate: I shall come to that. Intimidation in the sense in which I used it in my original answer would not be lawful. However, some threats, such as to take someone to court to enforce one's legal rights, may be lawful.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that all Labour

    393
    Members take every case of extortion and intimidation extremely seriously, but that even more alarming are the persistent efforts by the Opposition to scaremonger on these issues? Does he agree that the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that there had been an admission by Mr. Alex Kitson that extortion took place in many cases is exactly the kind of exaggeration and scaremongering which cannot possibly be justified, and that no such admission has or could be made because it would not be justified?
    The Lord Advocate: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The criminal law of Scotland provides strong sanctions against illegal picketing, which can attract heavy penalties. The figures which I gave in my principal reply show that the Opposition have greatly exaggerated the extent of the problem—no doubt for party political reasons.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the Lord Advocate agree that there is every distinction in the world between the right of an individual to try to persuade his fellow employees to withdraw their labour and the right of gangs of people, who are not connected with any particular place of work, to roam the country organising pickets? Since the law does not draw such a distinction at the moment, is not there a case for changing the law?
    The Lord Advocate: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first observation, but I do not agree with his latter comment. If he looks at section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, he will see that intimidation by numbers is expressly covered.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Contrary to the Lord Advocate's last reply, does he not think that the small number of prosecutions is an indication not of the absence of intimidation but of its success? Will he encourage chief constables to make sure that policemen go to picket lines to ensure that not only vocal but silent intimidation is prosecuted?
    The Lord Advocate: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, has got the wrong end of the stick. The fact of the matter is that, out of seven cases reported to me, prosecutions have been instructed in five. That is a high
    394
    proportion. I think that the significant figure is not the number of prosecutions—I am prepared to go some distance with the hon. and learned Gentleman that that indicates that there has been a failure. But the extent of the problem, the scale of the problem, is indicated in that, despite the fact that I made an early announcement, as soon as this period of industrial strife began, instructing chief constables to report at once any incidents reported to them and asking the general public, indeed, to report any such incidents, only seven incidents have been reported.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that today's edition of the Daily Telegraph contains a very interesting letter from a representative of the Chief Constables' Association, which is extremely upset about the type of propaganda that has come from the Opposition Benches, suggesting that the police have not done their job during the various disputes that have taken place? Is it not time that we stopped having this sort of exaggeration from Opposition Members and recognised the fact that during these disputes there has been very little trouble and very little violence? We ought to be pleased about that instead of attacking it.
    The Lord Advocate: I regret that I have not seen today's edition of the Daily Telegraph, but I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), does the Lord Advocate agree that the Law Society report on picketing, published the other day, showed a need for a change in the law to clarify the situation? On the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about only seven cases and five prosecutions, does he accept that the business community and the public have no worries about the impartiality or justice of the Lord Advocate, or of the courts or the police, but that what they are concerned about is what may happen to them simply by reporting an incident and having the matter coming to court? Does the Lord Advocate agree that the problem in Scotland is certainly a great deal worse than is shown by the seven cases which have been reported?
    The Lord Advocate: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman himself reported a certain allegation to me in connection with Bellshill. That was proved to be entirely without foundation. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    I should not have thought that the case for changing the law had been made out. Recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in England suggest that there may be a civil law remedy against, for example, excessive zeal in secondary picketing. I think that recent experience, particularly of the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act, has proved that it is better to deal with these matters by means other than legislation.

BRITISH LEYLAND (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Hal Miller: 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 walk-out at Longbridge this morning."
It is a specific matter. A walk-out took place on a show of hands in defiance of the advice of the shop stewards and of the balloted decision of the membership.
It is a most important matter because it can threaten the whole of the corporate plan of British Leyland and the public funds committed thereto. It is also important that such a decision can be taken on a show of hands, without ballot, without reflection, without any possibility of a cooling-off period, and in clear distinction against the advice of the stewards.
The matter is urgent because the union officials will be meeting the company tomorrow afternoon, and the shop stewards of all the British Leyland plants will be meeting in Coventry on Monday. It is, therefore, most urgent that the matter should be discussed so that these people can be given a lead to return to work tomorrow while these meetings take place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek 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 walk-out at Longbridge this morning."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, it has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I regret that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application o the House.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (RADIO INTERVIEW)
Mr. Fitt: 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 radio interview given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which he grossly misrepresented the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland which has led to a serious increase in tension in that area, endangering any prospect of future political progress under his authority."
Last week the Secretary of State, the Shadow Secretary of State and myself, at different times, gave interviews to Independent Radio News, for a programme called "Decision Makers". That programme has been broadcast in various areas of the United Kingdom at different times. It was first broadcast on Sunday in London. People in Northern Ireland then heard of the context of it. It was broadcast on Monday in Northern Ireland, and I understand that it was broadcast in other parts of the United Kingdom.
During the course of his interview, the Secretary of State, on the basis of a very small, derisory number of people—fewer than 200—concerned in a poll which was taken for EEC purposes by the EEC, and which itself had been rejected by the EEC authorities as being completely unrepresentative of the political views in Northern Ireland, said as a result of the figures which that poll had gathered that it indicated the views of political parties in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State referred to the official Unionist Party as being the party of moderates in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Canavan: Disgraceful!
Mr. Fitt: The Secretary of State referred to my party, the Social Democratic and Labour Democratic Party, as going a little green, and he went on, by implication, to associate it with the party that is led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Democratic Unionist Party. The Secretary of State said that we were extremists. Z
Mr. Stallard: How stupid can one get?
Mr. Fitt: This has caused a great deal of political tension in Northern Ireland. In view of the attitude that the Secretary of State has displayed, my party feels that it is completely unable to take part in any further discussions with that particular gentleman on the ground that he is now openly, avowedly and decidedly in the pocket of the official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
You, Mr. Speaker, will know the situation in Northern Ireland. For the very first time in Ireland, in each of the six national newspapers which were published yesterday, there was complete unanimity in saying that the Secretary of State, by his comments on this programme, had done untold damage to the political process in Northern Ireland. I make no comment on the opinion of the Secretary of State. However, I say to him that if he is to continue to make comments on the bona fides and the ideologies of political parties in Northern Ireland —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—particularly my own, he is quite likely—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is about to tell the House why we should have an emergency debate.
Mr. Fitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that policy on Northern Ireland should be decided in this House rather than in a radio studio. I believe that the Secretary of State should not be in a position to create further political tensions by openly supporting one political ideology in Northern Ireland.
I believe that it is important and indeed urgent that this House should have the opportunity to debate the attitude of the Secretary of State, the present Government and Parliament to see whether it is the Government's intention to bring the people of Northern Ireland together rather than to make speeches which are liable to bring untold disaster to that community.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek 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 radio interview given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which he grossly

399
misrepresented the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland which has led to a serious increase in tension in that area, endangering any prospect of future political progress under his authority."
I listened with anxious care to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, my powers are limited to deciding whether there should be an emergency debate, not whether the issue should be debated. I regret that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

PUBLIC SERVICES (HAMPSHIRE)
Mr. Ian Lloyd: 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.
I must first apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having given notice of this matter before 12 noon, but I was informed only minutes ago of the following item which appears on the PA tapes. Under the heading "Strikes panel" there is the following item:
"Secret plans to 'paralyse' a major centre in the South were drawn up by public service unions today. Mr. Shaun Hilliard, a NUPE official, said the area was in Hampshire, but he would not say where. Men operating all public services, including sewerage pumps, would be involved over several days. Action would also cover ambulance drivers and hospital workers. 'We are going to paralyse this one particular centre,' said Mr. Hilliard. He was speaking after a meeting of officials of public service unions, at Winchester, Hampshire. It was also announced that industrial action elsewhere in the South was to be stepped up, hitting refuse services, and there would be more selective strikes by school caretakers."
I submit that this is a specific matter in that an individual named in the press release has announced that a decision appears to have been taken to paralyse a major centre of urban population. Nothing could be more specific than that. I believe that it will be the view of the whole House, irrespective of views, party or otherwise, that this is an important matter. Any announced decision of this kind which will paralyse and deprive a major centre of population of its important social public services cannot be other than important.
In my view, this matter is more important than any item of business—I say this in all humility—that remains to be dealt with by the House this week. Therefore, I hope that it will be given specific consideration.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) gave me notice as soon as he could, which was when the announcement was made at 2.35 this afternoon, that he would seek 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.

401
I listened with considerable care to the hon. Gentleman. The House will know that there are many important matters on which it is not possible for me to grant emergency debates. The House has asked me to give no reasons for my decision, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask, through you, whether a Minister could be present tomorrow to report on steps which have been taken to co-ordinate Government effort should the threat outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) be carried out? This is an unprecedented threat which requires unprecedented action, and certainly a statement tomorrow without fail.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order will have been heard and, no doubt, noted.

BILLS PRESENTED
  INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
  Mr. Secretary Rees supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Solicitor-General and Dr. Shirley Summer-skill presented a Bill to confer power on the Independent Broadcasting Authority to equip themselves to transmit a television broadcasting service additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation and to that provided by the Authority under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
  SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS (PRIVACY)
  Mr. J. W. Rooker supported by Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Neil Kinnock and Mr. Andrew Bennett presented a Bill to provide for individual privacy for those workers who have had to give an incorrect age to their employers in order to obtain employment; to prevent excess benefit being earned by such workers; to ensure that companies are not penalised by safeguards for privacy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill. 71.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put the Questions on the four statutory instruments together.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and on Gifts) (United States of America) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on income) (Canada) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and on Gifts) (Republic of South Africa) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

  WORKERS' FREEDOM
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the rights of workers by regulating picketing and the closed shop.
  Yesterday the House granted leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) to introduce a Bill of which I was a sponsor to clarify the law on picketing. This proposed Bill goes further. It seeks to amend the existing law, which is far from clear, to protect the rights of workers against what a growing number of trade unionists consider to be the twin evils of unreasonable picketing and the closed shop.
  I deal first with picketing. Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 makes no reference to the number of pickets who may attend for the purpose of persuading peacefully a person to abstain from working. Yet in the consultation paper on picketing issued last November by the Department of Employment these words appear:
  "The police can face problems of maintaining law and order at the scene of picketing, particularly in the rare cases"—
  I wish to add that they are not now so rare—
  "of mass picketing, where crowds can often be difficult to control."
  The document continues:
  "The general public have an interest in not having the highway or footpaths obstructed, in not having the nuisance of crowds outside their premises or homes and in the avoidance of violence or other breaches of the peace."
  I agree with the Secretary of State that it is the sheer numbers of pickets that can, and do, intimidate those who wish to work. We must allow peaceful communication and persuasion, but we must not allow intimidation to replace peaceful persuasion.
  This proposed Bill would limit the number of pickets in any one place. I suggest 10 at each factory entrance or plant. However, the exact number is a matter which can be dealt with in Committee.
  The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 changed the law so as to give immunity to almost all secondary picketing—that is, immunity
  404
  from civil action even when secondary picketing induces a breach of contract between parties neither of whom is involved in the industrial dispute. The 1976 Act, which was presented to Parliament under the dubious dual paternity of the Lord President and the Attorney-General, removed the previous vital limitation that immunity from legal action applied only to inducing a breach of contract of employment. The Government have extended the legal immunity to those inducing breaches of any contract, including commercial contracts.
  When the 1976 Act was going through the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) warned that it would open the way to a vast extension of blacking and blockading. Workers who have been in no way involved in a dispute, including those in my constituency, have been flung out of work. We are now reaping a fearful harvest of the failure to heed the warnings given from these Benches three years ago. The case for reverting to the pre-1976 law is overwhelming.
  Another change in the law introduced by the present Government has had a powerful effect in strengthening the hands of the secondary picket. The threat that anyone who goes through a picket line may have his union card withdrawn is often enough to stop a lorry going through. Where there is a closed shop, the loss of a union card will mean the loss of a man's livelihood. By encouraging and legalising the closed shop, the Larbour Party has done more to make secondary picketing effective than any change in the law of picketing.
  That brings me to the closed shop. The founding fathers of the trade union movement, and indeed the founding fathers of the Labour Party, would be appalled to know that nowadays workers are being conscripted into the unions as a precondition of employment instead of joining willingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are frogmarched".] The unions should be able to sustain their membership on a voluntary basis and not under coercion.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): What about the lawyers?
  Mr. Gow: I am coming to the lawyers. The legal profession is often criticised as a closed shop. The House knows that

  405
  I am a solicitor. My trade union is the Law Society. On 1 January 1979 there were 32,000 solicitors in practice, of whom 25,500 only were members of the Law Society. Thus there are 6,500 solicitors, more than 20 per cent. of the total, who are not members of the trade union. The closed shop is being extended all the time.
  With each new closed shop agreement we move nearer to a closed-shop Britain. It is not union bashing to make that assertion. It is the plain truth. In other EEC countries and in the United States the closed shop is either unlawful or damages are available for those who suffer its consequences. We must never argue that we will abandon justice for the minority because the majority is too powerful. Too many liberties have been eroded or are under attack today for the Tory Party to pass by on the other side when a man has been robbed of his employment and stripped of his right to work.
  The Prime Minister told the House yesterday that he is at present engaged in discussions with the TUC about the closed shop. I wish I could believe that a code of practice would work or would be permitted to work by the trade unions. The trade unions will never agree to a proper or effective code of practice since they have acquired their increased power largely because of the closed shop.
  The law no longer recognises conscientious objection, except on the narow basis of religious belief, as a ground for exemption from trade union membership. That law should be changed along the lines of the recently concluded agreement between the GLC and its 15,000 manual workers. That agreement provides that
  "an employee shall be exempted from the obligation regarding trade union membership if he or she genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief or personal conviction to being a member of any trade union whatsoever."
  The GLC has set a pattern that should be backed up by the protection of Parliament and the law.
  It is clear that the Government have decided to make no change either in the law of picketing or about the closed shop. That is hardly surprising given the attitude of the Prime Minister. On page 254 of the autobiography of his noble Friend Lord Wigg, the former Paymaster General, he described the Prime
  406
  Minister's attitude to the paymasters of the Labour Party. He wrote:
  "I remember Callaghan describing to me way back in the '40s his own recipe for political success—wait till the trade unions decide their line and then follow them."
  The present Government have neither the courage nor the resolution to introduce these long overdue reforms. It is time that they made way for my right hon. Friends who have that courage.
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to oppose?
  Mr. Hoyle: I am indeed, Mr. Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is always giving the game away. He always opposes anything to do with good industrial relations. The present game of the Opposition is to play on the politics of ignorance. They are using scaremongering tactics. This follows their previous appeals on the massive social security frauds and the flood of immigrants. It is now the widespread lawlessness of pickets or the inequities of the closed shop. It is the usual pattern. They are pursuing the politics of mischief-making. They are not interested in good industrial relations or the fact that there are talks between the Government and the TUC and that there is a new concordat on the way. I shall allow them to smile, but nevertheless it is coming. There will be a code of conduct on picketing, but they choose to believe that there is not going to be one because they see party political advantage in doing so. But one opinion poll does not mean that they will win the general election. They might be crowing too soon.
  The Opposition are trying to take away the liberties of ordinary people which have existed since 1906. These are liberties that have allowed people in a trade dispute peacefully to persuade others not to work. That is the liberty of the ordinary people that they are trying to take away. It is union bashing of the crudest sort. I am amazed that they never learn their lesson. We shall have successive Ten-Minute Bills devoted to picketing and asking that the proposed law be introduced, despite the fact that the Tory Industrial Relations Act 1971

  407
  showed that the law had no place in good industrial relations. They are returning to it because they believe that it is electorally popular and probable that they will get away with it and panic the people of this country. But it will not lead to industrial peace.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: What about the Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that these are the hon. Gentleman's reasons for opposing the Bill.
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman neglected to say that the closed shop is welcomed also by management. A survey of managements in which closed shop operated showed that 75 per cent. saw advantages in it. It leads to better industrial relations and order in the conduct of industial relations.
  Conservatives are always talking about the odd exceptions in which people lose their livelihoods. They neglect to tell us that those who lose their livelihood have the right of appeal to the courts, which they always portray as the upholders of justice. What are they complaining about? Also, people who lose their livelihood have a right of appeal to the TUC—to an independent court with a professor of law as the chairman. I do not understand what all the fuss is about. Of course, it is just part of the campaign that the Opposition are building up.
  We can all hear the Tories' boots on the cobblestones as they march along, because we all know what they want. They want to weaken the trade union movement in this country. They have not even caught up with current events. They are still talking about secondary picketing, yet in the hospital dispute it is all primary picketing. I have no doubt that we shall have a spate of Bills soon on primary picketing. It is very strange that we never hear a word about picketing when it is ineffective. We have not heard a word from the Tories about Garners' steak houses where workers get disgraceful wages, and where they have been out for 12 months.
  I hope that the House will reject this ill-conceived and mischievous Bill.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a custom in this House that when we make speeches we declare our interests. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) holds an extremely important position in a very large trade union. I am not complaining about that, but is it not right that he should declare his interest?
  Mr. Hoyle: There is nothing secret about that. If the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) cares to look at the Register of Members' Interests, he will find my position stated there. I have never hesitated to state my interest. In fact, I am very proud of my position.
  Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You rebuked me earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for speaking from a sedentary position. But it is the convention that points or order should not be raised during Question Time or Ten-Minute Bills. Recently you have made it your practice, with the support of the whole House, to indicate that questions should be related to the questions tabled. In the same way, surely speeches on Ten-Minute Bills should be related to the Bills before the House. It was for that reason. that I raised the matter from a sedentary position.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for excitement. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was here to listen to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). If he was, he will know that I allowed a great deal of latitude. I think that we should now move on to the Division and let the House make up its mind.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appeal to the House as someone who has been rebuked by yourself on many occasions. When an hon. Member is rebuked, he should accept it and not argue.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, would you make it clear, following what

  409
  was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) in extenuation of his failing to declare his interest, that the fact that an interest is registered in the Register of Members' Interests in no way takes away the responsibility of an hon. Member to declare that interest?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon and learned Gentleman is quite correct. To record an interest in the register is not sufficient, but I am in no way rebuking anyone on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was merely casting his bread on the waters.
  Mr. HoyleI am never afraid of declaring my interest, but if it is right for this side of the House to do so, it is right that Conservative Members should do so, too. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) should have declared that he is the director of a company.
  Question put, pursuant to Sanding Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 178.

  Division No. 72]

  AYES

  [4.04 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Arnold, Tom

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Baker, Kenneth

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Penhaligon, David

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Heseltine, Michael

  Percival, Ian

  Biffen, John

  Hodgson, Robin

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Blaker, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Body, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Britten, Leon

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Roberts, (Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  James, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Buck, Antony

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

  Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Burden, F. A.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Jopling, Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Carlisle, Mark

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

  Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

  Sims, Roger

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cope, John

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Critchley, Julian

  Latham, Michael (Melton)

  Sproat, lain

  Crouch, David

  Lawson, Nigel

  Stainton, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Stanley, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Dunlop, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

  Durant, Tony

  Luce, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stokes, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  MacGregor, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fairbalrn, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mather, Carol

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Forman, Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Viggers, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Wakeham, John

  Freud, Clement

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Wall, Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walters, Dennis

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wells, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Moore. John (Croydon C)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Grey, Hamish

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Winterton, Nicholes

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Younger, Hon George

  Grylls, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Nelson, Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Newton, Tony

  Mr. Nicholas Ridley and

  Hannam, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Ian Gow.

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ginsburg, David

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

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

  Gould, Bryan

  Newens, Stanley

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Graham, Ted

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bates, Alf

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Ovenden, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hardy, Peter

  Parker, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parry, Robert

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Pavitt, Lourie

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pendry, Tom

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Radice, Giles

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Campbell, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hunter, Adam

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Cant, R. B.

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Carmichael, Neil

  Janner, Greville

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sever, John

  Cartwright, John

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  John, Brynmor

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Silverman, Julius

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Concannon, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Snape, Peter

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Judd, Frank

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stallard, A. W.

  Cowans, Harry

  Kelly, Richard

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Kerr, Russel

  Stoddart, David

  Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)

  Kilroy-silk, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Cronin. John

  Lamborn, Harry

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lamond, James

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cryer, Bob

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Tierney, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Tomlinson, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

  Litterick, Tom

  Urwin, T. W.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Deakins, Eric

  Luard, Evan

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ward, Michael

  Dempsey, James

  McElhone, Frank

  Watkins, David

  Dormand, J. D.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Watkinson, John

  Dunn, James A.

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Weetch, Ken

  Eadie, Alex

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Edge, Geoff

  Maclennan, Robert

  White, James (Pollok)

  Ellis, John (Brig & Scun)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Madden, Max

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Woodall, Alec

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Woof Robert

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Molloy, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Mr. Stan Thorne and

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Morton, George

  Mr. Ron Thomas.

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Ronald

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Mr. John Cope, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Iain Sproat and Mr. Neil Marten.

  WORKERS' FREEDOM
  Mr. Ian Gow accordingly presented a Bill to protect the rights of workers by regulating picketing and the closed shop; And the same was read the First time: and orderer to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 February and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  JOINT COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS
  8.—(1) In this section the expression "Joint Committee" shall mean the Statutory Health Visiting Joint Committee hereinafter referred to.
  (2)The Secretary of State shall by order constitute a Joint Committee of the Central Council and the National Boards, to be called the Statutory Health Visiting Joint Committee.
  (3)Of the members of the Joint Committee the majority shall be practising Health Visitors.
  (4)(A) The Council and each of the Boards shall consult the Joint Committee on all matters relating to health visiting; and the Health Committee shall, on behalf of the Council or of any Board, discharge such of the functions of the Council or the Board as are assigned to it by the body otherwise charged with those functions or by the Secretary of State by order.
  (B) Such functions shall include those more particularly specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (5) of this section.
  (5) The Council and the National Boards shall make provision for the matters relating to Health Visiting set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection, upon the recommendation or recommendations to that effect of the Joint Committee but not further or otherwise, namely:—

  (a) the education and training of Health Visitors

  (b) the further education and training of Health Visitors

  (c) the approval of courses for the education and training and further education and training of Health Visitors and of the Institutions providing such courses

  (d)the conduct and content of examinations for the qualification of Health Visitors.'.—[Mr. Thorne.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 22, in page 6, line 12, leave out Clause 8.
  414
  No. 27, in clause 8, page 6, line 22 at end insert—
  such functions may include any or all of those referred to in subsection (4A)(a) to (d) below.'.
  No. 28, in clause 8, page 6, line 31, at end insert—
  (4A) Neither the Council nor the National Boards shall act on any of the following matters relating to Health Visiting except on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee and shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee in respect of

  (a) the education and training of health visitors;

  (b) the further education and training of health visitors;

  (c) the approval of courses for the education and training and further education and training of health visitors and of the institutions providing these courses; and

  (d) the conduct and content of examinations for the qualification of health visitors.'.

  Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would also be for the convenience of the House if we took amendment No. 25 with this group.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House is agreeable to the Minister's suggestion, we shall certainly support it.
  Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, we shall also include in this group amendment No. 25, in clause 8, page 6, line 18, leave out from 'visiting' to end of line 22, and insert:
  and the Committee shall, on behalf of each of the Boards, discharge the functions of the Boards in relation to health visitors.'.
  Mr. Thorne: It is with some regret that we find it necessary to propose the new clause. There were a number of debates in Committee hingeing on some of the matters raised in the new clause and it would have been helpful if the Minister had accepted some of our suggestions.
  To some degree, the new clause is the product of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors following its discussions with the Royal College of Nursing. There is a similarity between

  415
  new clause 1(5) and amendment No. 28 and, if they are taken together, I hope that hon. Members will understand their aim.
  The Health Visitors Association, which is a trade union, supports the intention behind the new clause, as, I understand, does the Central Midwives Board. Even though there have been discussions at various levels, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to get the complete agreement of all those concerned on the matters raised in the new clause. Nevertheless, there seems to be a substantial area of agreement sufficient, at any rate, to justify the Minister making some new assessment of the position.
  The new clause attempts to put right the deficiencies to which I have referred already, resulting from our deliberations in the Standing Committee. Originally, some of us sought unsuccessfully to amend clause 7. Now we have clause 8, which leaves the future education and training of health visitors at the mercy of the main groups of hospital nurses who are trained in hospitals under a totally different system from that which affects health visitors.
  On Second Reading, a number of hon. Members pointed out that there were special circumstances attending the education and training of health visitors. Many of them complete courses in polytechnics, institutes of technology, colleges of further education and so on, which embrace social and economic history, sociology and social psychology and which, in an inter-disciplinary context, give them an understanding of the environments in which they are to work. On these courses they benefit from contact with other disciplines involved in the study of communities where a multiplicity of behavioural patterns are to be found.
  It is because of the special experiences and activities of health visitors, which have been largely ignored both in the co-ordinating committee referred to in the Briggs report and in the Standing Committee, that pressure has come from health visitors throughout the country for some recognition in the Bill. There can be few hon. Members who have not had letters about the need to recognise the special position of health visitors, even though they represent a minority.
  416
  The Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors has attempted to pursue a policy of co-operation with the nurses and midwives. At the same time, it needed some assurance that the future of the education and training of health visitors would be safeguarded as a result of this Bill. At no stage was the CETHV required to give an account of its work, although this material was asked for from the General Nursing Council. No opportunity was given to look at an alternative method of co-operation by means, for example, of a federation, as was suggested by the CETHV.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall the Government document "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" in which support was given to the important role of hospital visitors. In fact, the emphasis of the document was on preventive medicine. Given the passing of the Bill as it is drafted at present, there is a real danger that more and more resources could be drawn away from the health visitors and absorbed into the curative service.
  When we talk about these matters in terms of our present National Health Service, most of us want to see an extension of resources across the board. However, some Opposition hon. Members are perturbed about the public expenditure implications of that, whereas some Government supporters are anxious to oppose cuts in public expenditure in order to protect resources in the National Health Service. Recognising the diminution which has occurred, in our view it is not desirable, with scarce resources, to concentrate them more and more in the curative sector at the expense of those involved in preventive medicine.
  Regrettably, the preventive services are not seen as a priority by some of the hierarchy in general nursing, and a minority group such as the health visitors will be unable to prevent the withering away of their role unless their position is eventually written into legislation—hence, the new clause.
  In my view, it is necessary for the health visiting joint committee to be seen to be speaking with an authoritative voice in making arrangements with universities and colleges as has been done so happily in the past. It has the right sort of understanding with those institutions, and in my view that should be maintained.

  417
  If information and guidance are seen to come from a variety of sources, some informed and some uninformed, it will be impossible to keep up the standards existing in the United Kingdom which stem largely from the activities of the CETHV in co-operation with the educational institutions to which I have referred.
  In the setting of standards, advice is not enough. The Royal College of Nursing amendment, which is mirrored in amendment No. 28, goes a long way towards giving a positive indication that the health visiting joint committee should be taken as the authority on health visitor education and training matters. Unhappily, the amendment contains a set of words which can only create problems. Those words are "unreasonably fair". Clearly, the definition of "unreasonably" would finish up in an argument in the courts.
  Dr. Vaughan: Probably all of us want to safeguard the position of the health visitors. It is obvious that the hon. Member has given a great deal of thought to this new clause. Is the implication of the clause that the health visitors will function as a completely separate committee and break their relationship with the Central Nursing Council? I am sure that we do not want to undermine the Central Nursing Council to an extent which will undermine the whole Bill.
  Mr. Thorne: I am sure that health visitors generally accept the passing away of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors. They intend to co-operate with the nurses and midwives following the passing of the Bill. However, they are anxious about the prospect of their position becoming eroded unless the protections which we are discussing at the moment are built into the Bill. None of them seeks to say that they should be entirely separate from the main stream of those covered by the Bill. They are anxious to co-operate, but they are rightly determined to protect the CETHV's specialist education and training function.
  The CETHV has a sound legislative position. The health visitors would he conceding more than any other group in the interests of co-operation if this Bill were passed, because they are the only group to have established the sort of education and training structure which
  418
  the council represents. It is surely no more than common justice that they should be allowed to ensure proper provision for the future for their own education and training.
  I hope that the House will seriously consider the points I have made and will give its support to the new clause.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has done well to make maximum use of the parliamentary procedure to obtain a debate on this crucial central issue that remains outstanding from the Committee stage of the Bill. It concerns the protection of the minority group of health visitors in the new Central Council.
  I want to clear up the question of any difference between new clause 1 as it has been tabled by the hon. Member for Preston, South and amendments Nos. 27 and 28, tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. The difference is an important one of emphasis. The difference is not important in relation to the central thrust and purpose behind both the new clause and the amendments. They are designed to ensure that the health visiting profession exerts considerable influence over the treatment of the profession by the Central Council in relation to education and training courses. It is to the credit of that small profession that it should have forced the hon. Member for Preston, South and hon. Members on this side of the House into taking the same view. Few other professions could have achieved that.
  Let me get the differences between the new clause and these amendments out of the way. They are not too great. New clause 1, as far as subsection (5), is virtually the same as clause 8 of the Bill. We do not seek to amend the first three subsections of clause 8. Our proposal is perhaps neater and more logical. It makes alterations to clause 8(4) in the same way as new clause 1 makes considerable alterations in clause 8(5).
  Our amendments are perhaps stronger. We give negative powers to the health visitors in relation to education and training, whereas the new clause gives more positive powers to the health visitors in restraining the Central Council should

  419
  the Council not accept their recommendations over training and education. There is not a great deal of difference between the two approaches. Our amendments were recommended by the Royal College of Nursing, backed by the Health Visitors Association, and were agreed by the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors.
  As the drafting was proposed by the Royal College of Nursing, we considered it best to try to stick to the views of the majority profession. There would be less likelihood of individuals in that majority profession saying that we were seeking to undermine the central purpose of the Bill and the setting up of the Central Council by removing too much power from the Council.
  Both new clause 1 and our amendments seek to strengthen the position of health visitors in the Bill. We are surprised that the Government have not come forward at this late stage with a similar measure. They must have been aware that members of that profession are nervous about their possible treatment under the Bill. Their fears have been expressed a number of times to hon. Members on the Standing, Committee, to the Minister of State and to the Secretary of State, both in the co-ordinating committee and throughout the progress of the Bill. On Second Reading the Secretary of State stated clearly:
  "To these and other organisations"—
  which includes the health visitors—
  "who are uncertain of the future, I say that they must seize the opportunity to make their voice heard. They should not let the opportunity pass. No one ever influenced an organisation by refusing to participate in its deliberations."—[Official Report, 13 November 1978; Vol. 958, c. 48.]
  This minority has sought to make its views known to the Department. I am therefore surprised that the Government have not come forward at this late stage of the Bill with some amendment to clause 8 to reassure that profession. Why do we regard it as so important that the health visitors should be given this added say over their training and educational courses under the aegis of the Central Council? They are a very small minority. I understand that there are about 10,000 health visitors working at the present time. Some of those are only working part-time
  420
  We are therefore talking about a very small number.
  There is a substantial difference between the job the health visitors carry out and the work of general nurses and midwives. The hon. Member for Preston, South rightly summarised the primary concern of health visitors as preventive care whereas the others are concerned with curative care and curative medicine. A condition of entry into the health visiting profession is that its members should be qualified SRNs. They must have gone through the whole programme. Health visitors want to play their part with the General Nursing Council in working towards the central purpose of the Bill. That purpose is to establish uniform standards of professional competence for the nursing profession throughout the United Kingdom. There is no quarrel about that aim. The first part of health visitors' training is in general nursing. They want to play their part as equal members of the Council.
  It is of course the preventive side of their training about which they are concerned. Having already created for themselves under the Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962 their own set of national rules—introduced in 1965 and updated in 1972 with the full approval of the Secretary of State of the day—they want to be sure that those rules are perpetuated by the new body. They have governed their own affairs adequately and effectively for a considerable time and they want the rules under which they have worked to continue. That is natural, and we believe that they should be given that opportunity.
  The next reason for strengthening the clause as we have proposed is that the whole emphasis in the country and in the National Health Service is on curative medicine and far less on prevention. The enormous investment of resources in curative medicine—manpower, skill, equipment, buildings and materials—attracts so much attention, as it has to do, from Governments and the public that the relatively small commitment of public resources to prevention never gets anything like the support that it should have.
  Giving health visitors more support is of great importance outside the immediate profession, in order to further pre-

  421
  ventive medicine generally. In its first report of 1978, the Social Services Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee said, in paragraph 109:
  "In 1974 the United Kingdom ratio of health visitors to population was 1–5,822. We view this with concern and recommend that strenuous efforts should be made to improve it."
  I am sure that the Government and the whole House will agree with that. We need to improve the ratio and give the profession a boost.
  The Select Committee on violence in the family, 1976–79, said in paragraph 133:
  "What is … important … is that there should be an adequate number of health visitors to cover the needs of the community whether old or young."
  How important in dealing with violence in the family are the visits of health visitors and their competence and training. We have seen so many sad cases in which insufficient attention has been paid to those unfortunate families.
  The House also expresses frequent concern about the high level of infant mortality in this country, which has not improved, alas, as fast as in other countries in recent years. The health visitor has an enormous part to play here. I believe that health visitors take over the matter of advice to and counsel of the families when a baby reaches the age of 10 days. That is a crucial period, according to the evidence, in potential infant mortality. The House should be most concerned that this profession gets the greatest possible support for its desire to have some control of the specialised training of its members.
  4.45 p.m.
  Another important aspect of the profession's work has been mentioned this very week in the House in a powerful appeal by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about vaccine damage. It would be better to reduce the number of children or adults damaged by inoculations than pay compensation after the event. That is an obvious comment, but it was put very well by the hon. Member. The health visitors have a great responsibility for inoculations, particularly of children, against whooping cough and other disease.
  When the health visitors see that the Central Council and the national boards
  422
  will be overwhelmingly in the hands of those who are involved in curative medicine, they are naturally concerned. Only a small minority will be involved in prevention. The members of this profession do not see that health visitor training can be better done under the Bill than it was when they had a much smaller body without statutory powers. When we ask them to join the Council, we must ensure that their voices are heard.
  The argument against giving the health visitors powers over their own education and training—of which the Central Council would have to take note—was made in Committee and by the Minister. It is that there is a danger that the fundamental principle of the Bill would be breached if by law such recommendations on training were made obligatory on the Council and the boards.
  We have had representations from the Scottish Royal College of Nursing that it is concerned about independence. It does not want to be bound by obligations to a central joint committee of health visitors. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the new clause and the amendments will undermine the Central Council as the recognised authority with overall control of the registration, education and training of all the professions concerned by allowing one of the minority constituent bodies this extra safeguard over training and education and the allocation of expenditure. Expenditure is much in the hands of the large battalions whose members are interested in and dedicated to curative medicine. We want to be sure that the small minority that is dedicated to preventive medicine receives a fair share.
  We believe it essential that the marriage between health visitors and the General Nursing Council should not be a shotgun affair. As the Bill stands, I believe that that tends to be the nature of the marriage. If the Bill is not amended in one of the ways that has been proposed, there could be considerable bitterness among members of the minority profession. That would be a tragedy for the future of preventive medicine.
  I hope that the House will give serious consideration to voting in favour of the new clause. If the new clause falls, I hope that the House will support the amendments.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The Bill is one of the most paradoxical of those that I have had the privilege of considering in Committee. The debate on the new clause and amendments illustrates the position in which we found ourselves throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee. There is a wider measure of agreement among all political parties on the purposes of the Bill than there has been on any Bill with which I have been connected. There is a wider measure of agreement among the various sectors within the various parties than I have known previously. There is a wider measure of agreement among the many organisations forming the Briggs co-ordinating committee that has been informing hon. Members on these matters than is usual when a number of organisations come together. However, we are having to try to find solutions all the time to satisfy those who will be involved in the ends that we are trying to serve by the means that we are putting into the Bill.
  I agree with practically every word that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said about the problem that we face. I differ with him in only one respect. The hon. Gentleman hazarded the thought that, unless we solve the problem, the health visitors will remain outside the structure that we propose to establish and their education would be superior in that event than if they became a part of it. The health visitors have had a solid background of knowledge and experience since 1962 and as an integral part of the new machinery they have a part to play for not only their members but for the Central Council and the boards. It is to be a structure that will be of mutual benefit. It will not consist merely of individual sectors. We are seeking to safeguard the best elements.
  On Second Reading I made a pledge to the health visitors that in Committee I should seek to safeguard what I felt were their real fears. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), I tabled amendments that were debated in Committee. The fears of the health visitors are real. The health visitors have a body of experience behind them based on practical application in circumstances different from those that obtain in hospitals. They are
  424
  naturally scared to lose that background. The purpose of the new clause is precisely to preserve that entity, individuality and, if I may say so, personality as part of the broad spectrum that we are discussing.
  On Report it is the job of the House to resolve the fears of the health visitors. If the Bill goes on to the statute book without their fears being satisfactorily resolved, that will be bad for the whole of the nursing profession and not merely for the health visitors. However, we face problems when we come to consider the new clause. The last few sentences of my hon. Friend's drafting could have the effect mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells. It is difficult to envisage how paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (5) could be put into operation without damaging to some extent the unified structure that the Bill is all about. That may be a defect of wording rather than intention. It should be put right, and I believe that it can be put right.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South and I moved and, on agreement, withdrew two separate amendments on the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that at some stage he would meet the arguments that we were advancing. His assurance was qualified. He said that it should be possible for him to be able to meet the fears of health visitors and those of other sectors if the various organisations and sectors were themselves able to reach agreement. I pay tribute to the way in which over the Christmas Recess the various organisations and sectors got together immediately to seek to resolve their differences. I think especially of Mr. David Rye of the Royal College and Catherine Hall and Miss Norma Batley of the health visitors. There have been regular meetings ever since.
  My right hon. Friend's problem is that he has to satisfy not only the 300,000 nurses of the Royal College and the health visitors but about 12 separate organisations and 12 separate pressure groups, including three important trade unions. I do not have to declare an interest because I am not a sponsored Member. I am a member of NUPE and proud of it, in spite of all the newspaper headlines that try to give the impression that Alan Fisher is the devil incarnate, He is one of the most gentle persons I

  425
  have ever met. NUPE, COHSE and NALGO have grave reservations. The district nurses have made representations, as have the psychiatric nurses. In discussing the new clause we must bear in mind the repercussions elsewhere.
  If we can find the right solutions, which are very much contained in the new clause, with a satisfactory agreement on the basis of a compromise reached by the various organisations, and if we use the time that will be available to us before the Bill returns from another place to formulate and offer the right sort of assurances so that we may establish the right structure and provide the guarantees that are required by those who will be involved in the education system envisaged by the Briggs report, we shall be taking a great step forward for the whole of the nursing profession, both internally in the hospitals and outside. If we do that successfully, and successfully hold back the smaller claims that might arise, and give the health visitors the assurances that they require and the necessary safeguards, retaining the main structure that is set out in the Briggs report, the House will have acted properly and correctly.
  I shall be listening with more than usual interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I believe that it is possible to achieve a solution. We have not reached an impasse where we are about to start pulling everything apart. I believe that, with the co-operation of the Department and the outside bodies, we shall be able to adopt a unifying approach that will give the Central Council and the national boards the right start. In that way we shall avoid a start being made against a background of acrimony and dissidence. If that can be achieved today —in my view it is the crux of the debate —we shall have done well.
  5 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I agree with hon. Members on both sides on the intention behind the new clause. I did not have the pleasure of going through the Bill in Committee. However, it is obvious that in Committee there grew up unanimity on the need for giving health visitors the security which they require and for which they ask. I intervene as I have received representations from my constituents. As this Bill concerns nurses, midwives and health visitors, the Minister should turn over backwards,
  426
  if necessary, to ensure that they are treated fairly, so that they accept the final position in the statute.
  In these days it is unusual to find agreement on both sides. I have been in the House for a good few years. On those occasions when there is near-unanimity, it is difficult for a Minister to reject the ideas advanced from both sides and extremely dangerous for him so to do.
  Cogent arguments have been advanced from both sides in favour of giving health visitors the power that they require. There are comparatively few health visitors. There are but 10,000 of them. They are all highly trained people. They play an important part in the National Health Service. If not, they would have been ignored and not provided for under the Bill. They are a highly professional body. Their training has been standardised throughout the United Kingdom since 1962. They are highly efficient, well organised and well disciplined. They play an important part in the care of those in need.
  Here is an occasion when the differences between the two sides of the House are marginal. The intention is clear. Perhaps the Government foresaw that there would be this agreement and that possibly a new clause might be moved by Government supporters. The Government will have been left in no doubt that the Opposition wish to amend clause 7 to ensure that the health visitors are given the protection for which they asked.
  There may be problems in the drafting of new clause 1 from the Government side, and perhaps some problems created by amendment No. 28, which was proposed by the Royal College of Nursing. There may be difficulty in accepting either the new clause or the amendments as they stand. But the Government will be unwise—I have no doubt that the new clause will be pressed strongly from both sides—if they do not say that they are fully seized of the desires and intentions of the House and give an undertaking that, before the Bill goes to another place, they will insert a clause to put into effect the wishes of the House as expressed this afternoon.
  Mr. John Ovenden: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). This is

  427
  probably the strangest event that has occurred in Kent for a long time. The House is in unanimity on this occasion. Although I prefer more controversy and excitement, perhaps today's mood on this issue is more constructive.
  I want to hear what the Minister says in reply to the strong case that was put to him today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) on tabling the new clause and on the fight that he put up in Committee on behalf of health visitors. I was not a member of that Standing Committee. However, I followed the debates from afar and read the records of them. I do not read closely the reports of Committee debates on all our legislation. Like most hon. Members, I was approached and received representations from health visitors about their views upon the Bill, which prompted me, along with many other hon. Members, to take a much closer interest in what happened in the Committee than perhaps might otherwise have been the case.
  The health visitors expressed to me their fears about what control and influence they would have over training and education within their profession if the Bill went through unamended. They have a fear that they would be outvoted and overwhelmed by the larger numbers in the professions with which they are now in liaison. We must take those fears seriously. I was impressed by the case they put to me for the safeguards that are necessary to protect their position, their explanations of what their job is about and how different they are from the other professions within the Central Council and the national boards.
  Health visitors play a valuable and unique role in our health services. Their role is mainly in the area of preventive rather than curative medicine. That is true to a great extent although I find that the line between those two is not as clear cut as some people pretend. The job they do is different in many other ways. They work in different environments, with people in their own homes, in a situation which requires co-operation between the health visitor and the patient. That is a different atmosphere from that in which the hospital nurse works. Without wishing to be unkind to those who work in hospitals, I must say the atmos-
  428
  phere in hospital is basically authoritarian. It is an authoritarian regime. However, when we take away a person's clothes and put him in a hospital bed, he has not much choice about whether to do what he is told. The people with whom health visitors deal have a different attitude. They can choose whether to do as they are told.
  Recently I was told a story by one of my constituency health visitors, who some weeks ago was accompanied on her rounds by a hospital nurse. The health visitor spent a long period trying to persuade a mother with young children exactly what she should do to protect and improve the health of the family. This took a great deal of persuasion. When they left, the hospital nurse said "Why did you waste all that time? Why did you not tell her what to do?" This illustrates the difference between the attitudes of the two professions.
  We are dealing with people who work in an atmosphere of voluntary cooperation, among deprived sections of our community. Those people are not just nurses but have a range of other skills. They are also social workers. That sets them slightly apart from the other people within the nursing profession. I admit that the basic training is the same. That is why we need co-operation and a joint body to oversee the general training. We must recognise the differences in the rôle, training and education necessary for the health visitor to do her job. As the health visitors have a special role they feel that they need to retain control over decisions affecting their profession.
  I welcome the concessions made by the Minister. We are pleased at the action taken in Committee to make sure that there is a majority of practising health visitors on the health visiting joint committee. The health visitors very much appreciated that gesture.
  I also welcome the commitment in the Bill to allow the health visiting joint committee to exercise certain functions of the Central Council and of the national boards which are delegated to it either by those bodies or by the Secretary of State. That goes a long way towards restoring the rights of health visitors—who will have a majority on the joint committee —to exercise proper control over education and training within their profession.

  429
  What clause 8 does not spell out is precisely what those functions will be. It does not contain any commitment that any function at all will be delegated to the joint committee. This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South is seeking to correct in the clause. He makes it quite clear that the national boards and the Central Council will have the power to act only within certain spheres affecting training and education and the further education of health visitors, and will have power to act in those spheres only on the recommendations of the joint committee. That makes the relationship just about right. It maintains the centralised structure, but it ensures that that centralised structure cannot overrule the very special and unique interest of this very small profession.
  I realise the problems that my right hon. Friend the Minister has had with the Bill and how difficult it is to try to resolve the conflicting interests and the conflicting views of a large number of bodies. He has had to deal with a very large number of bodies. But politics is often about that sort of thing. If we could leave it to others to decide among themselves precisely what they wanted and just come to us to rubber-stamp it, there would be little need for our existence. It is very often the case that the conflicting interests cannot agree among themselves and Parliament has to make a decision.
  Although I should like to see this matter resolved purely by agreement, if that cannot be done it would be an abdication of our responsibility for us to run away from it. We must look at the case on its merits. Whatever the difficulties of reconciling the different groups, the health visitors have an unanswerable case for the sort of treatment that is spelt out in the new clause. We should stand by them in that fight.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I should like to know from the Minister how important the Government believe health visitors to be. Any health visitors who may be listening to the debate today will be having one of their best days ever, for Member after Member has said how much we value health visitors and how important it is for them to maintain their standards. I agree with everything that has been said in that respect but point out that, although 10,000 seems to
  430
  be quite a large number, it works out at only 15 health visitors per constituency. As has been pointed out, some of those health visitors are not working full-time.
  What, therefore, is the Government's attitude towards health visitors? Are they regarded as being a vital and important part of the National Health Service? Would the Government—provided there is the money—like to see their function expanded? Or is the fact that, after Second Reading and our deliberations in Committee, the Government have come up with no solution whatever to the dilemma an indication that in reality they do not value the health visitors very highly? If that is the Government's view, they will have some difficulty—judging by the mood of the House this afternoon—in getting the measure through.
  I draw attention to amendment No. 25, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I could vote for that or for any other amendments, quite frankly, as they would all do a great deal to allay the anxieties of the health visitors and a great deal to protect them against the fears they have expressed. These fears are by no means unjustified.
  I am by training an engineer. That is a long way from being a health visitor, but I am well aware of what has happened in engineering to the skilled craftsmen's unions over the years as they have been absorbed by the larger numbers of non-skilled people. The analogy with the health visitors is not precise, but it is relevant to the extent that the majority will is overwhelmed. The original concept of some of the craft unions has been pushed to one side by the majority of the membership. That is exactly the sort of fear that the health visitors have and are expressing. They are also worried that they will be pushed into a large sea of numbers in which their own number is seen to be rather small. They fear that their interests will be pushed to one side because of their sheer lack of numbers.
  5.15 p.m.
  I do not accuse the health visitors and their centralised committee of trying—as is sometimes the case in other professions—to preserve particular professional standards. There is sometimes in some professions an inclination to push standards up and up, for no apparent reason other than to justify the existence

  431
  of the profession concerned. Although that tendency is evident in many professions, I do not think that the health visitors can be accused of it. They seem to have evolved for themselves a reasonable and sensible standard of education that is specific to the profession to which they apply themselves and reasonable in general. If this House were to do anything today to make that development falter or to make it less effective than it is now, it would be extremely foolish.
  What, then, is the Government's view of health visitors? Why has the Minister not been able to produce a compromise? My hon. Friends and I will be prepared tonight to vote for any of the amendments on the Amendment Paper because we believe that any of them would be an improvement on the existing position.
  Mr. George Rodgers: I did not serve on the Standing Committee. Therefore, I have not the same detailed knowledge as my colleagues who have examined the legislative proposals in considerable detail. The House will be gratified to know that my contribution will, accordingly, be restricted.
  My interest has been aroused—as has that of many hon. Members—because concerned constituents have contacted me about it. It is to the credit of the organisations and individuals involved that they have conducted a campaign which has made many Members aware of problems that many of us had not appreciated. I understand that every Member of the House has been approached and is now aware of the enormous interest, concern and anxiety provoked by the Bill. It is true that many of the anticipated problems have, happily, been resolved by consent and by compromise. Even so, certain aspects continue to cause grave disquiet.
  It is right that particular attention should be directed towards the education and training of health visitors and that this should extend to the conduct and content of examinations for the qualifications of health visitors. I believe that the new clause recognises this overwhelming requirement of precise legislation to meet the need for training in the future. It largely embraces the views of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and the Royal College of
  432
  Nursing. It also supports the approach of the panel of assessors of the Central Midwifery Board. It is surely essential that the high standards—
  Mr. Robin Hodgson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will be aware that the new clause, as drafted, excludes the possibility of there subsequently being other joint committees of the Council and boards. If the new clause is passed in its present form, other minority professions, such as the district nurses, will be excluded and will consequently feel even more aggrieved about their position within the new framework of the nursing profession. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not deny the fact that many organisations would feel aggrieved if the new clause were put into effect. It may be—I accept this entirely—that the Minister will have to review the broad position in order to accommodate the provisions of the new clause, but that is quite feasible and quite within the capacity of the Minister.
  I believe that the essential high standards which have already been established must be maintained in the future. The new clause points to one of the ways in which this objective can be attained. The case for delegated powers being allocated to the joint committee in the area of training and education is fairly obvious. I believe that it can be accommodated by the acceptance of the new clause, even if there has to be some subsequent rethinking, variation and modification.
  I believe that it is of prime importance that the House should demonstrate that it is prepared to listen to the guidance given by those who have a deep knowledge of the service. I think that we should be prepared not merely to listen but to act on this advice, particularly when the issues are of such wide-ranging importance and have a direct effect on the lives of so many people.
  When I looked at the reports of the Committee proceedings, I observed, with some alarm, that the Minister of State made reference, when examining clause 8, to the fact—some of us think a melancholy fact—that we are now members of the Common Market. He remarked on the

  433
  impact that this would have on training and education in a number of professions, including nursing, and added that we must take these considerations into account. As one who does not assume that we shall remain in the Common Market in perpetuity and who also thinks that in the meantime we should concentrate our minds on reforming that body—preferably out of existence—I hope that the Minister will not be unduly swayed by these Common Market considerations. Rather than adapting our standards of training and education to EEC levels, we should insist that our Common Market partners adjust their standards to our own, which are very high indeed.
  I do not pretend that the Common Market aspect is a major issue in this debate, but it certainly was a point raised by the Minister. I have been very much impressed by the accord throughout this Chamber and the desire to remedy that particular defect. I appreciate that the purpose and motive behind the Bill are sound and that it has general support. But I give my wholehearted support to clause 8, which I think reaches to the essence of the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some token of that acceptance.
  Mr. Alec Woodall: I read at the weekend that speeches in this Chamber were getting longer and more boring. I cannot guarantee that I shall not be boring, but I can say that I shall be brief and to the point.
  Last weekend I had the pleasure of meeting health visitors in my area. A more professional and dedicated body of people I have never met, and I pay tribute to their professionalism. However, they are very concerned about that professionalism. One of them said, with the utmost sincerity, that she had been trained to be a nurse, as all health visitors had to be trained. Their training for health visiting—a much more complex affair—is undertaken not in a hospital environment but in a university or a polytechnic. She said that not until she had completed her training as a health visitor did she think that she was a complete person. Those are sincere but dramatic words.
  Health visitors are concerned that, within this Bill, the specialised training which they have received up to now,
  434
  through the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors, is to be abandoned after only 17 years. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that a marvellous job has been done in training health visitors to date. But—this is the crux of the matter—the health visitors emphasise that their training is different from that of nurses because it is given within the professional atmosphere of universities and polytechnics. No matter what my right hon. Friend may say about his intentions for the unification of training for nurses, midwives and health visitors, the health visitors fear that under this Bill there will be a diminution of their professionalism.
  Without going into the matter any further, because the point has already been made by many hon. Members, my plea to my right hon. Friend is to think again before pushing this Bill through, because the health visitors are very disturbed. They wish to carry on giving to people their specialised advice and treatment which is different from medical and nursing advice. I ask my right hon. Friend to think again and to take into consideration the views of this very professional and dedicated body.
  Mr. William Molloy: I ask the House to acknowledge that the one great thing that has come out of this debate is that the Government need not fear further criticism of public expenditure from the Conservative or Liberal Parties when we try to improve the National Health Service. That is one of the most gratifying remarks I have heard in this House for very many years, and I welcome it.
  This has been a very useful debate. In Committee, when we examined these proposals—bearing in mind that they were based on the Briggs recommendations—we eliminated many of the points that might have become difficult to reconcile. That does credit to all, including myself, who served on that Committee.
  We should recognise that many of the organisations which contributed to Briggs have, over the last 30 years, made massive contributions to improving the status, training, salaries and wage scales of those dedicated men and women who work in the National Health Service. We should also recognise the representations and contributions which have been made by

  435
  trade union organisations to improve our health services. It is proper that, having paid due acknowledgment to the Health Visitors Association, we should acknowledge that, long before Briggs or this debate, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, with which I am associated, and the National Union of Public Employees made valuable contributions to the betterment of the National Health Service.
  As I see it, the problem which my right hon. Friend must try to resolve is that the Bill should not cause conflict or apprehension in any sector of the Health Service—whether it be State registered nurses, State certified midwives or psychiatric nurses—which believes that it is a special case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) said that when one went into hospital one simply had to do as one was told. I suggest that in psychiatric nursing the last thing many patients do is what they are told. Psychiatric nursing is a very difficult job. It requires as much patience, expertise and a desire to help as is needed in any other sector of the National Health Service. One of the most poignant features of our Health Service is the work being done by psychiatric nurses.
  5.30 p.m.
  I want to make certain that we find in this House today, if we possibly can—it ought not to be beyond our endeavour—a reform which will not exacerbate the conflict but will, instead, achieve better understanding. We can do that only if we include words which will not necessarily mean that Health Service visitors have to make massive public endeavour to draw to our attention what they consider to be their apprehensions. If one acknowledges that, it must follow that there is something in the Bill which is not perfect but which, perhaps, we can make perfect.
  At the same time, we must beware of being too rash in attempting to meet all the points of one sector and, by so doing, sowing the seed of discontent amongst members of NUPE, the psychiatric nurses and all other sectors of the Health Service. That is very important, and I ask my right hon. Friend to understand and consider it. I wish that I could give him
  436
  some advice about how to do it. I would help if I could.
  What might seem an impossible task frequently proves to be the opposite. One of the beauties of our democratic process—though we are laughed at for it—is that we talk and talk, as we did in Committee on this Bill, and sometimes, after hours of talking, suddenly we hit on a solution. This is what one does not find in authoritarian regimes. The law is firmly laid down. We argue, and we debate. Occasionally we are on the verge of losing our tempers and are savagely criticised for that. Every other organisation could debate for hours and weeks without getting excited, but not we in this House, sent here on the votes of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people.
  I regret that on a number of occasions I was not able to be present in Committee—for a very good reason; I was out of the country—but I believe that the Committee had most useful and intelligent debates on various subjects. Many Members of both major parties found, at one time, that they were not in full agreement with either Front Bench. That was remarkable.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to try to reach a decision via discussion and examination with health visitors as a vital element—which I acknowledge they most certainly are—and with COHSE, NUPE and NALGO. That should not be impossible. Surely we can find a formula—perhaps we ought to have done it before—which will remove the apprehensions of health visitors. In finding that formula, not only will we get the approval of the Health Visitors Association but the result produced will also receive the applause of all other organisations in the National Health Service.
  Mr. John Wells: All I wish to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I have had more sensible letters on this topic than I have had from my entire constituency in almost 20 years as a Member of this House
  Mr. Tom Litterick: In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), I shall try not to get excited.
  The reason why I rise to speak on behalf of the new clause is that the Bill,

  437
  which was originally conceived to set up a rather monolithic structure to control education and training for the nursing professions, has been significantly amended already in respect of midwives. In the case of midwives, the principle has been conceded that there are significant subsections of the profession which can be sensibly distinguished from one another in terms of their functions, the activities involved and the skills required by the various people who carry out those sub-professions of the general nursing profession.
  The Bill makes that very clear. Clause 4(4) states:
  "The Secretary of State shall not approve rules relating to midwifery practice unless satisfied that they are framed in accordance with recommendations of the Council's Midwifery Committee."
  In other words, clause 4(4) ensures that midwives will be mistresses of their own house. I think that that must have given great satisfaction to midwives when it emerged from Committee.
  When we come to health visitors, we discover, in clause 8, that no such autonomy, no such authority, is allowed to them.
  It is our contention—and, I think, that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the activities, functions and required skills of health visitors are so easily distinguishable from those of midwives and from those of what, for want of a better term, we might call general nurses—though that begs many questions—that they should also be constituted separately for this purpose and be, if not wholly autonomous, as autonomous as the midwives.
  Having said that, I must say to Opposition Members that I prefer the wording of the new clause to their wording in amendment No. 28. I do not think that this is simply a matter of playing with words. I draw their attention to the provision that
  "on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee and shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee".
  That is in respect of the national boards. The national boards
  "shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee."
  438
  With respect to Opposition hon. Members, that, quite clearly, leaves ultimate residual power in the Central Council in a way which does not happen with midwives. I cannot see the logic in conceding that degree of autonomy to midwives but not to health visitors. If the reason for arguing for either new clause 1 or, indeed, amendment No. 28—
  Dr. Vaughan: It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that it is not our wording, but wording which was agreed between the Royal College of Nursing and the health visitors. It was only afterwards that the health visitors began to have doubts.
  Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful for that intervention. However, I must say that the Royal College of Nursing is mistaken. It has introduced an inconsistency. The principle that we must adopt in logic if we are seeking to amend the Bill in a way about which, in essence, I believe we all agree is precisely the principle that has been explicated in clause 4(4) in relation to midwives. I cannot see any sense in doing otherwise.
  With respect to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), amendment No. 28 would not do that, because it explicitly leaves a residual power in the hands of the Central Council. Therefore, it would detract from the autonomy of the health visiting joint committee. I prefer the wording of new clause 1 because it says that the national boards, and the Council itself, shall make recommendations, provisions, and so forth, on matters of education and training with respect to health visitors only upon the recommendation made by the health visiting joint committee, but not further or otherwise. I think that that makes it very clear.
  Having said that, I shall refer to what I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) said, which is that having conceded the principle once—in fact, and I think that we are about to do so for a second time this evening—there is no sensible reason why we should not anticipate that this will not happen again. We know that there are arguments, if not tensions, within the nursing profession about various groups of nurses, who have a particular set of special skills and a particular type of working experience, and who argue, and will continue to

  439
  do so—and probably in the future with greater force—that they are as distinguishable from the general body of nurses as are the midwives and, as I think we are agreeing tonight, the health visitors.
  We can expect a further proliferation of committees such as those that we are looking at in the context of new clause 1. I do not see that we should be worried about this in any way. I believe that it is an inevitable consequence of the growth of the profession and its growing sophistication that people will become more specialised and therefore will want to distinguish parts of training and education for the different specialisms.
  So far in this debate we have talked of three groups of people whose basic training is now generally agreed to be in general nursing. However, we do not know whether that will continue to be the case among all the various groups that are subsumed within the general word "nurse" into the indefinite future. I suspect that with some of the sub-groups the position will change within a few years and that nursing will cease to be the basic relevant training for such people. Therefore, I see no reason why we should be anxious that the Bill will lead to a proliferation of committees and subcommittees. That would be only a logical institutional response to the development of the profession.
  In common with other hon. Members, I have received representations from the health visitors and I have been impressed by the quality of their arguments. The Minister should beware of being over-impressed by numbers. It is true that there are many nurses—350,000, I am told—and a large number of midwives, totalling 40,000, I understand. Therefore, there are relatively only a small number of health visitors. Although 350,000 nurses may have a loud voice, that does not necessarily signify the quality or cogency of their arguments. The only criteria we can use in deciding whether subgroups should have the kind of autonomy that is already conferred on midwives are the character of their activities, their function and the nature of the skills which they have to acquire to carry out those functions. If they are significantly distinguishable from other groups within the
  440
  nursing profession, it is logical and justifiable for the House to create a separate autonomous institution to govern the training and education of that group.
  Mr. John Cronin: I am a Member sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees. Indeed, I am chairman of the group of sponsored Members, and some of what I say may reflect their views. However, what chiefly moves me to speak today is my admiration for this excellent Bill and my concern that its effect should not be impaired. Having practised as a consultant surgeon for 30 years, I am not entirely ignorant of the issues involved. Therefore I wish to apply myself to the argument to ensure that the Bill retains its excellence.
  I was impressed by the importance attributed to health visitors by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) in his excellent speech moving the new clause. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) paid a powerful tribute to the health visitors. They are fairly important people and their work is particularly useful.
  At the same time, we must bear in mind that our most important purpose here is to see that the nursing profession is controlled by a completely authoritative organisation. The clause and the amendments taken with it go against the whole concept of the original Briggs report, namely, the concept of unity. If we make special arrangements for special sections of the nursing profession, we shall be perpetuating the old system under a different name.
  The hon. Member for Wells stressed that health visitors are most concerned with preventive medicine. I agree that that is very much in their favour, but I do not see why that aspect of their work should be so important that they must have separate representation. We must remember that there are only 10,000 health visitors, and this, surely, is a question of the tail wagging the dog.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Boscawen: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the tail is wagging the dog, but it will wag the dog only in a narrow respect specific to the health visitor. It will not wag the dog in relation to the

  441
  rest of the general nursing profession involving midwifery and the other minorities.
  Mr. Cronin: The same argument could be applied to any other section of the nursing profession. When the Briggs committee met to discuss this matter, very little support was given to the idea of according health visitors special treatment. Therefore, I am surprised that that suggestion should arise now. The Briggs committee agreed to bury differences and to work together. Now these differences appear to be re-emerging to the detriment of the Bill. If this special treatment is given to health visitors, it will discriminate against other sections of nurses such as district nurses, psychiatric nurses, occupational health nurses and other groups of nurses who could equally demand the same treatment.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the fears of the health visitors. Nobody has said what those fears are. What are they afraid of?
  Mr. Thorne: I thought that my hon. Friend listened to my speech. Their fears are based on the prospect that the education and training which they now receive in certain types of institution will in time be so eroded that they end up by getting a form of education in hospitals away from the environment on which they have built over a long period of time and which gives them the specialist training about which we have been talking.
  Mr. Cronin: I assure my hon. Friend that I listened to his remarks most carefully and I took that point, but I cannot see why the nurses have these fears about their future. It is no compliment to the future Central Council if we in this House feel that that body will not be sufficiently well established to understand the importance of education.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: The point is that there is a genuine fear among health visitors that their own views may be overridden in two or three years' time and that their system of education may be altered by the Central Council. That is the basis of their concern.
  Mr. Cronin: My suggestion is that those fears are unjustified. I do not see why the Bill should be radically changed
  442
  because of the fears of a relatively small group.
  Some other members of the nursing profession have an equal entitlement to special consideration. Let us consider the case of mental nurses in mental hospitals, who have great responsibilities quite different from those in general nursing. They have onerous decisions and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1959. They have the responsibility for taking away the freedom of patients, giving treatments that are not accepted by some patients and restraining patients physically. These responsibilities are unique. If a small group such as the health visitors are given special treatment, why should the mental nurses not have the same treatment?
  Mr. Burden: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but he might like to retract his remark that we should not pay too much attention to the requirements of a small group. They are the people whom Parliament should always take great care to protect.
  Mr. Cronin: If any difficulty arises, they are fully protected under clause 3(3). The Minister has powers to take steps to see that they are protected. There is no need for these fears.
  Mr. Litterick: In the last few minutes my hon. Friend has frequently used the word "responsibility", which indicates that he is confusing responsibility with skill. We are talking of skills and the necessary training for skills. Responsibility is quite different.
  Mr. Cronin: Responsibility in the nursing and medical professions involves a high degree of skill. They go together.
  Mr. Litterick: One does not go on a course to learn responsibility.
  Mr. Cronin: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept from me that consultant surgeons are responsible people because they have the skill to accept the responsibility. I cannot accept his argument that skill and responsibility are altogether separate.
  The Confederation of Health Service Employees accepted the Bill because it involved unification of the profession, which it thought desirable. COHSE represents 230,000 Health Service employees. Even in these troubled times we should pay attention to the unions

  443
  involved. COHSE is not happy about the new clause and the amendments. It accepted the special treatment of midwives. Some people believe that the Minister's acceptance of the amendments that led to the midwifery committee did not help the Bill. It is asking a lot of a trade union which has accepted with some misgivings one amendment to accept a further proposal that puts a large number of its members at a relative disadvantage.
  The Bill is excellent. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I pay tribute to the splendid work that it did. As a result, we have an excellent Bill that will transform the nursing profession. I hope that no amendment will be accepted which will disfigure the excellence of this most satisfactory Bill.
  Mr. Moyle: We have had a lengthy and interesting debate. The Bill not only surveys the problems of the nursing profession, the National Health Service and the internal politics of the nursing profession but, as I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), reveals the problems of British membership of the Common Market, devolution, Government policy on Northern Ireland, the British constitution and parliamentary practice. In spite of these multifarious problems, we had a good Committee stage. Most of the problems have been resolved in an acceptable way, apart from the remaining problem that we are faced with this afternoon.
  I associate myself with all the statements of principle that have been made in the debate on both sides of the House. I was asked by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and others what the Government's attitude was to health visitors. We believe that prevention must be treated as being of paramount importance in the development of the Health Service. I was pleased to see that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) supports that view. So that even in the untoward event of a change of Government the policy developing prevention will continue with enthusiasm.
  Essential to that policy is a good health visiting service, and the Government are committed to developing that. The Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors has blazed a trail in the
  444
  organisation of the training of health professionals. In its relatively short existence it has adopted a businesslike approach and provided an excellent system. Not only has that system been good, but when the Bill is on the statute book the system will continue to be good. There will be modifications as conditions change, but it will essentially remain unchanged.
  We are faced with three proposals. My hon. Friend's new clause 1 and the Opposition's amendments Nos. 27 and 28 suffer from technical defects which should give the House pause before putting them into the Bill. They are substantial technical defects.
  Turning to new clause 1, amendment No. 22 removes existing clause 8 in order to substitute the new clause. Clause 8 (4) says:
  "The Secretary of State may by order constitute other joint committees"—
  that is, other than the joint health visiting committee. In Committee I said that if the district nurses would like a joint committee they could come to me and I would institute it. Hon. Members have a group of amendments down that would make legal provision for that.
  If I accept my hon. Friend's new clause 1, that removes from me any opportunity to povide a joint committee for district nurses, psychiatric nurses, mental nurses, occupational nurses and midwives. That is a massive obstacle to my accepting new clause 1, and also to the House accepting it, even those hon. Members who would like to see for the health visitors a more developed solution than there is at present in the Bill.
  Opposition amendments Nos. 27 and 28 have developed a solution which tries to recognise that under the Bill there must be overall control by the Central Council as well as a substantial responsibility for the education and training of health visitors by the health visiting joint committee. The technique that has been recommended by the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Visitors Association is to say that in any disagreement between the Central Council and the health visiting joint committee, the Central Council
  "shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee."

  445
  6 p.m.
  What is reasonable, what is unreasonable, and who decides? We have a definition of a reasonable man by one of our learned judges who said many years ago that the reasonable man was the man on the Clapham omnibus. But it is sinister in this context if, to find out what is reasonable, I have to quote a judge. The moment one puts the term "reasonable" into a statute, one is flagging to all and sundry that a correct solution to the problem will have to be sought through the courts.
  If we accept amendments Nos. 27 and 28 as they are, even if we agree with the principle, we envisage the possibility that relations between an overall Central Council and one of its committees will have to be decided upon in courts of law. We are suggesting that there will be litigation to settle the boundary between two bodies which are supposed to be closely related. Therefore, I could not accept the burden of the amendments, even if I agreed with the principle.
  However, the Opposition have been moving in the right direction, because their two amendments have some measure of agreement on the Briggs co-ordinating committee. The Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors Association, the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors, the panel of assessors and the Joint Board for Clinical Nursing Studies have agreed to the amendments going forward. That is an advance. On the other hand, the Royal College of Midwives, the General Nursing Council of England and Wales, the General Nursing Council of Scotland, the Central Midwives Board for England and Wales, the Central Midwives Board for Scotland, the regional nursing officers who speak for NHS nursing management, the Clinical Nursing Studies Committee for Scotland, the Association of Nursing Administrators, the Northern Ireland Council which encompasses all those bodies for Northern Ireland, the National Union of Public Employees, the National and Local Government Officers Association and the Confederation of Health Service Employees all believe that this is not a proper solution. Therefore, the bodies that support the amendments must get the wording changed if they want them to go forward. They must remove this
  446
  concept of "reasonableness", and they must persuade their colleagues.
  Mr. Roderick Macfarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the objection by that long list of bodies is to the one word "reasonable", or are there other objections?
  Mr. Moyle: There are other objections, and I am coming to them now. From the drafting point of view, and from the point of view of trying to administer the Act, the insertion of the concept of reasonableness is a severe blow to the wording of amendment No. 28.
  The trouble is that both amendments destroy the overall control by the Central Council of the education and training of health visitors. It is an essential element of the whole of the Bill that, despite the fact that we make arrangements for minorities, there should be eventual control, as far as the profession is concerned, in the Council. Several hon. Members have recognised that there is this tension in our efforts to solve the problem.
  If we cannot get agreement, it will be difficult. If we can, everything becomes possible. But both amendments involve the handing over of all responsibility for the education and training of health visitors to the health visiting joint committee, except in so far as this dangerous element of reasonableness comes into them.
  If a move is made to remove the total control of health visitors' education and training from the Central Council to some standing committee and it is blessed by this House, we shall land ourselves in difficulty. There are various groups that we are trying to bring together—midwives, health visitors, district nurses, psychiatric nurses, occupational nurses and general nurses. The general approach has been that all of them must pool their particular interests and give up something in order to get this precious concept of unity. The moment one group breaks ranks, all the others will wish to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) made a particularly passionate indication of the sort of case that one might get with psychiatric nurses if this occurred in respect of health visitors. If the psychiatric and mental nurses can agree on the sort of solution that we might apply to the health visitors, we can all go forward together.

  447
  The health visitors have a tremendous self-interest in associating themselves with the general nursing profession because they make use of general nursing training at the initial stage. Therefore, they have a tremendous interest in making sure that general nurse training develops along lines that will be useful to them. Health visitors also must have some knowledge of obstetrics. Therefore they also have an interest in midwifery training. It is important that health visitors should stay in with the general nursing profession on terms that will allow them to influence the general nursing and midwifery training. At the same time, they must not cut themselves off completely from their own health visiting training.
  What is the position of health visitors as a result of the amendments and modifications made in Committee? I recognise that they are still suffering from a sense of unease. They are worried, and I am prepared to continue to look at the problems. We have Government amendments Nos. 5 and 16 on the Amendment Paper, which I hope that the House will adopt. Those amendments lay a legal obligation on the Central Council and the joint boards to have regard to minority interests in their administration of the profession. That writes in a legal obligation for the protection of health visitors, district nurses, midwives and other similar bodies.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I appreciate that the unease of health visitors is at the core of the problem. If we listen to the other objections which my right hon. Friend put and do not build in proper safeguards, this unease will be reinforced. My right hon. Friend said that the insertion of "reasonable" is very difficult because one cannot say what is reasonable. By the same token, what is "proper", which appears in his amendment?
  Mr. Moyle: I do not have an amendment to the clause.
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend mentioned amendment No. 5 and said that in the discharge of functions "proper regard" shall be had. What is proper regard?
  Mr. Moyle: That is a point, but this is a new development which lays a burden
  448
  on the various bodies to have regard to the proper professional interests of the minorities covered here. This is just the first, and by no means the most important, of the defences that health visitors will have under the Bill. We have made sure that there will be a health visiting joint committee of the Central Council. All matters relating to health visitors will be referred to that committee by the Central Council.
  I believe that once a health visiting joint committee is set up it will be inconceivable for the Central Council to proceed on a matter relating to health visitors without first referring it to the committee. However, if by some mischance it proceeded without reference to the committee, there are other protections for health visitors. For example, the majority on that health visiting joint committee will be practising health visitors, who will be able to make recommendations to the Central Council. I believe that in 99 cases out of 100 the Central Council will accept the recommendations of the committee.
  It was made clear in Committee that the Central Council will be able to operate, once it has decided what to do, only by seeking the authority of a statutory instrument of the House. Therefore, the Central Council will have to draft a statutory instrument and put it before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for his agreement. It is said that at some time in the future there might be a Secretary of State who will not bother to ask the Central Council whether the health visiting joint committee had considered the matter before it was put to him. I believe that to be highly unlikely. No Secretary of State would lay those rules before the House for debate and approval in the face of opposition from the health visiting joint committee. However, if he did, the order would still have to be laid before the House for debate.
  Some relatively caustic remarks were made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). He said that provisions relating to statutory committees, particularly if they were subject to the negative procedure, were often laid before the House and never seen. In this case, I do not believe that to be possible. After all, the scenario that we are setting is one

  449
  where the health visiting joint committee is outraged because it feels that the Central Council has not observed its wishes on the training and education of health visitors. After what has occurred in the past two months, no hon. Member could believe that that situation would slip by unnoticed. Shoals of letters have been descending upon us in recent weeks. They would be reinforced—and doubled in many cases—rather than die off if the Central Council ignored the joint committee. The consequent debate and vote upon the rules would provide more protection for health visitors.
  Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of the negative procedure is that, despite the feelings of hon. Members who may be annoyed about the issue, it is up to the Government to provide time for a debate? Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the arguments raised over the past two months about non-contributory invalidity pension, when prayers were tabled but the Government refused to allow time for a debate?
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: In a contentious case involving health visitors, I do not believe that the Government would refuse to allow time for a debate. The House agrees that if the wishes of health visitors about their education and training are not met, a contentious issue evolves. Therefore, there is no prospect of the matter sliding by. I have demonstrated that even if there are no further amendments to the Bill, other than amendments Nos. 5 and 16, substantial protection still exists for health visitors.
  However, in spite of all the protection, there is still a sense of unease. Following the extensive discussions of the Briggs co-ordinating committee, the Government felt that clause 7 of the original Bill—the present clause 8—was as satisfactory as could be achieved. We believed that it would provide an adequate safeguard for the health visitors and would not undermine the Central Council. However, it is clear from representations that many hon. Members have received that some sections of the health professions are still unhappy.
  We accept that the training of health visitors is specialised. I undertake that if the various groups involved come for-
  450
  ward with a better agreed solution the Government will write it into the Bill in another place. That is further than I have gone before. With that assurance, I ask hon. Members not to press for any change in the principles of clause 8 at this stage.
  Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to the Minister for that important concession. I believe that it will go a long way towards settling the anxieties of health visitors. However, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Committee the amendments to the former clause 7 were withdrawn on the understanding that the clause would be improved?
  Mr. Moyle: I shall certainly bear that in mind. It does not detract from the undertaking that I have given. If anything, it strengthens it.
  Mr. Pavitt: The Government have made an important concession. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is not seeking to achieve 100 per cent. agreement of all the organisations concerned, and that if he gets maximum agreement the concession will be written into the Bill?
  Mr. Moyle: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "maximum agreement". However, I am not seeking a 100 per cent. consensus.
  I turn now to amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I have accepted, in principle, the idea that the majority of members on the health visiting joint committee should be persons with experience in the profession. I raised a query concerning the wording of the amendments proposed in Committee, and amendments Nos. 29 and 30 include the wording that my legal advisers regard as appropriate to apply the concept. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.
  Mr. Thorne: On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  CONSTITUTION OF CENTRAL COUNCIL
  Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out "nominated" and insert "elected".

  451
  This matter was debated in Committee and I shall therefore be brief. The clause deals with the constitution of the Central Council—the new top company set up as a result of the Briggs recommendation. The Briggs report recommended, and the Bill embodies, a two-tier structure comprising a series of national boards, one each for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, covered by the Central Council.
  The Bill allows the election of a member of the nursing profession to the national boards, but allows only nomination from the national boards to the Central Council. My hon. Friends and I feel that this is less satisfactory than a scheme of election from each national board.
  With the passage of time, a national board may become set in its ways and there may be a clique of people on it who may become concerned with the perpetuation of their own viewpoint and interests. In that case, it may be difficult for the national board to send to the Central Council a nominee who does not accept the conventional wisdom circulating on the board. Therefore, we believe that a form of wording that demands the word "election" would make it more difficult for such a self-perpetuating clique to be formed. It is hoped that such a provision will not be necessary and that the national boards will remain open to outside influences and be flexible in their approach and thinking. However, we know that that is not always the case and we propose the amendment to guard against that danger.
  When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
  "The hon. Member for Walsall, North used the word 'elect'. We have used the word 'nominate'. I would suggest that, in practice, both words mean the same, because the process by which the national board decides on who will serve in a representative capacity on the Central Council from the national board will, I am sure, be done by a process of election, if necessary, by the national board."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1978; c. 30.]
  The critical words are "I am sure" and "if necessary". The Minister cannot be sure. He means that he hopes that that will be done, but hope is not enough and we need to be certain that the national boards will continue to use a scheme of
  452
  elections for sending representatives to the Central Council.
  Mr. Moyle: We considered this matter in Committee and I said that I thought that both words meant the same in practice but that since the hon. Gentleman had expressed his concern I would consult the Briggs co-ordinating committee to see whether its members felt that there was a virtue in changing the words.
  A majority of members argued for no change and, as that reinforced my prejudice, I had little difficulty in agreeing with them. I therefore ask the House not to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Hodgson: In the light of what the Minister has said and the consultation that he had with the co-ordinating committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 7 at end insert—
  "(4A) The Secretary of State shall have especially in mind the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately represented on the Council.".
  The aim of the amendment is to ensure that there is a proper representation of teachers of nursing, midwifery and health visiting on the Central Council and the national boards. I was pressed in Committee, particularly by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), to accept such a provision and I am advised that the wording of the amendment will put the principle into operation.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged to the Minister for having adopted the suggestion which other Members and I made in Committee and for having thrown it into a form which is clearly more appropriate than that in which it was debated in Committee.
  The amendment gives me the opportunity to make an observation. In Committee, I used a number of expressions that I regarded as common coin among hon. Members in regard to parliamentary draftsmen and the well-known fact that, however carefully hon. Members draft their amendments, they never satisfy the parliamentary draftsmen or Ministers.

  453
  I am sure that all hon. Members who indulge in that sort of well-worn humour realise that an amendment that may seem perfectly satisfactory as they have drawn it has to be looked at in a wider light to make sure that it does not incur any difficulties in other parts of the Bill. I hope that those who assist us by the drafting of Bills and amendments do not mistake the natural merriment which hon. Members indulge in from time to time at the expense of the parliamentary draftsmen as evidence of ingratitude.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

  FUNCTIONS OF COUNCIL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The next amendment to be considered is No. 4.
  Dr. Vaughan rose—
  Mr. Moyle: It may save the time of the House if I say in respect of amendment No. 4, which I presume the hon. Member for Reading. South (Dr. Vaughan) moved formally when he rose, that I am prepared to get an amendment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are working far too swifty. I wish that we could solve the health visitors' difficulties as speedily as the House is trying to solve the Chair's difficulties.. Is the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) moving anything?
  Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 27 at end insert—
  '(3A) The Council shall by means of rules provide guidance for the member of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting profession on standards of professional conduct.'.
  Mr. Moyle: I apologise for moving with undue haste. If the hon. Member for Reading, South will withdraw his amendment, I am prepared to move an amendment at a later stage to make crystal clear that the Central Council will have power to make rules for the guidance of the profession if it wishes.
  Dr. Vaughan: I sometimes complain that the Minister has acted too slowly. In this case he seems to have taken my advice but is acting so fast that we can barely keep up with him.
  454
  In view of what the Minister said, I shall not make the speech that I intended to make. It would have been brief, though not as brief as the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells). We are glad that the Minister has appreciated the arguments put in Committee, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
  '(5) In the discharge of its functions the Council shall have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions, including those with minority representation.'.
  I have already explained the purpose of the amendment and will not go over it again. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was concerned that I had criticised the reasonableness test in another context and he thought that I regarded the word "proper" as meaning the same as "reasonable" in the context of the amendment. That is true. I have no objection in principle to the reasonableness test and the possibility that a matter may go to court. I was objecting to the possibility of relations between the Council and one of its committees being subject to court action.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

  STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL
  Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, leave out line 1.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments No. 21, in clause 8, page 6, line 12, leave out 'a joint committee' and insert 'as joint committees'.
  No. 23, in clause 8, page 6 line 14. leave out
  'the Health Visiting Joint Committee'
  and insert
  'a Health Visiting Joint Committee and a District Nursing Joint Committee'.
  No. 24, in clause 8, page 6, line 17, at end insert 'respective'.
  No. 26, in clause 8, page 6, line 18, after 'visiting', insert 'and district nursing'.
  Mr. Hodgson: Amendment No. 6 is a paving amendment which will excise the district nursing standing committee from the standing committees of the Central Council and substitute a district nursing joint committee which will parallel that set up for health visitors in clause 8.
  This matter was debated in Committee and we argued that the Briggs committee referred to district nurses as being on a par with health visitors and district midwives in their importance in the community and that these basic field workers had an extremely important role.
  We feel that the role of the district nurse has been neglected in the Bill. The demographic projections for the next quarter of a century show an enormous increase in the number of elderly and very elderly and will mean an increased burden on the community care services in which district nurses play such an important part. The district nursing service provides a flexible form of care which is suitable for town, country and suburb in a way that perhaps other sections of the nursing profession can match.
  The Minister accepted in Committee the importance of setting up a joint committee and said that he intended to set up a district nursing standing committee by statutory instrument as soon as possible. We are delighted to hear that, but I wonder whether it would not be more useful and clearer if the reference to district nursing standing committee were removed.
  Health visiting is not covered in that section of the Bill. It has a joint committee, a national board and a general council. District nursing will immediately get off as a sort of half-and-half child, with a reference in clause 3(3)(c). Following the Minister's statutory instrument, the provisions of clause 8 will also, I presume, apply to district nursing. This seems to be illogical and to lead possibly to unnecessary complication and duplication.
  We dealt with this matter in Committee. I have to tell the Minister that, on re-reading his arguments, I do not find them entirely convincing. We appear to have higher and lower levels of representation. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, it may be that he will be able to see his way clear to clari-
  456
  fying and codifying the positon of district nurses.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: I am only too happy to associate myself with the extremely nice remarks by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about district nurses. The House would expect me to do so at this juncture because district nurses are as important to the development of a proper preventive health service as health visitors. The development of health visitors and district nurses goes forward together from that point of view, although obviously there are differences in their training, their professional preparation and their roles. They are essential people. There are not enough district nurses, just as there are not enough health visitors. I hope that they will increase in number and play an increasing role in the preventive health care service.
  In my view, the district nurses will have a far more flexible form of standing committee to look after their interests than the midwives and health visitors. The principal reason why the midwives and health visitors have their form of committee is entirely historic. The district nurses have been prepared to settle for one set up by statutory instrument which can be modified.
  When this matter was debated in Committee, I undertook that if the representatives of the profession came to me with agreed proposals on whether there should be a joint committee for district nurses as opposed to an ordinary standing committee, I should consider them carefully and sympathetically. The panel of assessors for district nursing has pressed for the express provision of a joint committee to be written into the Bill, and the Royal College of Nursing has pledged its support. Apart from that, at present there seems to be no general desire that there should be a joint standing committee for district nurses. Therefore, I counsel the House not to write this into the law. There is nothing to stop a joint committee for district nurses being set up if the majority feeling in the profession moves in that direction. But I do not wish to be compelled to do so.
  Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the continuing consultation going on about

  457
  clause 8 involving the health visitors, can the Minister assure the House that he will be prepared to consider representations from the district nurses in that set of involved discussions which must continue? Will he undertake that the district nurses can and will be included in those discussions, so that if the need is felt for a standing committee the necessary amendment can be made in the other place?
  Mr. Moyle: I am quite prepared to give that undertaking—in respect not only of the district nurses but of the other interested parties in this whole exercise.
  Dr. Vaughan: I was glad to hear what the Minister said. He gave an important undertaking.
  I wish to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about district nursing. In that connection, I congratulate the Government on not seeking to alter the amendment made in Committee, which was to take out occupational health nursing as a special group. We felt that it was important that it should have a special section, and I am glad that the Government now agree.
  Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the assurance given by the Minister and the fact that the consultations are continuing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in line 5, after first 'Council', insert—'(a)'.
  This again is an amendment designed to ensure that members of the appropriate committees have practical experience. It meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The amendment which had been moved at that stage did not meet the wishes of the parliamentary draftsman. This present wording does that. I hope that it gives full expression to the wishes of the Committee.
  Dr. Vaughan: I am glad that the Government have accepted the views of the Committee. The parliamentary draftsman has improved on the wording that we considered in Committee. The Opposition are very pleased to support this amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in line 6, at end insert:
  'and
  (b) shall provide for a majority on the committee to be persons who work or have worked in the professional field with which it is primarily concerned'.
  The same consideration applies here as applied to amendment No. 7. I doubt whether hon. Members will wish me to expound further.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

  THE MIDWIFERY COMMITTEE
  Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in line 8, at end, insert:
  'and there shall also be two members of the general public at least one of whom must be a woman'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take amendment No. 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 34, after first 'committee', insert:
  '(which shall include two members of the general public one of whom must be a woman)'.
  Mr. Hodgson: These two amendments concern the general interest of the Opposition to ensure that the public are adequately represented on the individual boards which are to be set up following the recommendation of the Briggs committee.
  In Committee, we considered the place of the general public on the Central Council. Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which we shall be coming in a moment, concern the representation of the general public on the national boards. This amendment concerns the representation of the general public on the midwifery committees, both the central midwifery committee and the midwifery committee of each of the national boards. These two amendments are different from those which we considered in Committee in that, instead of concerning ourselves merely with two members of the general public, we specify here that one must be a woman.
  The reason why we want to include one woman is fairly obvious. Women have a special interest in the operations of a midwifery committee. But one further argument worth making concerns the pressure from the medical profession and possibly from the DHHS for women

  459
  to have their children in hospital rather than at home.
  A measure of unease about this proposal was circulating fairly widely amongst hon. Members who served on the Committee. Certain sections of the midwifery profession feel that the powers-that-be, as they see it, are putting unnecessary pressure on women to have all their children in hospital rather than at home, bearing in mind that certain European countries — Holland especially — has adopted the reverse policy with very satisfactory results from the point of view of natal mortality and natal care.
  The sections of the midwifery profession which are concerned about this feel that the representation of the general public, especially by one woman who is from outside the profession, on each of the committees will have a balancing effect and will ensure that more general views can at least be heard, understood and argued about on the midwifery committees.
  I move this amendment, therefore, for two reasons. The first is that we are discussing the general public, and this is a Bill concerned with the nursing profession which seeks to serve the general public. In view of that, the interest of the general public and the consumer interest must be represented properly.
  Secondly, a woman from outside the nursing and medical profession, perhaps an ordinary housewife, would bring a new dimension and a new perspective to the deliberations of the midwifery committee. For those reasons, I ask the House to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Powell: I hope that the Minister will not smile upon this amendment, at any rate in its present form, because of the intolerable obscurity, in this context, of the concept of "a member of the general public".
  I invite the House to recall the constitution of the Central Council of which the midwifery committee is to be a committee. Clause 1 (3) (a) sets out that the majority shall be members of the national boards, nominated or elected in a particular way, with the remainder appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons described in clause 1(4). It appears to me that none of those persons constituting the Council under clause
  460
  1 is a member of the general public in any natural sense of the term.
  There are two views of the meaning of this expression. We are all members of the general public when we are not doing our own thing. The most highly qualified consultant surgeon is sometimes only too obviously a member of the general public immediately he ceases to practise as a consultant surgeon. In one sense, all the members of the Council, except in one particular aspect, are members of the general public. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) wants to interrupt.
  Mr. Hodgson: I accept the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about clause 1. He will understand that we have tabled an amendment. I hope I have made clear that it is not in the Bill as presently constituted. We have sought to move an amendment to it.
  Mr. Powell: Even if it is intended that these persons who are to be members of the midwifery committee are not to be members of the Council, of which it is a committee, which may have been vaguely hinted at by the word "also" in the amendment, there still remains the difficulty, which I was in the middle of dissecting, of this concept of "member of the general public".
  One alternative—I shall endeavour not to repeat myself—is anybody when he is not in his professional capacity. The alternative is "a layman" or "a laywoman", that is to say, a person who has none of the qualifications for being a member of the Council or of the national boards, which are set out in different parts of the Bill. Clearly, if the amendment were interpreted in that light, the first meaning would be nugatory. If we take the second meaning, I cannot believe that it is a good idea for us to place on the midwifery committee persons who have no qualifications or experience in education, medicine or other fields which would be of value in the performance of its functions. Surely, under the second category of meaning, they are not members of the general public.
  We therefore appear to be asking that the Secretary of State should ensure that there are people on the midwifery committee who have no possible reason for

  461
  being there except that they have no reason for being there. That does not seem a satisfactory method for afforcing the committee. Unless the Minister can discover more meaning in the amendment than I have been able to do, I hope he will not give it a fair wind.
  Mr. Pavitt: I understood the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but I also understand clearly what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) is seeking to achieve. He is seeking some participation by the customers in the Health Service. We are setting up an educational body.
  I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's intentions would serve a useful purpose. He is reaching for an objective that many of us would like to see in other sectors of the Health Service. We would like some participation by patients. The description by the right hon. Member for Down, South of "the general public" applies equally to the patients. We are patients at some time in our lives. For most of the time, we are not. It is a weakness of the Health Service that there is no meaningful participation by people at the receiving end of the Service.
  I should be prepared to support the contention of the hon. Member for Walsall, North in other sectors of the Health Service, but I can see no way in which practical expression can be given to the principle he is putting forward in this amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: We ran over the course of this amendment and its principles in Committee. I reassure the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I agree wholeheartedly with all the strictures he has passed on the phrase "general public". He spoke of "intolerable obscurity" about the phrase. I heartily agree with him.
  There are other technical defects in the amendment. As my hon. Friend for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said, this is an attempt to get some consumer representation into the midwifery committee. The essence of consumer representation would be a woman on the committee who was a mother. The amendment does not specify that the woman should be a mother. It is vague in that respect.
  462
  I also pointed out in Committee that, given the make-up of the midwifery profession, it was highly unlikely at this stage that the midwifery committee would be devoid of women and devoid of women who were mothers. I would have thought it almost inevitable that at least one member of the committee would have experienced childbirth, even on the most random process of selection.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) was confusing matters a little. He seemed to think that the Central Council would be part of the Health Service. The body will contain people who are involved in the Health Service, but it will not be part of the Service. It will not be concerned with the provision of health services. It will be concerned with the control of an important profession.
  The question whether babies are delivered in hospital or at home—a very important question—is not a matter that this body can settle. The whole argument about whether babies should be delivered at home or in hospital is almost totally irrelevant to the matters we are now considering in this Bill. It is a matter of departmental and Health Service policy. We try to encourage mothers to have their babies in hospital because of the full range of back-up services if things go wrong. If, despite all the best advice that we tender mothers, they still want to have babies at home, we will make provision for that. But this is not a matter for the Central Council or for the midwifery committee to consider. It is a matter for the Health Service and for Ministers. If members of the public quarrel with the policy, their quarrel is with the Secretary of State and myself and the medical profession, and not with the Central Council and the midwives.
  Mr. Hodgson: I find the Minister's remarks less than persuasive. Clause 4 deals with midwifery practice. There is no doubt that his Department will receive representations from the Central Council and the midwifery committee about midwifery practice in the broadest sense. People who wish to contribute to the way midwifery practice is carried out will do a great deal better if they proceed through the midwifery committee rather than write directly to the Minister, because the established profession will be behind them.

  463
  The amendment is therefore concerned with giving other views fair exposure in the councils of the DHSS. It is a question not of involvement in the Department but of putting pressure on it. The Minister says that it is unlikely that the committee will exclude mothers and
  members of the general public. I accept that, but there is no certainty. Therefore, I press the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 121.

  Division No.73]

  AYES

  [6.50 p.m.

  Arnold, Tom

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Overden, John

  Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard (Workington)

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Hannam, John

  Penhaligon, David

  Banks, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Beith, A. J.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Raison, Timothy

  Bell, Ronald

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Reid, George

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hicks, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hodgson, Robin

  Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

  Biffen, John

  Holland, Philip

  Rhodes James, R.

  Blaker, Peter

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Body, Richard

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Buck, Antony

  Hurd, Douglas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Bulmer, Esmond

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

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Burden, F. A.

  Jessel, Toby

  Shepherd, Colin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sims, Roger

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kimball, Marcus

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Channon, Paul

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Clark, William (Croydon S)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Sproat, Iain

  Clegg, Walter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stainton, Keith

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Lawson, Nigel

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

  Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

  Litterick, Tom

  Stewart, lan (Hitchin)

  Cope, John

  Lloyd, Ian

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Corbett, Robin

  Luce, Richard

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Costain, A. P.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Dodsworth, Geoffrey

  MacGregor, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

  Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thompson, George

  Emery, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Mather, Carol

  Townsend, Cyril D.

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Viggers, Peter

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Flannery, Martin

  Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

  Walters, Dennis

  Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

  Mills, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Welsh, Andrew

  Freud, Clement

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Goodhart, Philip

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Gorst, John

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wood, Rt Hon Richard

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Younger, Hon George

  Grey, Hamish

  Neubert, Michael

  Griffiths, Eldon

  Newton, Tony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grimond, Rt Hon J.

  Nott, John

  Sir George Young and

  Grist, Ian

  Onslow, Cranley

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Cowans, Harry

  Edge, Geoff

  Bates, Alf

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Cronin, John

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cryer, Bob

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)

  Forrester, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

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

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  George, Bruce

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Deakins, Eric

  Ginsburg, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

  Golding, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dempsey, James

  Gould, Bryan

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Doig, Peter

  Gourlay, Harry

  Cartwright, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Graham, Ted

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Dunn, James A.

  Hardy, Peter

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Madden, Max

  Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Silverman, Julius

  Home Robertson, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Horam, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Snape, Peter

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Molloy, William

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

  Stoddart, David

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Morton, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Janner, Greville

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Newens, Stanley

  Tierney, Sydney

  John, Brynmor

  Oakes, Gordon

  Urwin, T. W.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Watkinson, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parker, John

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Judd, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  White, James (Pollok)

  Kerr, Russell

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Whitlock, William

  Lamond, James

  Phipps, Dr Colin

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Woof Robert

  McElhone, Frank

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sever, John

  Mr. James Tinn.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  7 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 10 in page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
  '(3) The Council shall assign to the Committee any matter involving a proposal to make, amend or revoke rules under section 15 (regulation of midwifery practice); and—

  (a) the Committee shall consider the proposal and report on it to the Council;

  (b) the Council shall take no action on the report until they have consulted the National Boards with respect to the matters dealt with in it.'.

  The amendment has been tabled to clarify new clause 1 as it applies to the midwifery committee. At the same time, I shall refer to Government amendment No. 18. The orginal new clause 1 that was considered in Committee—it is now clause 4—referred to the assignment to the midwifery committee of midwifery practice. I assumed that it would be generally understood that midwifery practice referred to the rules of midwifery practice that are now mentioned in clause 15. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said that that was not clear in the wording that we had adopted.
  The object of the amendment is to make it crystal clear that when we talk about the assignment of midwifery practice to the midwifery committee we are talking about the midwifery practice rules in clause 15. The amendment is designed to meet the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the House will give it its support.
  Dr. Vaughan: I am glad that the Minister, having considered the argument put to him in Committee, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make some changes. We support the words that are before us. When we discussed the matter with the Royal College of Nursing to seek the view of the nursing profession, it felt that the wording was satisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 4 leave out "30" and insert "35".
  In Committee we discussed the number that should compose the Northern Ireland national board. We discussed whether it should be increased from 30 to 35. I undertook to consult the Northern Ireland profession to ascertain what it thought to be the best number. It has said that it would prefer 35. Therefore, we are writing that into the Bill.
  Dr. Vaughan: This is a much more important change than appears from the brief wording in the amendment. It will give much more flexibility to the working of the board and in enabling those concerned to represent the different professional groups in Northern Ireland. Whenever we discuss Northern Ireland and the importance of the Northern Ireland nursing groups, we must remember that some of their numbers are small. At the beginning of our deliberations in Committee we spent some time considering whether they would be able adequately to fill all the committees and to

  467
  undertake the responsibilities that the Bill would require of them. We are pleased that the Minister has accepted the argument and has increased the number.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  CONSTITUTION OF NATIONAL BOARDS
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 8 leave out from "day" to end of line 12.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.
  Mr. Moyle: The House has already accepted the principle contained in the amendment, which is to ensure the proper representation of teachers of nursing, midwifery and health visiting on the Central Council and national boards. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Hodgson: I am surprised at the brief way in which the Minister skipped through the amendments. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 contain something considerably more significant than the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the few words that he addressed to the House. The first part of the amendment excises the second part of subsection (3) of clause 5 and puts the excision into subsection (5). That is significant, because in so doing lines 30 and 31 are omitted, and they say:
  "but must include at least two members of the general public."
  In shuffling the subsections the Minister has managed to omit a critical phrase. It is critical because it was inserted in Committee following a Division and because we have recently divided the House on the same principle. We are dealing with national boards and the public interest. The House has made its wishes extremely clear following a Division, but within five minutes the Minister is suggesting two amendments which involve the same principle and not bothering to explain to the House that he is omitting
  468
  lines 30 and 31. I consider that to be misleading.
  Unless someone had followed the Bill with a great deal of care—we all know that it is complex—it would not have been clear that the two lines were to be omitted. The House divided only recently on the principle that it wishes to see public representation on the committees of the new Council at both central and national level. The Minister was wrong not to have given a fuller explanation. When he replies to the debate, the least he can do is to say that in the light of the recent Division he is prepared to withdraw the amendment and to reconsider his position.
  Mr. Moyle: These amendments were put down because of an undertaking that I gave in Committee. The House approved the principle set out in amendment No. 3. The Committee voted on the proposition that two members of the general public should be appointed to the midwifery committee, one of whom should be a woman. That provision of one woman constituted the most important part of the amendment. I do not see that there is any call to withdraw these amendments and rephrase them. I shall give thought to the decision which the Committee reached on the vote between now and the later stages of the Bill. However, I give no commitment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 13, in page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  '(5) In the case of each Board—

  (a) the majority of those appointed under subsection (3) shall be persons who are nurses midwives or health visitors; and

  (b) the Secretary of State's direct appointments under subsection (4)(a) shall be made from among persons who either—

  (i) are nurses, midwives or health visitors, or

  (ii) have such qualifications and experience in education, medicine or other fields as, in his opinion, will be of value to the Board in the performance of its functions.

  (5A) The Secretary of State shall have especially in mind the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately represented on each Board.'.—[[Mr. Moyle.]
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 5, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert:
  'means a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, which must be not more than three years from the coming into force of this section.'.
  This amendment has been tabled to meet a point that was raised in Committee. There was a general feeling in Committee that the term of office of the first members of the national boards should be strictly limited to three years rather than a period from three to five years, which I think we originally put forward. The amendment that was accepted talked about a term of three years from the commencement of the Act. That was regarded as a slightly vague phrase. We are now talking about three years from
  "a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, which must not be more than three years from the coming into force of this section"
  which is a more precise way of expressing what the Committee wished to do.
  Dr. Vaughan: We think that this is an important point. We strongly support the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  FUNCTIONS OF BOARDS
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 26, leave out 'carrying out preliminary' and insert 'carry out'.
  The purpose of the amendment is clarification. It deals with the disciplinary proceedings of all the joint boards and the Central Council. In the original Bill we used words to the effect that preliminary investigation would be at the national board level. That implied that there would be further investigation at Central Council level. We did not intend that there should be a second investigation at Central Council level. We intended that all investigations of the facts should be at national board level and that the Central Council should confine itself to determining whether there had been misconduct on the facts ascertained by the board. As the reference to preliminary investigation did not exactly describe that situation, we are amending it to remove the word "preliminary" from the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 31, at end insert:
  'and shall have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions, including those with minority representation'.
  The House accepted the principle in this amendment when it accepted amendment No. 5.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

  STANDING COMMITTEES OF BOARDS
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
  "(3A) In particular the Board, when consulted by the Central Council with respect to matters dealt with in a report of the latter's Midwifery Committee, shall seek the views of its own Midwifery Committee on those matters.".
  The amendment is proposed to clarify the midwifery clause. There had been an intention to allow the midwifery committee of the Central Council to consult direct with the midwifery committees of the four national boards. We now understand from the nursing professions that they feel it is better for the consultation chain to run from the standing midwifery committee of the Central Council to the Central Council, from there to the national boards and on to the standing midwifery committees of the national boards. That is the wish of the profession. There is no element of principle in it. It is merely a reordering of the consultative procedures.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 6, line 10, after "Board", insert "(a)".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 20.
  Mr. Moyle: In Committee I accepted in principle the idea that the majority of the members of the standing joint committee should be persons of experience of the professional field with which the committee was concerned. The proposed amendment at that stage, however, was defective as it used the term "specialty" which might in certain cases be open to misinterpretation or too narrow a construction. We tabled these amendments to remove that ambiguity. As the House

  471
  has already accepted the principle in amendments Nos. 7 and 8, and 29 and 30, I hope that it will accept this amendment.
  Mr. Hodgson: The Minister gave an undertaking in Committee. We are glad that he put his commitment in formal parliamentary language. We are happy to see the amendment made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 6, line 11, at end insert—
  "and
  (b) shall provide for a majority on the committee to be persons who work or have worked in the professional field with which it is primarily concerned".—[Mr. Moyle.]
  Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 8

  JOINT COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS
  Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 6, line 18, leave out from "visiting" to end of line 22, and insert—
  "and the Committee shall, on behalf of each of the Boards, discharge the functions of the Boards in relation to health visitors.".—[Mr. Penhaligon.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 122.

  Division No. 74]

  AYES

  [7.19 p.m.

  Beith, A. J.

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Body, Richard

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Freud, Clement

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Mr. David Penhaligon and

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Geraint Howells

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  NOES

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Forrester, John

  Morton, George

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

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

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  George, Bruce

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Golding, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gould, Bryan

  Parker, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Gourlay, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Graham, Ted

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Boardman, H.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Radice, Giles

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hardy, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hayman, Mrs Helene

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

  Sever, John

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Hunter, Adam

  Silverman, Julius

  Corbett, Robin

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cowans, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Snape, Peter

  Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

  John, Brynmor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Judd, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Kerr, Russell

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Doig, Peter

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Watkinson, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Weetch, Ken

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Litterick, Tom

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  White, James (Pollok)

  Eadie, Alex

  McElhone, Frank

  Whitlock, William

  Edge, Geoff

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Ellis, John (Brig & Scun)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Woof Robert

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Madden, Max

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Molloy, William

  Mr. Thomas Cox

  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 6, line 34, after second "order", insert "(a)".
  No. 30, in page 6, line 36, at end insert—
  "(b) shall provide for a majority on the joint committee to be persons who work or have worked in the professional field with which it is primarily concerned".—[Mr. Moyle.]

Clause 10

  THE PROFESSIONAL REGISTER
  7.30 p.m.
  Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 19, at end insert,
  "The Central Council shall prepare and maintain a register of persons in training to become nurses, midwives and health visitors who will be accorded full student status until registration."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 45, in clause 23, page 15, line 2, at end insert
  "'a person of student status' means a person in training who is not an employee."
  Dr. Vaughan: The purpose of this amendment is that a register should be kept of persons in training to become nurses, midwives or health visitors and that while in training they should be accorded full student status until they are fully registered.
  I am rather surprised that the Government should have ducked the question of giving guidance and leadership to the profession on the employee status of student nurses. This is a very important question which has implications which stretch outside the health area. I should have thought that it was a mistake simply to leave this to the Central Council without giving some opinion on what is a very complicated matter.
  The Briggs report rightly said that nurses in training should not consider themselves, nor be considered, as part of the ordinary labour force of the National Health Service. This has great implications for their status and the question whether their finances should come largely by way of educational grants. It also has implications—this may be why the Government ducked even discussing it properly in Com-
  474
  mittee—for the manning of the National Health Service.
  There are two sets of arguments. One set, which I understand was considered by the Briggs working group, is that the only way for pupil nurses to have a satisfactory course of training is for them to cease to be health authority employees and to become students throughout their training and have to subsist on education grants. The alternative view is that that would be detrimental to their future.
  The argument for student status is that it would enable health authorities to plan and provide a more effective service based on a balanced nursing team. That being so, authorities would have a better idea of numbers coming into the service and have better control of the numbers coming out of training examinations. It would also free student and pupil nurses from the pressures which undoubtedly arise when they are part of an established work force. There is frequently a clash between the needs of the wards and the needs of a training programme.
  Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman on the point which he has just passed. I understood him to say that it would be possible for an employing authority to estimate the number of trained nurses who would be coming into service. I am sorry to have to tell him that is a fallacy, as I experienced with the professions ancillary to medicine in the early 1960s when large numbers were under training year after year. When I inquired, after a time, what was happening to them and why they were not coming into the National Health Service, I was told that as soon as they qualified they got married. Therefore, unless that factor is known, the number of students gives no indication of the number of trained nurses who will be coming into service.
  Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that very pertinent and relevant observation. It is clearly based on his great experience in this area. The next point which was made by the Briggs working party was that, by removing the status and implication of employees and the pressures which fall on them as part of the general work force, for some girls it would make

  475
  entry into the profession much more attractive.
  There are considerable anxieties—this point was put by the Royal College of Nursing to the Secretary of State recently—about a fall in the number of young girls in the population and, as a result, the possible fall in the numbers wanting to go into nursing. The alternative argument is really based on doubts whether present grants would be sufficient to finance these girls right through their training. A very important point is that, if they ceased to be employees, they would cease to enjoy rights under the employment protection legislation.
  These rights are seen by some people as a great benefit and protection. My information—I have discussed this matter with various health authorities—is that the Employment Protection Act works in a very unsatisfactory and restricted way in this area. It means that if a girl comes into training and is protected by the Act and it turns out that she is unsuitable, her training cannot be stopped. If she has entered a branch of nursing training for which she is subsequently found unsuitable, she cannot be moved to another branch.
  This is a very complicated and important area. I say again that the Government have made a mistake in ducking this issue, because it will arise again and again in the next few years. I think it is wrong to leave the decision to the Central Council without any guidance from this House on how it should view this issue. It will need to discuss this matter very early after its formation.
  Mr. Pavitt: As the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said, there has been considerable discussion about this matter in the working party. In an ideal world, with all the man or woman power available, nothing would be better than to be able to say that we should retain a work force in a hospital in addition to student pupil nurses whose sole status and responsibility was that of learning the job. The Confederation of Health Service Employees, dealing mainly with mental nurses, had considerable discussions and came to the conclusion that, in reality, however much we may care to give those concerned the necessary status, and whether or not we have a register, in
  476
  the main the work still had to be coped with. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to my right hon. Friend's reply to the debate.
  I think that the hon. Member for Reading, South was quite right when he said that when the Central Council was established there would still be the problem of how to find the right balance between education and training and the real and heavy demands on pairs of hands and feet rushing about a ward, especially when recruitment had not been good or when the attractiveness of the girls referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) meant there was a depletion in numbers because they got married the moment they qualified. I do not think that the establishment of a second register would solve those problems. However much we should like nurses in training to be students, unfortunately they will more often find themselves working in wards. I shall listen with interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend, who, I know, had discussions on this matter with the working party.
  Mr. Hodgson: I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. After all, we come here to the heart of the Briggs report. Of the 728 paragraphs in the Briggs report, between 200 and 300 are concerned with nurses and midwives in training and the educational processes and future organisation. A relatively minor number of paragraphs—the last 100 or so—concern the organisational framework, timetables, and so on.
  I note the point made by my hon. Friend about the nature of student nurses. It seems that a fair comparison can be drawn between a girl or a man undergoing nursing traning and a university student. We would not seek to extend the provisions of the Employment Protection Act to university students undergoing a general degree course. Therefore, it seems inappropriate that employee status should be afforded to student nurses. There is the question not only of their relative position in our economy, or within their profession, but of the vocational nature of their training. Therefore, it is important that the authorities, which are psychologically well attuned to the demands made upon

  477
  nurses through the pressures of modern medicine, should be clear, before final registration is afforded to these people, that they are entirely suitable and right for the job.
  If we are not to have temporary registration, we run the grave risk of unsuitable people coming and perhaps staying in the profession, with the authorities unable to get rid of them. If that happens, the general standards of nursing, which we are hoping to maintain through the medium of the Bill, will suffer. I hope that the Minister will take all these points on board and consider whether the student nurse should be put on a par with the university student undergoing a degree course.
  Mr. Cronin: I understand that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) intends that student nurses should depend upon educational grants. If so, that would seem to be unsatisfactory. Speaking as a Member for a university town, I know that many students get into difficulties as a result of their grants. For instance, their parents may not pay their share. Such a course would bring total chaos into the financial affairs of nurses prior to registration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, appreciates the financial difficulties that nurses have to face.
  Dr. Vaughan: I think that, normally, this subject would have been discussed in Committee. I was seeking to bring up a matter which was not fully discussed there. I put forward views from the various bodies which have actively been discussing this problem.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cronin: I do not think that, in the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should reproach the Government for not having aired this subject before.
  The hon. Gentleman said that student nurses should be less liable to duties in the ward and be able to concentrate more on their training. I suggest that would be contrary to the interests of patients. The first concern in any hospital should be the patients, not the training of nurses. I appreciate that in some ways there are clashes between those two views, but I think that patients must have absolute priority.
  478
  The effect of the amendment would be to withdraw from nurses the benefit of the Employment Protection Act. I suggest that is an important Act for employees of all kinds and that it would be unfortunate if this deserving body of young women was withdrawn from its protection.
  There is an important psychological aspect to the matter. A student tends to regard herself as learning something exclusively and therefore adopts a more lighthearted attitude towards her duties and to life than a fully trained, qualified person. It is important that nurses should be employees and realise that they have duties and responsibilities.
  Mr. Pavitt: Would my hon. Friend give the same preference with regard to the training of medical students? Does he regard medical students as having their first responsibility to the patient and their second responsibility to their medical training?
  Mr. Cronin: That is a different matter. Medical students do not have any serious duties in hospital, whereas student nurses do.
  Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend cannot be serious.
  Mr. Cronin: I am perfectly serious. Medical students keep notes and examine patients, but the responsibility for patients is always undertaken by house physicians and surgeons. Of course, one gets the impression that students do useful things in hospitals. Indeed, they often do; for example, holding up a patient's arm when he is being operated upon, and so on. However, one could dispense with medical students without seriously affecting the running of a hospital.
  I hope that if the hon. Member for Reading, South ever finds himself in hospital he will be looked after by a nurse who realises that she is an employee and has responsibilities rather than a student who can always say "I am only trying to learn. This does not really concern me very deeply."
  Mr. Moyle: With respect to the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) finds himself in

  479
  hospital from time to time. Otherwise, he will be in a very parlous state indeed.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) said that this matter went to the heart of the Briggs report. It may well do that, but it does not go to the heart of the Briggs Bill. The bodies about which we are talking have no responsibility for recuitment, selection of trainees or financial provision, whether through grants or anything else. Those bodies have a remit for the provision of training, not the persons undertaking training. Strictly speaking, the subject is outside the scope of the Bill altogether.
  The hon. Member for Reading, South accused the Government of ducking the issue and saying that it was a mistake. I have never been more firmly convinced about anything than that we were wise not to have taken a decision on the matter between Committee and Report and, indeed, for some time to come. He said that the matter would come up again. That is perfectly true; it will come up again. It will be a matter of considerable interest to the profession under the new Briggs machinery.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that we cannot leave it to the Central Council. I agree there, because at the moment learner nurses come under the Whitley Councils for negotiation of their terms and conditions of service, and any change in their role or status would required negotiations with that body.
  Hon. Members who have spoken are right in saying that the various unions concerned say that more nurses now enjoy the benefits of employment protection legislation and that from their point of view it is a good thing that student and learner nurses should continue to do so.
  The Briggs committee was not entirely clear about what should happen to nurses. It discovered that it was not clearly understood what student status meant. Many trainees thought that it meant having a students' union. Others thought that it would mean getting a Government grant instead of being paid a salary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough divined, that put a dampener on enthusiasm for the change. The other matter is that students and pupils would learn theory in college and not in hospital,
  480
  and students and pupils would work in wards only to get practice and would not help in staffing them.
  We set up a working party on the Briggs co-ordinating committee to look into these matters, and it was not able to define what it really meant by "student status", as opposed to learner status, employee status or any other status. From that point of view, it ran into a number of problems. I concede that there are problems here. There are tensions between those who want to use student or learner nurses in a service capacity—and, of course, they must have some service capacity in order to learn—and those who want to use them entirely for educational purposes. There is a continual tension.
  Normally, in most hospitals, good human relations create a balance here. But it may well be that the eventual solution of the problem is not a matter of considering status but of reaching a solution as to how the time of these young people should be allocated between providing practical help in a hospital and undergoing pure instruction. However, the Government are of the view that this is one of the matters which should be left primarily to the Central Council which is to be set up under the Bill.
  Another point of importance here is that most of the matters—recruitment, training and that sort of thing—are the responsibility of the Health Service. It will be a provision under the Bill that as the Central Council propounds schemes for training the people whom it covers it will have to go to the Secretary of State and say "We would like our young people trained in this particular way. Can you provide the money for us to do it?" Only to the extent that the Government of the day are able to provide the money to do it will the new schemes come into operation. Therefore, the Government are involved in this in the long term, but we should want the united advice of the professions before we took action.
  It is an expensive business, though that is not the prime reason why the Government have ducked a decision on this matter. The prime reason is that we find an uncertain voice coming from the profession. The bodies on the Briggs coordinating committee have not really come to a conclusion about the way forward. The best estimate that we can

  481
  offer is that if learner nurses became purely and simply students that might result in a maximum expenditure of about £200 million per year, which is equivalent to about a 3 per cent. growth rate for the National Health Service, to provide fully trained nurses to do the work which learner nurses do at present.
  When the Briggs committee looked at this issue against the background of those problems, it came to the conclusion that it was not necessary, in the best interests of the individual learner nurses, to make a change to student status because he, or she, would then be worse off on a grant than on the present training allowance. The Briggs co-ordinating committee reached an overall tentative conclusion that, in the long term, student status should be an objective, but it felt that there was a need for health authorities to look at nurse training as part of their overall planning It did not recommend any major change at this time and felt that this whole question should be one for the new Central Council to consider and then make proposals to Ministers.
  This means that the Government, in adopting the attitude that they have done, have followed the most considered advice of the nursing professions at this juncture. For that reason, I hope that the House will not accept these amendments.
  Dr. Vaughan: It was quite clear, I think, from the way in which I moved the amendment that we wished to discuss this issue rather than take it to a vote. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'standards' and insert 'levels'.
  This is a modest amendment which has some quite serious implications attached to it. The implications have been put to us very strongly by the Royal College of Nursing and by other representatives of the nursing profession. We debated this matter in Committee. Therefore, I do not want to take too long on it. However, I should like to draw the Government's attention to the concern in the Royal College of Nursing and other places about the different use the word "standards" implies.
  482
  It was put to me in Committee that "standards" means that, by analogy, one is dealing with the quality of an individual type of training—that is, to take an A-level pass in the General Certificate of Education, there are grade A grade B and grade C to indicate a different standard of A-level pass. By comparison, O and A-levels are different sorts of examinations. They are not inferior examinations but they are merely examinations which one takes one before the other. It does not imply any inferior nature of the examination itself. It is just something that one takes early in life and is more suitably set for people at certain stages of their development.
  This the Minister is not able to accept, and I think he made two particular points in refutation of that point. First, he was surprised that we waited until clause 10 when in fact clause 2 used the word "standards" in subsection (2). The use of "standards" in clause 2 is, in fact, quite a different matter. There we are talking about standards of training. The whole purpose of the Briggs Bill—as we might call it—is to improve the standard of training. Therefore, for the Minister to use that analogy as a refutation of the argument for this amendment is not correct.
  The Minister made a further point, namely, that in other areas of nursing legislation the word "standard" was used. In particular, he quoted the Nurses (Amendment) Act 1961. I am afraid that I was not sufficiently quick on my feet in Committee to note—as I did when looking through the Bill afterwards—that on page 30 of the Bill, as now amended, in lines 43 and 44, the Nurses (Amendment) Act 1961, with such critical use of the word "standard", is wholly repealed by the Bill.
  The Minister said that this would lead to a duplicatory use and interpretation of the words, whereas the example he gave before in support of his argument was from a statute which will be entirely repealed by the passage of this Bill.
  I should like to ask the Minister to take on board the serious nature of the comments that have been made to us by the Royal College of Nursing and the inherent and slightly semantic differences between the use of the words "standards"

  483
  and "levels", and accept that the profession which he is so ready to call in aid at other times when he wishes us to accept an amendment which he is putting through—which I and my hon. Friends are perfectly ready to accept—should be called in aid here. I ask him to accept that this change would be a useful one.
  8 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: In Committee, whereas no one was prepared to say that "standards" was the most perfect answer to the problem, many hon. Members found that "levels" was no more attractive. In the end, I said that if the Royal College of Nursing wanted to pursue this matter with me, I would probably take its preference. As a matter of fact, the Royal College of Nursing has not pursued it with me since the Committee stage. I do not, therefore, see the point of substituting one word for another when the word to be substituted appears to be almost equally as unattractive to half of the House as the existing word is to the other half. I beg the House not to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Hodgson: If the Royal College of Nursing wishes to come back to the Minister subsequent to the passage of the Bill through this House to another place, will he consider himself still ready to receive representations on this point?
  Mr. Moyle: I do not mind doing that, but I am rather loth to inflict this sort of debate on another place.
  Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the Minister's assurance that he will at least consider the representations of the Royal College of Nursing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 8, line 23, leave out "a fully qualified nurse" and insert
  "State Registered Nurse (SRN) or State Registered Practical Nurse (SRPN)".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 25, line 31, leave out "fully qualified nurse", and insert
  "State Registered Nurse (SRN) or State Registered Practical Nurse (SRPN)".
  Dr. Vaughan: Again, this amendment concerns something that we discussed in
  484
  committee, so I shall endeavour to be very brief. It also concerns a rather unsatisfactory situation.
  As the Bill now stands, the terms "State, registered nurse" and "State enrolled nurse" will disappear, and in their place will come "fully qualified nurse". This is open to objection, because a nurse who at present is an enrolled nurse is a fully qualified nurse, as is the nurse who at present is a State registered nurse. They will be termed "fully qualified nurse." Therefore, it could be taken as derogatory in some ways to one of the nursing groups. Our advice from the various professional groups is that they do not like the term "fully qualified nurse". So far, I have heard no one who is in support Of it. Therefore, it seems wrong to write it into the Bill.
  At one time, the Minister told the Committee that he, too, did not like the term "fully qualified nurse". He suggested that over the Christmas Recess, perhaps, some sort of competition might be organised, and that out of that might come a better term. Nothing better came until we had some discussions with the Royal College of Nursing, which suggested—this is not a unanimous view in the Royal College of Nursing, but it is one that I share—that "State registered nurse", "SRN", is a time-honoured term. Everyone understands what it means. It has great status in the community. I know that when nurses qualify they are very proud to put the letters "SRN" after their name. Therefore, I suggest that if "SRN" can be retained it should be in place of "fully qualified nurse".
  That leaves us with the situation of the State enrolled nurse and what she should be called. Again, I suggest that "fully qualified nurse" would be confusing and that we might adopt the practice used in some other parts of the world—in the United States and in some parts of Europe, for instance—of the enrolled nurse becoming a State registered practical nurse. That is that she would then be able to put "SRPN" after her name.
  Perhaps that is not quite as attractive a term as "SRN", but it is the best that people advising us have produced so far. It certainly seems to Opposition Members very much better than the term "fully qualified nurse", which everyone seems to agree is unsatisfactory.
  Mr. Molloy: I follow what the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said about the letters "SRN". This is an acknowledged and well-known proper description for a State registered nurse, and everyone outside the profession recognises it as such. I cannot see the need to add more confusion by changing this description.
  There is one other point which I should like my right hon. Friend to consider. Many people who have become State registered nurses, entitled to use the letters "SRN" or "SEN" or the description "State certified midwife", have documents in which these terms are incorporated. In the nursing profession, the young ladies call them their gongs. Some of them are anxious about the new letters indicating that there may be a difference between a State registered nurse and someone with the proposed nomenclature. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that aspect as well.
  Mr. Moyle: I agree with the lack of enthusiasm with which the term "fully qualified nurse" is regarded in the House, and I said so in Committee. In fact, in desperation, I was driven to adopt a sort of "goal of the month" approach to the solution of the problem by saying that I would give a substantial reward—substantial in my eyes—to any member of the public who came up with a suggestion that might be adopted, the first acceptable solution to the problem to be the one that would win.
  Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that one of the nursing publications took up the idea, there was no great response from the nursing profession. We have not been left with a rich fund of names to trawl. Fortunately, we still have a little time. I have noted that it has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan)—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) made the same point in Committee—that the term "State registered nurse" is one which is highly regarded in the profession. We ought to hang on to it as far as possible.
  I shall bear this point very much in mind. We have a week or two yet in which to think of a solution. I promise to bear this in mind and to table amend-
  486
  ments at the appropriate stage. I have made no particular commitment to the phrase which is in the Bill now.
  Mr. Boscawen: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the views of the House very seriously. "SRN" is a title that we all prefer to keep if we possibly can. I believe that that is the unanimous view of the House. We shall not get an ideal description for the change. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter very seriously and that when the Bill goes to another place it will have included in it the description "SRN". The question of the description "SRPN" is a different matter. We might be able to produce a better description than that.
  Dr. Vaughan: In view of the Minister's assurance on this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 24, at end insert:
  '(9) The Central Council shall make regulations for the temporary registration of nurses, midwives and health visitors having recognised overseas qualifications.'.
  We think that the Government are making a mistake in not providing something short of full registration. There will be people coming from overseas, from other parts of Europe in particular, who will want to stay and practise nursing in this country for a very short period. We think that it would be wrong that they should have to go through the full process of registration.
  We discussed this matter in Committee. I hope very much that the weight of the argument will have sunk in with the Minister and that he will accept a temporary registration as a part-way solution for people temporarily in this country and intending to go overseas.
  We know that the various nursing groups have been looking at this matter. I think that it is their view that some sort of temporary arrangement will be necessary. I can see no reason why it should not be written into the Bill at this stage.
  Mr. Moyle: I do not think that a specific power for temporary registration is necessary. By clause 10(3)(c) there is

  487
  already provision for a person's registration to lapse after a specified period and in specified cases. For example, if a person comes to this country from a Common Market country, we cannot prevent registration; but if that person has not learned English to a sufficient extent to communicate with patients in this country after six months or a year, he or she could be removed from the register. That is the equivalent of temporary registration in practice. Therefore, there is no need to introduce the concept of temporary registration when we can handle these problems without it.
  It may be felt that limited registration could be introduced. I gather that some members of the Briggs committee felt that there was need for a mechanism by which some overseas nurses whose training has not been sufficiently advanced could be given a kind of half-way house. That is unacceptable on a philosophical level because either an overseas qualification is equivalent to registration or it is not. If it is equivalent to registration, the person concerned, subject to his or her knowledge of English, can go ahead to provide a service. If the knowledge of the language is not sufficient, such a person should not provide a full nursing service unless under certain conditions he or she is being taught that knowledge.
  We would also run into trouble with our EEC partners and with the Commission if we were to adopt such an approach. The present approach enables us not to fall into difficulties with the EEC. There would be great difficulty in deciding which tasks an overseas nurse with limited registration could undertake without risk to patients and which tasks she could not undertake, whereas under the present system such a nurse, if not fully registered, would be regarded as a learner. Furthermore, in the case of accident there may be problems of legal liability.
  For this reason, health authorities are not particularly anxious to see this kind of registration. Indeed, the registering authority of the General Nursing Council does not wish to undermine the present high standard. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Dr. Vaughan: I do not know that the Minister has convinced the Opposi-
  488
  tion on this matter. However, in view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

  ADMISSION TO REGISTER
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 8, after 'Kingdom', insert 'or elsewhere'.
  This amendment is aimed at clarifying an amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in Committee which I accepted in principle, so as to make crystal clear the conditions under which people from overseas could be accepted for registration in this country. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's amendment was technically defective because it omitted the words "or elsewhere". This amendment puts the position right.
  Mr. Powell: I hope that I can persuade the Minister to withdraw the amendment, and I also hope that in so doing I shall not incur the displeasure of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).
  I believe that in this amendment the Minister is perpetrating a nonsense. If we construe the subsection, it can be seen that we are dealing with a person who elsewhere than in the United Kingdom has undergone training which either is or is not recognised as up to the required standards.
  In the second case the person concerned may be required to undergo additional training—presumably training to bring him up to the required standard. But if we insert the words "or elsewhere" we get a nonsense. If the person concerned has additional training elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, he comes under subsection (3)(c)(i), because elsewhere than in the United Kingdom he has undergone training. It does not envisage training all of a heap, but training in total which is of a standard necessary to bring him up to the required level.
  I suggest that the Minister was right the first time and that the insertion of the words "or elsewhere" produces not merely a tautology but an inherent contradiction. I hope that the Minister will agree to have this examined in a place where they are even better than we are in dealing with points of drafting.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: I shall not agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I shall brood on his remarks and see whether we can remove the amendment in another place.
  Mr. Molloy: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he takes that step, will refresh his memory about the debates we had on this subject in Committee. I am sure that he agrees that this is a vitally important matter.
  Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has taken the words out of my mouth. I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments advanced in Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will try to deal with the concern which has been expressed as a result of the problems that occur when Commonwealth workers, who have had a certain amount of experience overseas, come to this country. I invite my right hon. Friend to read once again the arguments that were put forward on this topic in Committee.
  Mr. Moyle: I take the point made by my hon. Friends, but, as I understand it, there is no difference in principle between my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). This is merely a matter of drafting. We are seeking to ensure that any additional training that is necessary can be undertaken in the United Kingdom or before the person comes here—probably in a Commonwealth country. It is a matter of finding the appropriate words to express that concept.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  '(4) In the case of an applicant within subsection (3)(b) or (c), the rules may either—

  (a) make it an additional condition of his being registered that he has the necessary knowledge of English; or

  (b) requires him to have that knowledge within a period specified by the rules (failing which his registration will lapse at the end of the period).'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 37
  Mr. Moyle: There was an interesting debate during the seventh sitting of the Standing Committee on the question of nurses who come from abroad and apply for registration. Three amendments were tabled by the Opposition, which were then amendments Nos. 94, 89 and 96. They were aimed at restricting the registration and clinical responsibilities of such nurses until those concerned were able to satisfy the registration authorities that the applicants had a satisfactory knowledge of English.
  I have decided to accept the first two amendments in principle, so that it will be crystal clear to those who read this legislation that nurses will be tested for knowledge of English. That was always our intention, but the Committee did not feel that this was sufficiently clearly expressed because it was expressed in a technical way in relation to further amendments. I have recast the Opposition amendments in ways that the parliamentary draftsman finds more acceptable. I have already explained that temporary registration is not a technique that I favour in meeting this problem.
  I should make clear that, independently of the Bill, I intend to introduce an Order in Council later this year to amend the Nurses Act to conform with these amendments and to assimilate nursing in pursuance of our Community obligation under directives 77/452/EEC and 77/453/EEC. The order will be laid in draft and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as was desired by the Committee. So there will inevitably be a full opportunity for parliamentary debate on the detailed provisions. I hope that these arrangements are satisfactory to the House and that the amendments will be accepted.
  Dr. Vaughan: As the Minister knows, we felt most strongly that it would be wrong if nurses were able to work in this country without an adequate grasp of English. We are glad that the Minister not only agreed in Committee but has now come forward with this preferable wording, which we support.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 37, in page 9, line 17, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Moyle.]

Clause 12

  REMOVAL FROM, AND RESTORATION TO, REGISTER
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendhent No. 38, in page 9, line 24, at end insert:
  'whether or not for a specified period'.
  Briefly, this is a clarifying amendment. It apparently was not clear to all members of the Committee that the Central Council had power not only to remove people from the register but to suspend them. We have put in a specific statement that the Council will have the power to suspend. I hope that that will be acceptable to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 39 in, page 9, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
  In Committee, when we dealt with disciplinary matters, it was left open as an option that the whole Central Council could hear a disciplinary proceeding. The Committee felt that this matter should be dealt with by a committee of the Central Council. This amendment is moved to allow the Central Council to deal with these disciplinary matters either by appointing a committee or more than one committee if necessary. As this meets the wishes of the Committee, I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 40 in, page 9, line 34, at end insert—
  "and the rules shall so provide that the members of a committee constituted to adjudicate upon the conduct of any person are selected with due regard to the professional field in which that person works".
  The Committee felt that there should be representation on the committee from members of the same profession as the person whose case was being heard. For example, a health visitor's case would not be heard entirely by general nurses, and so on. This amendment is made to meet more accurately the objective of the previous amendment by referring to professional fields of work. There was a reference to "profession". As health visitors, for example, are nurses as well
  492
  as health visitors, it was not entirely clear what the simple word "profession" would mean. I hope that the new wording will clarify the position and enble the intentions of the Committee to be put into operation.
  Mr. Boscawen: We are glad that this amendment has been inserted in this way. In the interests of justice, it improves the clause by providing that individuals have a right to a hearing before those who know their profession. We are grateful that the amendment has been put forward.
  Mr. Hodgson: When we discussed this amendment in Committee, the wording was:
  "and not less than one quarter of the members of each committee shall be members of the same profession as the person whose case is being heard."
  The amendment was accepted in principle by the Minister, subject to the definition of the word "profession". The amendment that he has now brought forward uses the words:
  "a committee constituted … are selected with due regard to the professional field in which that person works".
  In the amendment that we moved in Committee we distinctly said 25 per cent. That is not a majority and would not give an inbuilt bias towards the person, but at the same time it would give a clear assurance that a minority on the tribunal would be of the same profession as the person whose case was being heard.
  The Minister's amendment has weakened that by the form of words used. I accept that he is trying to comply with the spirit of what we were getting at in Committee, but we would like to hear why he has chosen to water down the commitment that he gave, particularly as he has amended the points that he made concerning the definition of the word "profession".
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 9, line 38, at end insert:
  'and for the proceedings to be in public except in such cases (if any) as the rules may specify.'.
  In Committee we had much discussion on publicity in reporting disciplinary matters. It was clear that there were

  493
  two principles that were difficult to reconcile. The first was the traditional one of British justice, that justice should be open and public. That was the standpoint that the Bill adopted. The other principle was that in professional disciplinary proceedings there was considerable advantage in preserving a certain degree of anonymity, privacy and perhaps, in a limited sense, censorship. Both principles are important. In this amendment we adopt the solution that we had for the Medical Act 1978—that is, that the disciplinary proceedings will take place in public unless the Central Council decides to the contrary. In fact, the General Medical Council has decided that, as a general rule, its disciplinary hearings will be in private, but it is in a position, if it finds that that solution does not work in practice, to revert to publicity. This leaves the Central Council to decide on the reconciliation of these two conflicting principles, and for that purpose I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Boscawen: I cannot let this amendment go without drawing attention to the fact that there were strong feelings in Committee that the balance was wrong in the Bill as originally drafted. To put an individual on trial before the press and the media in certain lurid cases, and subsequently for that individual to be found guiltless and have to live for the rest of his professional life with that slur on his character, seemed wrong to us, and we sought to avoid it.
  We believe that our original amendment to the Bill covered that situation. I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to get the balance right. It is not in the interests of justice or of the public that it should be thought that a professional body, such as the Central Council, is hiding anything from the public. Nevertheless, we feel that there is a need to protect individuals who may be found guiltless.
  Although the Minister's amendment—which supersedes our amendment which was passed overwhelmingly in Committee—puts the onus on the Central Council to decide what is best in an individual case, there must be the feeling among members of that Council that the House of Commons has ducked this issue and
  494
  has not really made up its mind whether it should protect the good name of innocent individuals who may have been tried by the media because of the details of some lurid case. We shall accept the amendment, but I hope that those on the Central Council who draw up the rules will pay attention to the opinions expressed both in Committee and in the House. We have strong feelings that certain cases should be heard in private until the findings are reached because of the fact that they may well cause great harm to guiltless individuals for the rest of their professional careers.
  Mr. Powell: Will the Minister cast light upon two questions arising from the amendment? He mentioned that the General Medical Council, operating under a similar formula, had decided that cases should normally be heard in private. I wonder whether it would be lawful for the Council to arrive at such a decision under this wording. If the wording in the statute is to be
  "for the proceedings to be in public except in such cases (if any) as the rules may specify".
  I wonder whether it would be within the statute to make the rules so that the proceedings shall not he in public in any case. Apparently, that is what is happening. Is it happening under the same wording? If so, how can that be in accordance with the provisions of the statute?
  The natural meaning and, I would have thought, the legal construction of these words is that the rules can only specify either individual cases or types of case—although they need not specify any at all—in which the hearing is to be in private. There is no power to revoke by rule the general provision that the proceedings are to be in public.
  Secondly, could the Minister relate this amendment to amendment no. 48, which proposes to delete paragraph 5 of schedule 3? This deals with the matter of publication. One appreciates that if proceedings are held in public there can be no grounds for attempting to impose censorship upon the reporting of those proceedings. That is inherently contradictory. But what would happen in cases where the hearings are in private? Would there be any offence created by the publication of any part of those proceedings? At the moment paragraph 5 does not specify whether the proceedings

  495
  are in public or private. There seems to be an overlap that it is desirable to clear up.
  If any vestige of paragraph 5 of schedule 3 is to remain, may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in the form in which the prohibition is expressed, until paragraph 5 is removed a prohibition on publication or broadcasts in Northern Ireland is meaningless since both broadcasting and publication in the press are equally effective whether the transmission takes place in the United Kingdom or the Republic.
  I understand that these points may not be able to be resolved at this stage. However, if that is so, I should be grateful for an undertaking that they will be attended to in subsequent stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Moyle: I confess that I had not devoted much thought to the question of how publication in Great Britain or the Republic might affect Northern Ireland and its receipt of the information. I intended to remove paragraph 5 of schedule 3 in my amendment and consequently I did not give much thought to the detail. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that paragraph 5, which was inserted as a result of an Opposition amendment in Committee, contained the serious defect that it carried no penalty for the enforcement of its provisions. That is one reason why I believe that paragraph 5 should be removed. It is consequential upon the proposed amendment no. 41.
  Mr. Powell: Is the Minister saying that after the two Government amendments are passed there will be no penalty and no offence for publishing proceedings that have taken place in private?
  Mr. Moyle: As far as I can see, that is the case. All these matters will be left to professional enforcement under the rules of the Central Council. I presume that the penalty for breaching rules about publicity would be removal or suspension from the register.
  It had been my intention to apply to the Central Council the same solution as we applied to the General Medical Council, but I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that the amendment is word for word the same as the provision relat-
  496
  ing to the General Medical Council. However, I certainly intend that the amendment should be as near as possible to that, subject to the fact that we are inserting this amendment into a different part of the legislation. The General Medical Council has adopted a similar provision that disciplinary cases will be heard in private. That provision has not yet been challenged and I cannot pass an opinion as to what would be the outcome of a challenge in court.
  Mr. Powell: Is it the Minister's intention that the Central Council should be able to make rules providing that no proceedings should be in public? We cannot, at the moment, deal with the interpretation of the law under which the General Medical Council operates, but we should decide how we wish this law to be interpreted. Shall we leave it to the Central Council to annul a provision completely? Or do we consider that the Council should have the power from case to case or in a specified class of cases to provide for privacy of hearings? That is a big distinction, and it is not without constitutional importance.
  Mr. Moyle: The problem to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention could be resolved by removing publicity for all cases for a specified period and by having that removal renewed from time to time.
  It is my intention to give the maximum freedom to the Central Council to arrange its own affairs in accordance with the advantage that it sees for the nursing profession. The problem raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) could be solved in the way that I have suggested, but that is a matter for the Central Council.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

  LOCAL SUPERVISION OF MIDWIFERY PRACTICE
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 42, in page 11, line 25, at end insert—
  '(3A) The National Boards are responsible for providing the authorities with advice and guidance in respect of the exercise of their functions under this section.'.
  This is a technical amendment dealing with the role of the national boards in

  497
  relation to midwifery practice. Midwives work under supervising authorities, which are usually health authorities. They are listed in the Bill.
  The amendment is intended to make plain that the national boards are also able to provide advice and guidance to the supervising authorities. That was not clear in the original drafting, and the amendment is intended to make sure that it is understood that the midwifery committees of national boards can advise the supervising health authorities on the matters set out in the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

  ACCOUNTS OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 44, in page 12, line 40, after 'persons', insert
  '(qualified in accordance with Schedule 3A (Qualifications of auditors))'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment no. 51.
  Mr. Moyle: The amendment seeks to put into language that is acceptable to the parliamentary draftsmen the principles embodied in an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). I promised the hon. Gentleman that we would accept the principles of his amendment, and we have now done so.
  Mr. Boscawen: I have looked carefully at the amendment, and I am glad that it runs almost parallel with the wording of the amendment that we moved in Committee. I take it from what the Minister said that there is no variation of principle.
  There are two important principles involved. We are dealing with a public body which has the right to prescribe fees payable to the public and we therefore believe that the audit of the accounts of that body should be conducted by independent persons.
  The second important point is that the audit should not be carried out in a way that gives the Secretary of State absolute power to decide who is to audit the funds and how they are to be audited. The
  498
  amendment covers those matters and we are pleased to see it included in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule

  QUALIFICATIONS OF AUDITORS
  1. A person is qualified for the purposes of section 20(2) if he is a member of one of the recognised professional bodies.
  2. Those bodies are—

  the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

  the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

  the Association of Certified Accountants; and

  the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.

  3. A person is also qualified if he is a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948.
  4. A Scottish firm is qualified if each of the partners in it is so.'— [Mr. Moyle.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

  CONSTITUTION ETC. OF CENTRAL COUNCIL
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 46, in page 16, line 23, at end insert
  "which day is not to be more than three years from the coming into force of section 1".
  This amendment has been accepted in principle already. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted in this context.
  Mr. Hodgson: The Opposition are pleased to see this amendment since it gives the Bill a degree of urgency to get the proceedings of the new Central Council and its national boards under way.
  In Committee, we were concerned that there might be unnecessary delay. We felt that a degree of urgency was needed to avoid any further disagreement amongst the various sections of the profession. We are pleased that the Minister has taken this on board and moved this amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

  CONSTITUTION ETC. OF NATIONAL BOARDS
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 47, in page 18, line 22, leave out "one year" and insert "two years".
  This seeks to correct an amendment made in Committee. The Bill went to Committee saying that a scheme of elections should be prepared within two years. The Committee considered the matter and, after some debate and a Division, concluded that one year was quite sufficient to prepare for the elections to the national boards which will follow the completion of the first three-year period of the appointed Council and the national boards.
  I have thought long and deeply about this problem. The debate in Committee turned almost entirely on the electoral preparations for producing elections but not to any great extent on the preliminary work which would have to be undertaken by the Central Council before it got round to considering the electoral arrangements.
  Let me set out those arrangements so that right hon. and hon. Members may appreciate some of the problems. After the appointed Council meets for the first time, it will have to decide the terms and conditions of service of its chief officers and then it will have to appoint them. After that, it will have to draft standing orders for its procedures and adopt those. Then it will have to turn its mind to agreement on its staffing structure, establishment and the terms and conditions of service. Having done that, it will have to begin appointing staff below the rank of chief officer. To prepare for electoral registration work and to prepare a scheme of election, it will have to appoint fairly junior staff, including filing clerks, shorthand typists, and so on, as well as setting up an office. Then, before it can set up an electoral register it will have to decide on what the nurse register is to be based.
  That latter part will be quite a complicated business because there are in existence three registers, five rolls and two lists. These will have to be amalgamated and harmonised. They are not all live registers in the proper sense of the word. Some people on them apparently have
  500
  died in the literal sense. Others are dead registrations in a technical sense.
  The order which affirms the eventual register produced from all this will have to be laid before the House of Commons and debated and, of course, there will have to be consultations with the interested parties during the whole exercise. Incidentally, the consultation period is unlikely to be less than three months.
  Having done that, only then can the Central Council turn its mind to preparing a draft election scheme and to preparing an election register from the nurse register which it has compiled. After that, there will be the compilation of an election register and other arrangements which are inevitably involved in preparation for any election. Although I had hoped that this work would be completed in under two years, I thought that it was taking a risk to insist that it was done in less than one year. I am therefore advising the House to revert to two years
  Mr. Hodgson: In moving amendment no. 46 the Minister showed that he realised the need for urgency in getting past the run-in stage of this new structure. He now moves another amendment which will make that run-in stage more prolonged. I can only describe the issues covered in his speech as displaying bureaucratic inertia. They were fully covered in Committee. As the Minister has remarked many times, a degree of unanimity has finally been brought to the nursing profession by the knowledge that the legislation was being proceeded with. Some agreement had to be reached because the legislation was rolling on remorselessly. The longer the intervening period before the new electoral arrangements come into force, the more the danger exists of the chance for second thoughts and fresh disagreement.
  I did not find the Minister's arguments about the administrative system, particularly his reference to filing clerks and so on, very endearing or, indeed, polite to future employees of the Central Council. But where there is a will, there is a way. Because of the progress made by the various parties in the time since the Bill went into Committee at the end of November, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to introduce an electoral scheme within the period laid

  501
  down in the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee.
  Mr. Pavitt: I regret that my right hon. Friend is seeking to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. We debated the matter fully, and at this time of evening I do not propose to press my opposition to a Division. My right hon. Friend brought me nearly to tears when I realised the burden of work to be placed on the 45 members of this new Council. Nevertheless, the proposition in the schedule that we are amending from one year to two years does not mean that the electoral register shall be prepared, that a scheme shall be operating, or that people must be appointed to posts.
  The point of the schedule is merely that a scheme shall be submitted. I do not believe it is impossible within the first 12 months to submit a scheme. We are not asking that it should be operative. We are not asking for all the details to be completed. There are a number of different alternatives. With a Council of 45 members, I would have thought that a small sub-committee could be hived off to produce a scheme quickly, although I take my right hon. Friend's submission that it would take further time to get the machinery into operation.
  If the matter is left two years, my main concern is that the Bill will not bite quickly enough. The more we delay, the longer it will take for real effective action to take place.
  Mr. Moyle: I think that the opposition, to this amendment is entirely misconceived, particularly by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). As a result of the amendments that the House has accepted, the first elections will take place three years after the appointed Central Council comes into existence. The amendment will not accelerate or decelerate that process: it will merely allow the Council time within that period to produce its election scheme. The elections are bound to take place three years after the original Council is appointed, so the opposition is entirely misconceived.
  Mr. Hodgson: The Minister referred to amendment no. 46, but that provides that three years is a maximum, not a minimum. It is therefore not true to say that an election will take place three years
  502
  after the Act comes into force. It could be up to three years, and we hope that it will be much less. The Minister showed commendable urgency in inserting that maximum proviso. Why could he not show similar urgency here, particularly since, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) says, we are talking only about schemes and not about actual elections?
  Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are cutting the period within which the first elections must be held from between three and five years to three years, so it is highly unlikely that there will be an election before three years are up anyway.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 21, leave out lines 40 to 46.
  I have already debated this matter with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on an earlier amendment, so I hope that there will be no need to go over the ground further and that it will be accepted. It is consequential on the amendment about publicity that I moved a few minutes ago.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, ETC.
  Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 22, line 33, at end insert—
  ' 2A. Orders under paragraph 2 shall provide for persons suffering loss of employment in consequence of the dissolution of any of the replaced statutory bodies (whether or not they are entitled to payments in respect of that loss of employment under legislation relating to redundancy) to be entitled, in such circumstances as the order may specify, to compensation payable by the Central Council on scales laid down by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.
  2B. Any dispute arising as to whether or not—

  (a) the terms of employment with one of the new statutory bodies are, or would be,

  503
  less favourable to a person than those on which he was employed at the time when the employment was offered to him; or

  (b) whether or not a person's refusal of employment with one of those bodies was reasonable,

  and any dispute concerning the compensation referred to in paragraph 2A, shall be referred to and determined by an industrial tribunal.'.
  This amendment takes up the point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). He was anxious to ensure proper provision for compensating anybody involved in loss of office as a result of the supersession of the existing nursing profession governing bodies by the Central Council and the national boards. I stress that we do not envisage any redundancy as a result, but, to give an absolute sense of security to the existing employees of the governing bodies, we have tabled this amendment. I am sure that we all feel that the officers of the existing governing bodies have done a good job. In no way would we wish to threaten their security of employment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  8.59 p.m.
  Dr. Vaughan: This is an immensely important moment in the life of a Bill which is very important for the future of the nursing profession. It is only right to acknowledge the help of the professional groups during the passage of the Bill. We hope that it will give them great satisfaction when it finally reaches them.
  The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) referred earlier to the widespread agreement in the House on this Bill. That has been apparent in our debates and is shown also in the present form of the Bill.
  This has not been an easy Bill. The nursing professions were not totally agreed on what they wanted. That was made clear in the discussions and by the various representations that have been made to us about the future of health visitors. Our policy throughout has been to safeguard minority groups while not in any way undermining the effectiveness
  504
  of the future Central Council. Between us all we have achieved that.
  Hundreds of people have written to us. It is of great credit to the writers that these were not all standard letters. The majority of the letters were written individually. The writers set out their own experiences on the matters that they felt strongly about that appeared in the Bill.
  I pay tribute to the representatives of the nurses, especially the Royal College of Nursing and the midwives and health visitors who listened to our proceedings in Committee week after week and made their views known to us afterwards.
  The House may take some credit for the way in which the Bill has emerged and may feel some satisfaction. It is a much better measure now than when it first came to us. There are some issues that we hope those in another place will consider carefully. We have clearly identified the issues. I hope that their Lordships will put back into the Bill some of the insertions that we made in Committee and that the Bill will be enacted in that form. We may all take some pride in the Bill.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Pavitt: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and say that this has been a constructive Bill. Its passage has been harder than we thought and there have been some disappointments. We were hoping that by the time our consideration on Report was completed certain problems would be ironed out. That has not been so.
  I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Reading, South, to the tremendous amount of interest that has been shown by the professions and to the great help that we have had from them. My right hon. Friend and his Department have been prepared at any time to give information and briefing when differences have occurred and when we have required further information. That information has been given in Committee and between sittings of the Committee.
  I am concerned about the speed of implementation. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill early in the Session. It should have been introduced during 1978, but that proved not to be possible. It is vital that the

  505
  Bill gets on to the statute book at the earliest possible opportunity.
  The Bill is part of a changing system in nursing. At present nursing is in a state of ferment. There is tremendous pressure being brought to bear on recruitment, pay and career structures. The implementation of the Briggs report is a vital part of our further examination of the career structure. These matters were first brought before us in 1968. That is why it is so important that the Bill comes into operation speedily. Without the education background, the further changes that I envisage in the next four or five years will be delayed. Therefore, speed is of tremendous importance.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He has had to occupy the crease for quite a long time today, as he did in Committee. I know that that is part of a Minister's job. Ministers are paid more for their job than Back Benchers, so it may be right that they do a little more work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's patience and the way in which he has dealt with some of the arguments that have been advanced in Committee and on Report.
  In the negotiations it is vital that the various organisations reach agreement and manage to resolve the few small difficulties that remain. Unless they can do that, we in this place are powerless to give effect to the Bill as we would wish.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Hodgson: We come to the end of what was supposed to be an uncontroversial Bill. In fact, we have had eight Committee sittings, and goodness knows how many hundreds of letters have been received by hon. Members, especially by those who considered the Bill in Committee.
  I echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) but I add two further comments. I regret that they have a slightly discordant note. I do not wish to spoil the happy atmosphere at the end of our discussion. I refer to the Minister's attitude to the general public and their place on the national boards. By introducing amendments, the right hon. Gentleman sought to shuffle out the public interest without referring to that intention in his introduction. More important, there is the position of the
  506
  disciplinary committees and the make-up of their membership.
  In Committee the Minister gave an undertaking on the question of no fewer than a quarter of the members being from the profession concerned It was understood by the Opposition that the Minister wished to consider further the meaning of the word "profession". He used the word "profession". We understood that a clear commitment was given to a quarter of the membership being made up of persons from the same profession as that of the person whose case was being heard. By comparison, the Minister's amendment was a weak and feeble child. When I drew his attention to that fact he did not have the courtesy to answer. He immediately pushed the amendment through on the next and we went on to the next amendment.
  Apart from those two minor provisos, about which I am unhappy at this stage, I thank the many people from outside the House who brought to our deliberations expert insight, knowledge and help. I wish the nursing profession in the United Kingdom all success in its new guise.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Molloy: When the Bill was first printed and we read it and related its contents to the Briggs recommendations, it seemed as though we were in for a lengthy and difficult time. As a result of the almost free manner in which the Committee operated, we were able to get to the quintessence of many of the problems. There was remarkable cooperation—although members of the Committee were apprehensive—from representatives of nurses, midwives and health visitors in the Health Service.
  From the remarkable interest shown by those organisations, as well as by the big trade unions, NUPE and COHSE, we were able to understand more quickly their intentions as they understood the Bill. I have served on many Committees in the House of Commons, and I thought the manner in which the professional organisations and the trade unions operated in making their recommendations, and in requesting to see us so that we should understand their points of view, was almost a classical example of how the House of Commons should work.

  507
  It is right to underline the part played by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, his many courtesies and patience, and the great way in which he was prepared to help. He acknowledged that sometimes we had to push him rather hard in the direction in which he did not want to go. He was able to understand that it was right and proper that the points agreed to by the majority of the Committee should be conceded, especially when they represent an across-the-board opinion, with no political influence other than what Members of Parliament genuinely feel.
  Finaly, the aims and objects of this Bill will provide great assistance to the profession that it is intended to help. As a result, its members will provide an even better Health Service for the British people.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Moyle: I moved the Third Reading formally in the hope that it would help the House generally if I spoke in answer to points raised on Third Reading. I am pleased that I adopted that course as one or two points have been raised upon which I should like to comment.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for their words of appreciation. I devote most of my appreciation to the fact that we have now reached the end of the Third Reading. I hope that we have introduced a measure which will enable the professions to go forward in unity and co-ordination and apply the Briggs report.
  I believe that never has a measure which was agreed by all the parties caused such excitement during its passage through the House. There has also been a very concerned involvement by the profession in the country in all our deliberations. I can remember no other occasion on which so many members of the public have attended the proceedings in the Committee, filling all the available space from start to finish. Indeed, there were members of the public queueing up to fill vacant seats.
  I will pass on to members of my Department the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South con-
  508
  cerning their work. They have worked hard on the Bill because they believed in the essential principles of the measure that they were putting forward. We have tried to follow a policy of giving the maximum amount of information to all Members in Committee to assist them in their deliberations.
  In this brief Third Reading debate, hon. Members on each side have also expressed their admiration and thanks to the professional groups for the help they have given and for the way in which that help has been extended. It only reinforces my experience during the many meetings of the Briggs co-ordinating committee, in which I worked very closely with all the professions concerned. I well recall the courteous way in which they worked hard to provide solutions.
  This is a Bill to which hon. Members in all parts of the House have made contributions. Although the basic drafting of the Bill was the work of parliamentary draftsmen, approved by Ministers, the Bill now contains a number of amendments submitted in Committee by hon. Members, including a number of Opposition amendments. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my view, the amendments have in most cases improved the Bill.
  There are still some unhappy health visitors and we have an unhappy hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). The hon. Gentleman is upset at the thought that disciplinary committees have not a firm commitment to one-quarter of the membership coming from the group of the profession to which the accused, if I may use that term, belongs. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my amendment was a feeble one. I do not think that this is so. In terms of my amendment, there is no reason why all the members of the disciplinary committee, when it is hearing, for example, a disciplinary case against a district nurse, should not be district nurses. The amendment provides a flexible solution to the problem and I think that this is the way forward.
  There has on occasion—particularly in Committee and sometimes also on Report—been a tendency for some hon. Members to try to nanny the nursing professions. I believe that the more freedom

  509
  we give them to work out their solutions to practical problems, the more likely is the principle of the unity of these professions to work in practice.
  There is still the problem of overcoming the sense of unease felt by health visitors in particular, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South that the key to solving the problem is agreement. Everything is possible if we can get a substantial measure of agreement among the bodies represented on the Briggs co-ordinating committee as to where the frontiers should be drawn between minority and majority interests. This is a problem which will engage their Lordships, but the key to it all is agreement. In this respect we shall have to wait very much on the professions. With that thought, I leave the Bill with the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  AVERYS LIMITED
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: It is not too large a claim to make that Averys is the weighing machine industry of the United Kingdom. Since its beginnings in Birmingham in 1730, and during its long-time production in Smethwick, it has been producing every sort of stampable machine to comply with weights and measures legislation. Over that great span of years Averys has developed into the leading designer and manufacturer of weighing machines for trade purposes in our country and abroad, and is now world renowned.
  It has become the largest weighing machine servicing authority in Britain, with an emphasis on preventive maintenance servicing of industrial mechanical, industrial electronic and retail machines. Avery machines are used throughout bodies of Government, in the Armed Forces, in hospitals, by the National Coal Board, by the CEGB, by British Rail and in nuclear establishments and by various other bodies. They are used throughout the major industries of Britain—steel,
  510
  chemicals, shipbuilding, aerospace, textiles and again countless others. They are used in all sectors of private industry, the motor car industry, food, construction and many, many others. They are used by retailers, from supermarkets to corner shops in every village.
  I cite all that just to show the extensive usage of Averys products throughout Britain. Because of its long history and its specialised function as a weighing machine manufacturers, Averys has been associated with consumer protection since its inception. Indeed, there is no other enterprise of similar reputation and authority in the United Kingdom, and Averys claim, and I believe rightly, that any change in the drive of its business, or any derogation from its specialist role, would be detrimental to the nation's industrial and commercial life.
  Averys Ltd. controls 32 subsidiary companies, 15 of which are United Kingdom companies, and there are associated companies in a number of countries abroad. The subsidiary companies are grouped in three divisions: the weighing and testing division, the general products division and the international division. The turnover of the company has doubled in the five years 1973 to 1977, and its profit return has run at around 15 to 16 per cent. over those years. There are factories producing Averys products in many constituencies throughout Britain.
  But last year, on 30 November, the General Electric Company announced that it had made an approach to Avery to discuss the desirability of an association between the two companies. In such sweet terms are takeovers couched. Avery's response was to declare that negotiations on terms for an offer could only start once the commercial and industrial benefits of such a development had been established.
  Since then, Averys has had detailed discussions with GEC. It has visited various GEC factories and research facilities to examine the advantages of a merger and to consider whether the resources of GEC would give Averys a greater opportunity to expand and develop new markets. Subsequently, Averys decided that such a merger would benefit neither the industry itself nor its employees, its suppliers or its customers. Now, it is pretty obvious that the Averys activity which GEC is after is that part of its weighing and

  511
  metering business where the measuring instrument interfaces with computers, data analysers, control systems and other equipment of various kinds to form a total system tailored by the user to his special needs, Averys believes that GEC has failed to appreciate the importance of the mainstream of Averys activity—the production of standard weighing machines, metering equipment, petrol pumps and so on—and the not unreasonable fear has been expressed that GEC would close or offload all aspects of mechanical weighing and other non-electronic products.
  The arguments for Averys rejection of the merger are varied and powerful. It believes that it will he to the detriment of the company and its customers if it is acquired by GEC and prevented from working with GEC's competitors. Assurances to the contrary—that it will be able to continue to supply GEC's competitors—really cannot be satisfactory, because GEC's interests will obviously be paramount. Restrictions on the freedom of Averys to negotiate supply contracts with those competitors—whether it be IBM, Xerox, NCR or Hunting—will mean that those companies will turn to American, Continental or Japanese weighing and metering machine manufacturers, and from the national point of view the adverse effect on the United Kingdom's balance of payments would be serious indeed.
  Averys intends to seek commercial arrangements with NCR, which is understood to be moving into Europe, for the supply of weighing machines, both to avoid NCR selling into Britain using Continental machines and to add further to the credit balance of payments which Averys already contributes to our economy with a 40 per cent. export performance.
  Again, Averys believes that it is important to remain independent in its specialised field to pursue its policy of developing interfaces suitable for any system supplied by others. Its experience has been that involvement is systems engineering impedes development and marketing of standard products, and it is those standard products which form the basis of its strength.
  GEC, in its approach to Averys, has made much of the expertise and produc-
  512
  tion capability that it could bring to Averys. But Averys is already well advanced in the application of electronics to weighing equipment as it has kept abreast of new technologies as they have appeared. Averys produced electrically operated weighing recorders way back in the 1930s, and, since the last war, has introduced advantages such as optical projection and digital encoding and, since 1963, electronic weighing
  GEC boasts of its use of microprocessors. But Averys already has scales on the market, and in use, incorporating United States microprocessors, and it intends to research the advantages of Fairchild and NEB microprocessors when they become available from United Kingdom production.
  There is another factor. Refined mechanical engineering is an essential element in weighing machine construction. The cost of a microprocessor is only 1·7 per cent. of the material cost of the manufacture of a machine such as the Avery 1750 electronic retail scale.
  I hope that that helps to put GEC's preoccupation with electronic expertise into its right perspective.
  What about the prospect of an increase in mass production—again a GEC argument? The combined delegation of the management and work force, which has been opposing the takover, argued against such a development because of the effects on workers of boredom and the problems that that brings, that weighing machines need to be adjusted and weighed off individually for weights and measures inspectors and that such machines, therefore, need a high degree of skilled testing and fitting. Mass production does not fit in too well with the essential requirement of refined mechanical engineering.
  I believe that we should realise, too, that there is increasing sociological appreciation of the fact that bigger is not necessarily better and that, in most cases, work forces are more content, and industrial performance is higher, in medium-sized firms—firms such as Averys which the workers still think of in this day and age as a family firm. Some of my constituents have records of family involvement in that firm extending over 100 years. This is why they think of it in that familiar sense as a family firm.

  513
  Averys argues forcibly that it has never been held back by lack of financial resources. The firm thinks that GEC's proposal has more to do with its need to invest its huge surplus of cash than with sensible commercial reasons. The purchase of an existing and successful company does not, of itself, create new factories or more jobs. We in the West Midlands—and I think that my colleagues will agree with me in this—have suffered gravely from job losses over recent months. About 70,000 jobs have gone in our region where once, because of the special Midland skills, we boasted of our high employment rate.
  That brings me to perhaps the most important consideration of all from the point of view of the Member of Parliament for a West Midlands seat. The whole work force of Averys is considerably concerned about job security, and, in view of GEC's track record, who can question that? GEC's numerous takeovers have led to rationalisation and asset-stripping which has caused thousands upon thousands of jobs—men's livelihoods are what we are talking about—to disappear.
  To take only one example, when GEC took over the English Electric Company in 1969, that led to a cutback of one-third of the total work force. GEC has actually moved in on about 40 companies in toto, and the outcome has been something in the region of 60,000 jobs lost. In many cases those jobs were livelihoods that were gone for good and were skills lost for ever. To what purpose? It was the pure pursuit of profit—or perhaps I should say the impure pursuit of profit—in the commercial and financial interests of a bidder and of an easy buck for the shareholders of the company.
  All the unions in the various Avery factories have risen in opposition to this threatened takeover. I have had representations from the AUEW, UCATT, APEX, TGWU and ASTMS and from members of other craft unions. What I think is very significant is that the management of Averys itself, having examined the prospects and potential of the takeover, has come out strongly in opposition, as was spelt out in the statement of 24 January by the chairman, Mr. Hale, a copy of which I have here.
  514
  Such combined work force and management opposition is really a remarkable fact in itself and speaks of the deeply reasoned rejection of GEC's bid for control and absorption. Neither management nor workpeople want GEC, which they see as a vulture of captalist exploitation, to settle on its body industrial and tear apart its livelihood and special skills with its self-seeking talons. The head of that sepulchral creature is, of course, well set in the likeness of Sir Arnold Weinstock, whose commercial bloodsucking capabilities are world renowned.
  The combined delegation of work force and management made representations—and very forceful representations they were, because I have read them—to the Office of Fair Trading on 17 January. That combined delegation also had a meeting last Friday with the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) was there, as was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the Solicitor-General, joining in those representations to the Minister with me. I hope that that combined delegation will be coming to the House next week for a meeting with Members of Parliament, when their views can be made known to those of us in the House who care about their future.
  There is another most unsatisfactory aspect to this matter. Since Averys rejected the idea of an association in mid-January. GEC has said nothing further. The takeover panel has ruled that since there is no bid situation, as it terms it, there is no requirement on GEC to make any further announcement. This uncertainty is very damaging to Averys, since commercial negotiations and contracts with third parties are obviously inhibited and adversely affected.
  The revealing fact, of course, is that GEC is conducting its affairs in its usual aggressive way by not acting within the spirit of the takeover panel's rules, even if it is acting within their wording—behaviour, of course, that the City has learned to expect from Sir Arnold. Perhaps the Minister should look at that aspect of the matter.
  But my main appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, through the Minister of State, is that when he receives the report from the Office of Fair Trading

  515
  he should consider, especially and sympathetically, the social effects and job losses of the threatened takeover. I trust that the report will be opposed to the GEC attempt and that the Minister will find in favour of rejection.
  If the whole matter has to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, one can only hope for rejection of the takeover by that Commission. If not, I do not think that I have to remind the Minister of his powers of making the final decision for himself. For the sake of Avery's excellent industrial record and the livelihoods of its work force, I trust that commercial and compassionate considerations combine to put paid to GEC's avaricious intentions and the effects of those intentions on the life and work of my constituency and those of other constituencies throughout Britain.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Sever: I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I think that the House must concede that he has made a most eloquent and heartfelt speech in support of the people who are working at Averys within his constituency. In a sense, my hon. Friend is very lucky that the factory is not some 200 yards distant from its present location, because he would then not have been able to have involved himself with the splendid people who have come to see us in respect of the problems set before them, for they would have been able to come to see me. I doubt whether they would have had in me a better advocate than my hon. Friend.
  None the less, the people working at Averys put to us, at our meeting the other day, two or three central points, upon which my hon. Friend has dwelt. Right up front in the arguments that they put to us was the fact that so many of the families that live in the neighbourhood of the factory are associated with Averys. Many of the people now working there claim lengths of employment that go back for all of their own working lives, and that is associated with lengths of employment of their predecessors which go back throughout their working lives. The record can go back for well over 100 years for very many families who live in the constituencies of Warley, East, Lady-
  516
  wood and other constituencies in and around Birmingham.
  My hon. Friend has touched on most of the matters which we wish the Minister of State to draw to our right hon. Friend's attention, when considering the reports that come to his office on any proposed merger or takeover by the General Electric Company.
  The Avery group, which is a very diverse organisation these days, has its roots in industry in the business of weighing machines and measuring devices. In that context it has been operative for a very long time—indeed, throughout all the time that such equipment has been commercially viable.
  During the last 15 years the company has kept abreast of all technological developments, both within its own field and in those associated with its areas of activity. This is heartening, because one of the principal arguments which is often advanced for taking smaller companies into the ownership of larger companies is that the smaller company can no longer cope and can no longer manufacture the goods or deliver them or have command of the expertise that is needed for future research and development.
  None of these matters can be justifiably argued against Averys. It is in the forefront of its field. Indeed, it is particularly competitive. It has an investment programme, which is now coming to a conclusion, of about £1 million, which has enabled the company to remain in the forefront of its industry. It is not a valid argument to say that the company cannot cope or that it is not viable for the future. I understand that the order books are full, that customers' commitments can be fully met, and that the work force has the skill and expertise to make the products and to deliver them on time.
  The technical resources available to the company are considerable. The company appreciated that its business was capable of considerable expansion. It pursued that line of action and was well placed to take advantage of new technology in the form of microprocessing and a new development in the form of total information services.
  These are important developments in companies such as Averys. I am advised that the information systems to which I

  517
  have referred are so expertly developed by this company that it has taken a great number of orders over wide areas of competition, including subsidiaries of GEC. That speaks well for a smaller company which, in the face of ferocious international competition, is able to go into a market, put forward its ideas and expertise, and snatch big orders from important customers.
  The representations referred to by my hon. Friend come from far and wide—not only from the trade unions with members working in the company and from other groups such as the trade craft unions, but from the directorate and the management of the company. There has been a united effort on behalf of the company to stave off unwelcome creditors. We should do all we can in this House to protect the interests of those who are in need of protection.
  In conclusion, I wish to refer to the personal representations which have been made to several hon. Members about the local position.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his remarks have the support of all Birmingham Conservative Members?
  Mr. Sever: I am prepared to accept that from the hon. Gentleman. As the development of Averys' case is put forward, I am sure that we shall see hon. Members on both sides of the House arguing the case for an independent company.
  I wish to emphasise the representations which have been made locally. I refer to representations from APEX—the clerical workers' union of which I am a member—which approached me and explained the hardship experienced by many of its Birmingham members and by West Midland families following recent takeovers, mergers and amalgamations.
  My hon. Friend referred to the enormous loss of job opportunities following previous GEC takeovers and the fears in many families in the Birmingham area. Such takeovers are difficult to quantify in terms of human disaster. These considerations will weigh heavily with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I know that they will be in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
  518
  Prices and Consumer Protection, who ultimately will be asked to take a decision.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce George: I wish to support my hon. Friends the Members for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever). One of the great virtues of this debate—when for an Adjournment debate the House is unusually full—is that we are able to discuss issues other than those which are normally dealt with in a takeover or proposed takeover. A company considering whether to take over another company does not always consider the human side, but only the economic and financial effects. However, in this debate we are able to examine more deeply the human effects on Averys, a company which has had a profitable record but which is being taken over by a larger company.
  None of us wishes to attack Sir Arnold Weinstock, who has helped to make his company a major force in British and indeed in world industry. Nevertheless, the work force is terrified at its perception of GEC and Sir Arnold Weinstock. That perception may or may not be right, but the situation of companies that have been taken over by Sir Arnold is fresh in people's memories. This does not encourage those working for Averys to think that their future will he secure if they are taken over.
  In my constituency a medium-sized company called Driver Southall Limited is part of the Avery group. It is a highly successful company. Although not unique is my constituency, it is a pleasure to see a company that has a good management team, a contented work force and good relations between management and unions. It is a company that is successfully exploiting the market. We have heard frequently of the use of microprocessors. It was reported recently by the Department of Industry that only some 5 per cent. of companies in Great Britain were using microprocessors. But here is a company pioneering what will be a revolutionary process in modern industry. The company came to my constituency two years ago. It is innovative, excellent and has great prospects.
  I would not defend a company purely because employment prospects were possibly to be diminished. As a member of

  519
  the Labour Party I am obviously concerned at the prospect of job losses, but one's justification must be based on something more. We are resisting this attempted takeover not just because people fear for their jobs but because we cannot see how the national interest will be advanced by this highly effective and efficient company being reluctantly brought into association with GEC.
  Although I am not a shareholder in Averys, in a letter sent out to all shareholders in the third paragraph the chairman says:
  "Following these discussions the Board of Averys announces that it considers a merger between the two companies would not benefit either the industry in which it operates or its employees, suppliers or customers. As an independent company, Averys has been able to expand into new markets whenever profitable opportunities have arisen and it has not been, and does not expect to be, constrained from expansion by a lack of technical or financial resources. Averys is at present well advanced in the application of electronics to weighing equipment and has the ability to maintain the necessary development. Also its present independent position enables Averys to provide measuring equipment to all suppliers of total information and control systems throughout the world."
  These days one rarely finds unanimity between management and unions, and not in every case between union and union. But everyone in this company appears to be opposed to the takeover. I am not filled with affection for free enterprise, and it angers me that the shareholders' interests are always considered in a takeover. There are many other people in this company affected apart from the shareholders, and I care rather less about shareholders' interests than about those who work in the company.
  This company is operating well and cannot see any advantage in being taken over. Indeed, quite the reverse. It is fearful of what Sir Arnold has done in the past. If one reads the book "Anatomy of a Merger" by Jones and Marriot, one is not encouraged in the contrary view. Sir Arnold as an ogre is perhaps somewhat overstated. But if one looks at the history surrounding the incorporation of GEC, AEI and English Electric, one has nightmares as to what might happen to other companies.
  The Avery company is competitive, its customers are satisfied, the staff are satis-
  520
  fied and its shareholders appear to be satisfied. What can GEC offer in the way of know-how? The customers could be frightened away, and that is hardly conducive to future profitability.
  A number of unions have approached me on this matter. One union official wrote to me saying:
  "Our concern is based on previous takeovers conducted by GEC which have resulted in widespread redundancies. In fact, a number of Driver Southall employees have suffered redundancies as a result of GEC takeovers at other companies. This is further confirmed by the well known reputation of Sir Arnold Weinstock as being an asset stripper."
  History has shown that not all rationalisations have been successful. I can think of many companies where the process of amalgamation and accumulation has led to a strengthening of the company, and obviously it is vital for our industrial prospects that industry is viable and efficient. If takeovers are neccessary and the workers comply willingly, I would not oppose them per se.
  However, in the past we have seen the debit side of rationalisation. Unemployment is certainly one major factor. Because of the fierce combined resistance of the unions and management in this case, I urge the Minister to pass on to his colleagues the views of hon. Members here and to resist this takeover.
  The previous Labour Government played a crucial part in facilitating the merger between GEC and English Electric. That may have been a success, but I hope that the Government will look closely at the social and economic arguments in this case and come to the conclusion that GEC should continue in its own highly profitable way but that Averys should also continue what it has done in the past and be able to develop unhindered by the prospect of incorporation against its will into GEC.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I do not wish to intervene at length. I respect the views of hon. Members who have spoken who are moved primarily by their substantial constituency interest. Perhaps it will add a little breadth to the debate if I put my point of view. Although I do not have a constituency interest, this suggested merger causes me the greatest possible concern. I have had a substantial

  521
  involvement with Averys because of my involvement with weights and measures legislation. We shall discuss the Weights and Measures Bill in Committee next Tuesday, so it is highly appropriate that we should discuss tonight the future and prospects of the leading manufacturer of metering equipment in this country.
  I make three short observations. First, the public interest must be the main concern. We have had a tradition in this country of extremely effective consumer protection through the correct handling and manufacturing of weighing scales and through their wide distribution and service to the consumer. I see no way in which we can say that the industry has faulted the consumer in failing to provide adequate equipment of high standard to sustain value for money at the point of sale.
  Secondly, the Avery company has achieved a worldwide reputation. There can be relatively few sectors of British industry in which a world-wide reputation is still jealously guarded. So many sectors have been undermined by foreign competition or innovation in other directions. But the Avery company has been able to achieve a continued success because it has remained at the forefront of its technological development and has extended the range and acceptability of its products.
  Thirdly, and particularly important, there can be arguments in a marketing sense for seeing that a merger takes place. However, there can be no such arguments in a market where, despite its size, Averys has pursued a policy that has allowed many other smaller companies to develop. It is not just the only giant in the weighing scales manufacturing industry. There are many other smaller companies, each of which is a specialist in its own right, and they have been able to survive.
  Therefore, we are not talking about the overweening power of one major unit in its market. Averys has achieved market stability through its success.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) recognised that this is an all-party issue. In my constituency there is a satisfactory subsidiary of GEC, and I feel that if the merger goes ahead it could be to the detriment not only of the weighing scale
  522
  manufacturing industry but of the public at large.
  9.51 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: The W. and T. Avery company should be proud that hon. Members from the Midlands have recognised the quality, efficiency and good will of the company in all the tributes that have been paid to it here tonight. Would that every hon. Member could say the same for every other industrial or manufacturing company in this country. The tributes are deserved and should be recognised as such by the House.
  I do not intervene simply to show that Liverpool Members have the motto "Ubique", but my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said that W. and T. Avery is not only a Midlands-based company—and I was delighted to hear that there is more unanimity among Midlands Members tonight than there was at this time last night. W. & T. Avery has subsidiaries, service companies and associations in many other parts of the country.
  On Merseyside, we have a division of the company called the Ashworth Ross Division, of 50–56 Fox Street, Liverpool 3—a first-class company. It is not situated in my constituency and therefore I have not a direct constituency interest. However, for a Merseyside Member of Parliament, anything that happens in Liverpool is of interest, just as anything that happens in Birmingham is of interest to Midlands Members of Parliament.
  The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East know that every Merseyside Member of Parliament received a letter this morning from the office staff of the Ashworth Ross division. The staff wrote to tell us of their deep anxiety and concern at the proposed merger or takeover of "their company", as they called it—with or by GEC. The letters have been passed to the Minister.
  Mr. Faulds: In my speech I forgot to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd) had asked me to say that he has had strong representations from constituents who work in the Havant factory of Averys who, along with the management, are concerned about the threat to their jobs and their livelihood from the threatened takeover.
  Mr. Ogden: I am grateful for that intervention, and I am certain that the Minister has noticed that this is not only a Midlands matter—important as that would be—but has ramifications all over the country wherever there is a factory or associate factory of Averys. The workers and the management in those factories are opposed to the merger, and their opposition has been made clear.
  The office staff in Liverpool say that their company has real and proper regard for the need to be effective, competitive and viable. They also have regard for the need to maintain present employment and retain maximum employment on Merseyside, to support Government regional policies and to do everything possible to increase employment opportunities within the company. That is not merely a short-term measure—no feather-bedding, carrying or false work-sharing there—but applies to the long term.
  It is not for me to judge from outside the relative efficiency or viability of Averys or GEC or to say whether the merger would be good or bad. I do not have the qualifications to do that.
  However, there is a major GEC factory in West Derby and regularly over 14 years —too often at times—I have been involved in the affairs of the three GEC companies on that one complex. I have been involved officially, unofficially at union and management level, and all along the line. The factories have had their share of troubles, and only a small part has been of their making. Certainly, the considerable financial losses of parts of the factory complex have been carried for many years, as a conscious decision, by Sir Arnold Weinstock and his company. If I disagreed with anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, it was with some of the adjectives that he used to describe Sir Arnold. He may be firm and hard, but he can have a soft heart and he has directed a great deal of company money to Merseyside, to Northern Ireland and to other parts of the country to maintain employment there.
  However, I have to put on record that in 1964 there were 10,000 people working at the GEC factories on East Lancashire Road, Liverpool, and there are now only 2,500 working there. Had it not
  524
  been for rationalisation and reorganisation, we may not even have had those 2,500 still in work, but, despite everything that has been done, the overall result has been a reduction in unemployment.
  We hope that that disastrous trend has been halted. The GEC company has shown its faith in Merseyside. The GEC—Fairchild microchip factory is coming to Merseyside. GEC plans to move to a new start in new factories close by. We have the new GEC-Shreiber factory at Runcorn coming along. We have a new start for GEC on Merseyside.
  My only reason for intervening is to confirm that the problem is not just a matter for the Midlands. Averys-GEC concerns many other parts of the country. We have now put on record that the workers on Merseyside support the representations of their colleagues in other factories. Above all, we ask the Minister—though, with his reputation, we have no need to ask—to have regard to the security of employment, not just in the short term but in the long term, and to bear in mind the representations made by workers on Merseyside and, in other factories.
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: W. and T. Avery has been part of the Birmingham area scene for many years and is an integral part of Birmingham industry. Its passing as a separate unit would be regretted by almost all Birmingham citizens.
  My experience of GEC has not been as fortunate as that of some of my hon. Friends. One of the orginal GEC plants was located at Witton, in my constituency. It once employed 15,000 people, but, over the years and under the new GEC regime, it has been dismantled and for a time the site was almost a desert. That is known throughout Birmingham and Smethwick, and when Averys employees look at what has happened at Witton they are naturally fearful not only for the continuation of their company but for the security of their jobs.
  I do not doubt that Sir Arnold Weinstock is a competent business man who looks after the interests of his shareholders and perhaps sometimes goes beyond that, but the record of his company in Birmingham does not inspire

  525
  confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) will know about what has happened at Witton. It is one of the main reasons why the workers at Averys are alarmed, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  9.58 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): This is the first Adjournment debate that I have answered in which there have been eight speakers. Seven hon. Members have risen, but the Government Whip tonight is my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape) and he has been whispering in my ear.
  The speeches have shown the widespread geographical nature of Averys' business. Every hon. Member has argued strongly and expressed forceful concern about the employment of constiuents and the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a take over of Averys by GEC. I have listened carefully to all the points made on this subject, which is of critical importance to hon. Members and their constituents.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have also listened closely to representations from both companies concerned and to the delegation of hon. Members from the Midlands. In addition to those representations, the debate will be of great value in focusing attention on some of the problems that will bear on my right hon. Friend's eventual decision.
  I feel that this is rather like a case where there have been resounding speeches by counsel and then there is a reserved judgment. It would be improper if I anticipated the decision which eventually my right hon. Friend will take on this case. Mergers prior to decisions are matters—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
  Mr. Fraser: I was saying that it would be improper if I anticipated in any way the eventual decision of the Secretary of State.
  Decisions about references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are matters where the uttermost degree of confidentiality should be observed and where Ministers and officials should always act with the greatest degree of discretion.
  In responding to the debate, therefore, I cannot speak about this case in detail as a result of the quite proper legal and administrative constraints placed upon me, but I believe that it would be helpful if I outlined those legal and administrative constraints and the overall policy in the context of which my right hon. Friend will formulate his decision.
  Successive Governments have recognised the possible dangers to competition from a company or group of companies gaining a position of such dominance that they are able to exercise monopoly powers to the disadvantage of the consumer. This does not mean that large is necessarily evil, that small is necessarily good, that medium is necessarily beautiful. Indeed, considerations of wider industrial strategy have led the Government to conclude that from time to time certain mergers were in the public interest to enable an effective United Kingdom company to gain the economies of scale which would allow it to compete successfully with foreign multinational giants. But the dangers are there, and it has long been recognised that there is a need to consider whether the creation or strengthening of a monopoly position would indeed bring about this improved efficiency and, if so, whether the disadvantages in other areas outweighed any industrial advantages that might accrue.
  For a merger which creates or increases a share of more than 25 per cent. of a particular market in the United Kingdom or in a substantial part of the United Kingdom, or—this is a separate test—where the enterprise to be acquired has assets of more than £5 million, the Fair Trading Act 1973 requires that the Director General of Fair Trading makes recommendations to my right hon. Friend on whether the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation.

  527
  In practice, the Office of Fair Trading will keep itself informed about actual or prospective mergers qualifying for consideration under the Act and will undertake initial inquiries. The Office of Fair Trading will then put its assessment of the merger proposal in a paper to the mergers panel. This is an interdepartmental committee of officials from interested Departments under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director General of Fair Trading. This enables all interested Departments to put their views before the Director General makes his recommendation to my right hon. Friend.
  I might mention here for the sake of completeness that in some cases a company may approach the Office of Fair Trading asking for confidential guidance on whether a proposal which it has in mind but has not yet made public is likely to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, such guidance normally is given only in straightforward cases, because it is not possible for the Office of Fair Trading to undertake inquiries as extensive as would have been undertaken were there no approach, including seeking the reactions of other interested parties. Whether the confidential guidance is that on the basis of available information it seems unlikely that my right hon. Friend would wish to refer a proposed merger to the Commission or that a reference would seem likely, it is possible to give only a conditional decision. The giving of confidential guidance does not make the eventual decision a formality.
  A decision on whether to refer a merger to the Commission resides with my right hon. Friend. He will reach his decision after considering the Director General's advice and all the representations which have been or may be made by interested parties, including, not least, the representations which have been made tonight.
  It is very important to note here that a decision to refer a proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission does not necessarily imply that the Government disapprove of the merger. However, it does imply that the Government consider that there are sufficient matters of significance to merit consideration by the Commission on the ground of public interest. The aim of the procedure is to
  528
  enable those mergers which raise genuine doubts about their likely impact on the public interest to receive detailed independent investigation.
  In determining whether a merger, or any particular aspect of a merger, may be against the public interest, the Commission is required to take account of all matters which appear to be relevant in the particular circumstances of the case. This will include, in particular, the effects of the merger on competition, including whether or not it will increase the efficiency, the innovative ability and the export potential of the eventual company. It will include the effects on regional policy and the effects on employment in the United Kingdom or a particular area of the United Kingdom. Once there has been a reference to the Commission, any person or any group of persons is free to make representations to the Commission in the course of its consideration.
  The Commission is normally expected to report within six months of the making of a reference. If, and only if, the Commission finds that a merger is against the public interest, my right hon. Friend, after taking account of any advice from the Director General, may decide to take action under the Act to prevent the merger from taking place. I know that I have not given any hint of a response. My hon. Friends and hon. Members will understand the reason, which I have explained. But I hope it will have been helpful to have given a brief summary of the context in which the proposals which are the subject of tonight's debate will be considered.
  The particular proposal which has been raised tonight meets both the size of assets and the market share criteria which I explained earlier
  Mr. Faulds: Am I wrong in thinking that the Secretary of State has final power in the resolution of these matters to overrule whatever decision the Monopolies and Mergers Commission makes?
  Mr. Fraser: No. That is not so. The Secretary of State may prevent a merger under the Fair Trading Act only if there has been a report of the Monopolies and Members Commission which finds against the merger. A finding against the merger, if my recollection is correct, must be by a two-thirds majority.

  529
  As I say, the particular proposal which has been raised tonight meets both the size of assets—that is the £5 million test —and the market share criteria. My right hon. Friend has now received the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading and has heard the views of representatives of interested parties. The views expressed here tonight will also be put before him. I expect that his decision on this matter will be announced quite shortly.
  In conclusion, I stress that nothing I have said this evening should be taken as implying a preference for any particular option open to my right hon. Friend, but I assure the House that the views expressed tonight and the views expressed previously in representations to my right hon. Friend and myself will be given the fullest consideration before a decision is announced.
  Mr. Faulds: Before the Minister sits down, will he comment on the point I raised in my speech? The uncertainty created in the "no bid" situation, in view of the takeover panel's ruling, should perhaps be examined to see whether there is some way of removing that element of uncertainty and to know whether or not there is a bid in the offing.
  Mr. Fraser: I would rather not comment on that, but I shall think about what my hon. Friend has said. It would be unwise to say something off the curt where stock markets are affected. I shall certainly think about it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

  GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT
  GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT
  SMALL CLAIMS ARBITRATION
  SMALL CLAIMS ARBITRATION
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (INVESTMENT POLICY)
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (INVESTMENT POLICY)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Works of Art and Museum Objects
  Works of Art and Museum Objects
  O-Level Subjects
  O-Level Subjects
  Classes (Thanet)
  Classes (Thanet)
  Works of Art (Loan)
  Works of Art (Loan)
  Disabled Students (Walsall)
  Disabled Students (Walsall)
  The Arts
  The Arts
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Central Treaty Organisation
  Central Treaty Organisation
  Ocean Island Phosphate
  Ocean Island Phosphate
TRADE
  Company Directors (Legal Obligations)
  Company Directors (Legal Obligations)
  Market Entry Guarantee Scheme
  Market Entry Guarantee Scheme
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
EMPLOYMENT
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  "Actions: Doing Something about Unemployment"
  "Actions: Doing Something about Unemployment"
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
ENERGY
  Coal Mining
  Coal Mining
  Electricity (Cost)
  Electricity (Cost)
  Alternative Sources (Europe)
  Alternative Sources (Europe)
WALES
  Newtown (Advance Factories)
  Newtown (Advance Factories)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Oak Wilt
  Oak Wilt
  European Community Agriculture Ministers Meeting
  European Community Agriculture Ministers Meeting
SCOTLAND
  Industrial Disputes (Illegal Practices)
  Industrial Disputes (Illegal Practices)
  Electoral Registers
  Electoral Registers
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Council Houses (Cunninghame)
  Council Houses (Cunninghame)
  Manual Workers (Dispute)
  Manual Workers (Dispute)
  Health Centre, Partick
  Health Centre, Partick
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Oil Pollution (Clearance Equipment)
  Oil Pollution (Clearance Equipment)
  Sports Facilities
  Sports Facilities
INDUSTRY
  Burntisland
  Burntisland
  Plastic Goods
  Plastic Goods
  Road Haulage Industrial Dispute (Delay of Surface Mail)
  Road Haulage Industrial Dispute (Delay of Surface Mail)
  Specialised Organics
  Specialised Organics
  Telecommunications (System X)
  Telecommunications (System X)
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
DEFENCE
  HMS "Walrus"
  HMS "Walrus"
  Iran (Arms Supplies)
  Iran (Arms Supplies)
  Service Personnel (Clearance of Refuse)
  Service Personnel (Clearance of Refuse)
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Disabled Persons (Walsall)
  Disabled Persons (Walsall)
  Housebuilding (Cheshire)
  Housebuilding (Cheshire)
  Local Government (Organic Change)
  Local Government (Organic Change)
  Housing Allocations
  Housing Allocations
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Refuse Collection Services (Merton)
  Refuse Collection Services (Merton)
  Local Authority Services (Hammersmith)
  Local Authority Services (Hammersmith)
  London Dockland
  London Dockland
TRANSPORT
  Trunk Road Schemes (Value-to-cost Ratios)
  Trunk Road Schemes (Value-to-cost Ratios)
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  Driving Tests (Greater London)
  Driving Tests (Greater London)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Major Roads (Maintenance and Construction)
  Major Roads (Maintenance and Construction)
  Oxford-Birmingham Road
  Oxford-Birmingham Road
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Children (Citizenship)
  Children (Citizenship)
  TRIALS (DELAYS)
  TRIALS (DELAYS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Sector Debt Interest
  Public Sector Debt Interest
  Taxation (EEC Comparisons)
  Taxation (EEC Comparisons)
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Community (Duties and Levies)
  European Community (Duties and Levies)
  Gross National Product (EEC Comparisons)
  Gross National Product (EEC Comparisons)
  National Income
  National Income
  Expenditure Programmes
  Expenditure Programmes
  Nationalised Industries (Financial Targets)
  Nationalised Industries (Financial Targets)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Taxation
  Taxation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Merseyside Regional Health Council (Cost)
  Merseyside Regional Health Council (Cost)
  Hospital Car Service (Suffolk)
  Hospital Car Service (Suffolk)
  Pensioners' Radios (VHF Reception)
  Pensioners' Radios (VHF Reception)
  Hospitals (Financing)
  Hospitals (Financing)
  Personal Activities (Prohibition)
  Personal Activities (Prohibition)
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Middlesex Hospital
  Middlesex Hospital
  Births
  Births
  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Hospital Service (Northern Health Board)
  Hospital Service (Northern Health Board)
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Tenants (Access to Rent Tribunals)
  Tenants (Access to Rent Tribunals)
  Electricity (Disconnections)
  Electricity (Disconnections)
  Electricity Payments (Overdue Bills)
  Electricity Payments (Overdue Bills)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD
John Richard Gordon, Lord Bishop of Hereford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

ENERGY COMMISSION: ASSOCIATION'S SUBMISSION
2.43 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the charge, attributed by the Press on 22nd December to the Chairman of BNOC, that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association's submission to the Energy Commission amounted to "politicking", represented the view of the Government to which BNOC is adviser.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are unconvinced by the claim in the submission that current fiscal and licensing policies are a disincentive to investment in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it is not the case, even though the Government are not convinced about the substance of the argument now being studied by the Treasury, that it is rather a churlish response on the part of the chairman of BNOC when the Offshore Operators'
684
Association were invited to put in this paper?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I saw a report in one newspaper. Any views expressed by the chairman of BNOC can be taken to be either his personal views or those of the body that he is representing. Personally, I prefer to go by what he said at the meeting of the Energy Commission, when he said that the submissions are valuable; and the Government agree with that.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that rather more reassuring reply, and assuming, charitably, that the newspaper report is inaccurate, can we take it that the Government will likewise give a cordial welcome to the further paper, on the threshold of PRT and similar matters, which the Offshore Operators' Association have now submitted?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, certainly. We are examining them carefully to assess how far they reflect purely the interests of the private sector rather than the national interest.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not encourage these eminent QUANGO officials to use the Queen's English?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I must agree. I could not find the word "politicking" in the dictionary at all; but, then, of course, this may have been an in-accurate newspaper report.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord clear one point? In so far as he has referred to the bias (I think that is how he meant it) towards the private sector of the industry represented by the Offshore Operators' Association, is it not the case that BNOC are also members of that body and are also represented?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. We have no bias against the private sector at all. In fact, I have said continually in your Lordships' House, both in debate and in answering Questions, that we think it has a very valuable part to play.

JOB CENTRES AND THE SELF-EMPLOYED
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what instructions have been given to the staff of Government Job Centres with regard to advertising jobs on behalf of firms such as builders and driving schools which often run their businesses with self-employed persons; and how many advertisements from such employers have been blacked.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Manpower Services Commission carries out a policy previously formulated by the Department of Employment and carried out under successive Governments. It handles only vacancies where a normal contract of employment is involved. The legal and other complications of self-employment are quite different from those of employment. No record is kept of the inquiries relating to self-employed vacancies. I am advised that the policy is currently being reviewed.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply and ask him how long the review is going to take, because I think it is essential that this practice should cease.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that a decision will be made later in the year, but I do not want to be too optimistic. I would ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind that there are two sides to this question. First of all, I understand and respect her point of view, but I would point out that the National Federation of Self-Employed are not favourable to it. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph in November 1978, the national chairman said:
"Pressurising job centres into handling self-employment may well be doing a disservice to the small man".
Furthermore, I would add that a very substantial part of our working population regard labour-only contracts as a method of avoiding responsibilities.

PICKETING: CODE OF CONDUCT
2.47 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: 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, following the Statement on secondary picketing by the Prime Minister on 16th January, they propose to invite the TUC to discuss this issue with Ministers; and, if so, when they expect these talks to take place.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, discussions between TUC representatives and Government Ministers on all aspects of the present industrial situation, including picketing, have already taken place and are continuing.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him two supplementary questions: First, will he do his best to ensure that those critics of the position of the police in the recent picketing problems have their attention drawn to the letter in today's Daily Telegraph from Mr. Philip Knights, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which deals with some of the criticisms made of the police in, if I may say so, a very effective manner? Secondly, on the question of the voluntary code of conduct, may I ask him, speaking as one who is certainly in favour of such a voluntary code of conduct, whether the Government are discussing with the TUC the way in which trade unions can ensure that their members abide by any such code of conduct after it has been agreed between the trade unions and the Government?
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I first say that I am sorry I have not read the letter in the Daily Telegraph—I will acquaint myself with it when I leave the Chamber—but I take note of what has been said by my noble friend on the question of a code of conduct. As to how this affects the police, I should have thought that he himself was in a better

687
position than even I am now, at the Dispatch Box. After all, he was recently a Minister of State in the Home Office. I will do all I can to see that this matter is raised, but I hope my noble friend will appreciate that it would be very wrong of me to intervene too much because of the sensitive situation.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is that really the right answer from the noble Lord the Leader of the House? Surely the question was: how are people to be made to comply with the code of conduct which has in fact been agreed? That is the real crux of the question.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the real crux of the question is in the original Question which concerned talks going on between the Government and the TUC. I elaborated on the other point and said I would pursue it further.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the code of conduct has been drawn up by the union and has been agreed. Many members of the union are not complying with the code. What is to be done?
Lord PEART: My Lords, what does the noble Lord want us to do immediately? Shoot them?
Baroness ELLES: Yes!
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will be careful in what they say today on this matter. I am hoping that we can finally reach an end of the road on this strike action. We all of us want a sensible settlement but it is right and proper that we should examine the law in relation to picketing and other matters. The noble Lord wants me to go into that. I have given an undertaking that I shall do so. I cannot go any further. Noble Lords should be careful.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord has missed the point again. The real point is this. What disciplinary power are the unions going to use on their own members?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is a matter for the unions. They have the
688
right to do that. As a last resort, if a person is denied his job because of the taking away of his union card he himself has rights in the courts. I am not a lawyer and would not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but that is how I understand the position. I am not dodging this in any way; I am trying to give a helpful answer.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can tell this House how one can make people do what they do not want to do? There are intelligent people on the other side, and particularly on the Liberal Benches. Could he ask them how they would deal with this situation if they had the authority?
A noble Lord: Take away the union cards!
Lord PEART: My Lords, somebody said: "Shoot them!"—
Several noble Lords: You did!
Lord PEART: My Lords, it was the noble Baroness; it was not me. I asked what the Tories wanted, because I was not sure. But let us be sensible about this. We are having discussions. There is a problem of law. There has been a test case, as noble Lords know. I think we should leave it at that.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that when he asked certain Members of this House to be sensible that was a revolutionary request? The first thing they might do would be to establish the facts. Is it not entirely mischievous to want to invoke the law when we know that many of the instances quoted are complete fabrications? If the noble Lord wishes I shall be willing to give the House examples.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while appreciating that over-reaction by any of the parties concerned with the present troubles is a mistake and could make things worse, is not the noble Lord the Leader of the House also aware that the patience of the people of this country is

689
fast running out and that they are waiting day by day and hour by hour to see some lead from the Government?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the Government have given a lead. We are anxious to see a settlement concluded which will be honourable and fair to all sides.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the whole of the policy of the Government relies on the code of practice and that, if that is being broken and not honoured, then it is an affront to the whole of society and to the nation? Will the noble Lord explain why, if this is so, the Government still refuse to seek with the other Parties in trying to get some form of common agreement?
Lord PEART: My Lords, in my initial reply I said that we were having discussions with the unions concerned and with TUC representatives on all aspects of the present industrial situation, including picketing. We have had these talks and they are still continuing. I cannot go further than that. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that we, as a Government, are as anxious as anyone to see these disputes settled.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I was referring to political Parties. My right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher offered the Government to talk about the situation, which is of concern to the whole nation. Why will the Government not accept that?
Lord PEART: My Lords, we believe that the right way is to have talks with those, such as the TUC, who are immediately concerned. And those talks are continuing.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the Government take heart from the results of the latest opinion poll which show that 80 per cent. of their supporters and of the trade unions wish the Government to govern instead of hoping that better things will result?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that a reply to such a question would be very helpful in the present situation.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the lugubrious supplementary questions from the other side of the House, Britain still has a sense of humour? This morning I travelled to the Vale of Health from Hampstead where a vast sign read "Vale of Health" and about ten yards beyond it was a sign saying "Here is a place where you can dump your rubbish!"
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, will not the noble Lord convey to his colleagues that we on this side at least—and, I think, those on the Liberal Benches—regard this as a national crisis and do not regard it as satisfactory that private conversations should take place all the time and that the great political Parties of this country, who are being asked by the Government to adopt a restrained attitude, should not be taken into the Government's confidence at all?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I carefully note what the noble and learned Lord has said. Surely, it is right that the Government should have discussions with the TUC. Noble Lords opposite also did this when they were involved in disputes. For that reason, let us see what happens. We hope to get this settled.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that these problems need to be solved in a generally acceptable way and that it is therefore essential that the Government in their deliberations should give as much weight to the views of the CBI as to those of the TUC?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree that all people connected with industry, employers, employees and their representatives, the CBI and the TUC, should be involved.

BRUNEI TREATY OF INDEPENDENCE
2.56 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the main provisions of the treaty signed with the Sultan of Brunei regarding the independence of that territory.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, under the Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation signed in Brunei on 7th January, the Government will relinquish responsibility for Brunei's external affairs and our consultative commitment for Brunei's defence. The Treaty will come into effect on the 31st December, 1983. The text will shortly be laid before Parliament.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask this question. In the discussions, was the issue of human rights raised, and has he hopes that in the early future the nine persons under detention without trial in Brunei and those who are exiled will be allowed to return? Furthermore, was there any discussion whether there would be adult suffrage when independence is obtained, particularly because of the position of women? When the Treaty was signed at a great gathering, it was an all-male gathering.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Brunei has been, is and will be entirely self-governing in respect of all internal matters—which covers the points raised by my noble friend. However, as two good friends—and we have been in close friendship with Brunei for many years and hope to remain so for many years to come—we have intimated and are continuing to intimate to them our views in a friendly way on such questions as human rights, democratisation, detention and so forth. I am glad that my noble friend mentioned that there are now only nine persons in detention in Brunei. Some years ago, after the rebellion, the figure was as high as 2,000. There has been real progress in that aspect of affairs in Brunei. I think we can look forward to a very fruitful relationship, possibly within the Commonwealth, between an independent Brunei and this country.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, after what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said about civil rights, may I ask whether the provisions for internal self-government include terms for the citizenship of the people of Brunei and whether, bearing in mind some of the difficulties that we have had in previous cases of independence, Her Majesty's Government will represent to the Sultan and his advisers that the British protected persons living in the territory, of whom there are quite a large number, should be entitled to Brunei citizenship on independence?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall shortly be laying before Parliament the text of the exchange of letters relating to nationality and citizenship with the text of the Treaty. I think my noble friend will see from that exchange that the matters he has raised have been satisfactorily settled.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's expressions of friendship towards Brunei, may I ask him whether, in view of the unwavering support given to Britain by the Sultan and, before him, by his father, and the extremely valuable training facilities afforded to our forces in Brunei, Her Majesty's Government will keep open the possibility of extending in some form or another the arrangement for mutual assistance after independence?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Treaty is in title and content one of co-operation and friendship, and covers the point raised by the noble Lord. We shall continue to make available to Brunei, within the limits of our resources, loan service personnel, both in the defence and in the civil field. We shall also of course assist them to build up their Diplomatic Service. The reason why we are doing this over a period of some years is that it is better done this way so that there is no abrupt change from a situation which, after all, has its peculiarities. This new State, as I hinted, possibly within the Commonwealth, will be able to build itself up into independence on that basis. I should like to add, in view of the previous position held by the noble Lord, that he and indeed the House will be glad to know that the way we have done this, and what we have achieved, has been given a

693
very warm welcome throughout the Pacific, from New Zealand and Australia right across to the ASEAN countries and to the North.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that for us on this side of the House it is a pleasure occasionally to see the Government doing something rather difficult rather well, and that into this category falls their achievement in arriving at a solution which has, as the noble Lord says, been actually and courteously welcomed by the neighbouring States as well as by the region?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising from my noble friend's reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, may I ask whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to keep in Brunei the battalion of Ghurkas which has been part of the defence, and—with all our friendship—under conditions which are not democratic?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Ghurkas will remain until independence is a realised fact, in 1983. I could not prophesy beyond that date. I think that the main thing to emphasise is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, that we shall continue, on a basis of sovereign independence of possibly two equal—I repeat "possibly two equal"—members of the Commonwealth, a mutual exchange of assistance, including facilities for training on their part to us, and our making available civil as well as military loan service personnel to assist them to make a reality of independence.

UNSTARRED QUESTION POSTPONEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I remind noble Lords that in view of the large number of speakers who are to take part in the debate today, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has postponed his Unstarred Question from tonight until 22nd February. I am sure that the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord.

KIRIBATI BILL [H.L.]
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the attainment by the Gilbert Islands of fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth under the name of Kiribati.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

GREATER MANCHESTER PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is a straightforward consolidation of relevant parts of the Finance Act 1965 and succeeding Statutes dealing with the subject. It makes no changes in the present law. However, the opportunity has been taken to correct some small inconsistencies or obscurities in the text of the existing legislation. If read a second time today, the Bill will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
3.6 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL Baroness FAITHFULL rose to call attention to the International Year of the Child designated by the United Nations Assembly for 1979 and to its implications for the improvement of the conditions of children both in this country and in the developing countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said:

695
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a historic occasion on two accounts. First, in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House last week on the need for shorter speeches I propose to make one of the shortest introductory speeches to a major debate in your Lordships' House. Secondly, and of far greater importance, I can find no Hansard report of any full debate devoted specifically to the rights of the child. There have of course been innumerable specialised debates in connection with the family, with education, health, social and financial policies affecting children. There have been debates involving the adults' perception of what is right and good for children. In this, the International Year of the Child, we are perhaps attempting to view the adult world through the eyes of a child listening—and not only listening but hearing—what its needs are: spiritual, emotional and material.
I must confess that I was nervous in setting down this Motion. The fact that 28 Peers are to speak is both encouraging and indicative of the deep and abiding concern in your Lordships' House for the wellbeing of children in this country and overseas. Four years ago, when some of us debated the proposed International Year of the Child 1979, there were among us—and indeed there still are—those who were and are sceptical of the year of anything, let alone the Year of the Child. However, the critics have been confounded. The response has far exceeded all expectations. With the year only in February, well over 400 organisations have sought applications to the United Kingdom Association for the International Year of the Child. This is surely indicative of the concern experienced in this country that all is not wholly well in the care and upbringing of our children.
This response is being harnessed by Lady Soames, the chairman of the United Kingdom Association for the Year of the Child, by her committee and by the small—in my view too small—interested, committed and overworked staff led by the director, Mrs. Stone, working at 85 Whitehall—not in spacious offices, as one newspaper would have us believe. We pay tribute to them and we wish them well.
How did the idea of the International Year of the Child come about? What does it mean, what is being done, and what are the expectations? On 20th November 1959 the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. There are 10 principles, and they are as follows: the right to affection, love and understanding; the right to adequate nutrition and medical care; the right to free education; the right to full opportunity for play and recreation; the right to a name and nationality; the right to special care, if handicapped; the right to be among the first to receive relief in times of disaster; the right to learn to be a useful member of society and to develop individual abilities; the right to be brought up in a spirit of peace and universal brotherhood; and the right to enjoy these rights, regardless of race, colour, sex, religion, national, or social origin.
The General Assembly called upon parents, married men and women as individuals, voluntary organisations, local authorities and national Governments to recognise and act upon the agreed 10 principles. As the 20th anniversary of the Declaration approached, the International Catholic Child Bureau in Geneva put forward to the United Nations the idea of declaring 1979 as the Year of the Child in order to assess what progress had been made over the past 20 years.
Much has been done but, despite this, in the year 1979 the adult world has a very long way to go before the fulfilment of the 10 principles is even in sight of achievement. For instance, children are dying of starvation in Bangladesh, and the people of Japan are dismayed by the number of child suicides. In this country the number of children living in voluntary and public care and being brought up away from their parents has risen alarmingly. Some European countries, the United States and Great Britain view with concern the rising delinquency rates, the vandalism and the violence. In our own country, and in others, families are living below the poverty line.
What is to be done in this year? First, it is hoped during the year to heighten awareness of the needs of children in all sectors of society, and not least among the

697
children themselves. To this end, discussion groups are being set up throughout the country in parishes, villages, towns, schools and colleges and voluntary societies of all kinds. It is hoped that these local groups will identify the needs and discuss how those needs are to be met in their own communities. Discussion documents and support can be obtained from the International Year of the Child offices in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is hoped that these groups will include children. Further, it is hoped that at local level these groups will seek to meet the needs of the community and to take the responsibility of helping children in their areas who are in difficulties.
Secondly, a series of specialised groups have been set up. For instance, I attended the first meeting of the group—and it was a large group—organised by John Bradford of the Church of England Children's Society on the spiritual rights of the child. Thirdly, the International Year of the Child offices are initiating various projects. It is hoped to set up a pilot scheme to help with the problem of "latchkey" children. Work is being done on preparation for parenthood; and there are many other areas. It is hoped, if the money is forthcoming, to set up a legal centre to act as a national centre of expertise on the laws as they affect children and their families. Children themselves are to contribute: for instance, there is to be a parliament for children aged 12 to 17 inclusive, to be conducted at County Hall under the chairmanship of Mr. Clement Freud. Then there will be a series of factual publications reviewing the Government reports which have been published in the past 20 years, and analysing which of them have been implemented and which have not—the Children Act 1975 is a notable example.
In the Palace of Westminster there will be 12 sessions through the year, enabling Members of both Houses to hear from those engaged in work for children in the various areas, and to hear of the problems and the needs. At the end of the year an all-Party parliamentary group of both Houses will consider, in the light of what they have learned, what legislative action they think should be put forward. I have inadequately covered the range of activities, but the International Year of the
698
Child office publishes a news sheet and has much literature which can be obtained from 85 Whitehall.
At the end of the year, what will have been achieved? As I said earlier, we hope there will be a heightened awareness of the needs of the children. As I also have said, legislation will be reviewed. It is hoped to learn from the various projects what can be done throughout the rest of the country.
My Lords, with great restraint, I will not cover my own particular interests, as that will be ably done by all those taking part in this debate. It is my role only to set the scene. I will finish with four points. First, your Lordships' House is always well attended—and surely rightly so—when matters concerning the economy are dealt with. May I say that the soundest investment a country can make is in its children. I am not necessarily asking for more spending, but wise spending of our present resources. Secondly, I was one of those who, two years ago, thought that we should have a Year of the Family instead of a Year of the Child, and there were criticisms of that. As was stated earlier, the 1979 "year" was linked to the year 1959. The first principle laid down was that every child has the right to affection, love and understanding; and surely this must mean from parents, the extended family and the community. The development of children's rights can only enhance the rights of parents, teachers and the adult world. Thirdly, if, through the local groups, the working groups and groups of the 400 affiliated organisations, barriers can be bridged between so many who work for and with children, but who at present work in isolation and not in co-operation, then the barriers will be broken down and all those, including parents, may work together in a partnership of better understanding.
Lastly, what of the children themselves? Maybe we should remember that children mirror the adult world. Perhaps our country should dwell on this thought at the present time. It is hoped that deeply instilled into the lives of our children and young persons will be the concept that rights carry responsibilities; that the rights will be so given by the adult world and in such a way that children will of their own accord desire, need and seek to

699
fulfil the family commandment: "Honour thy father and mother"; and that by the enrichment of their lives they will find happiness and self-fulfilment and be able to give service to the land in which they live. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for providing us with the opportunity of discussing the International Year of the Child this afternoon and for introducing the subject to us in the way in which she has. I am quite sure that we all appreciate the very considerable amount of work which she is doing to further this venture in the United Kingdom. The number of noble Lords who have indicated their intention to speak demonstrates the wide interest in this subject, and, of course, we particularly look forward to hearing the three maiden speakers.
How appropriate it is that the International Year of the Child should coincide with the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration about the rights of the child; yet how ironical it is that, as we have been launching activity in connection with the International Year of the Child in this country, strikes have been affecting children's hospitals, preventing children from being admitted to hospital, closing children's schools and withdrawing the service required by children in care. This is not a debate on industrial relations, but surely we must seek better ways of settling disputes and dealing with grievances than by under-mining the very services which the International Year of the Child is designed to improve.
As the noble Baroness said, there are, of course, many people who are sceptical about international years of various kinds and who doubt whether they have any lasting impact, but I am quite clear in my own mind that those doubts need not apply to the International Year of the Child. The main objective of the year is to encourage a significant raising of the level of services benefiting children on a permanent basis—and I repeat those last four words, "on a permanent basis"—and the success or failure of the year will be determined by the extent to which that objective is attained.
700
What a wide field there is for activity directed to the attainment of that objective! We all know that the world challenge is enormous. For example, health services reach only one out of every 20 children in the developing world today, upwards of 2 million infants and children suffer from various forms of malnutrition, and so one could go on. In these circumstances, it was appropriate that UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, should have been made the lead agency for the co-ordination of activities throughout the world. UNICEF, the Save the Children Fund, Oxfam, Christian Aid—all these bodies have very special programmes to help Governments where these problems and others are acute, and during the next year they will deserve our fullest support.
But the emphasis is on the work in each country on a national basis, and here we shall be primarily concerned with our own children in the United Kingdom, though, as I say, we have to strike a balance between home and abroad. The problems overseas are immense, but we should be profoundly mistaken if we assumed that there was nothing much which needed to be done at home. The opposite is the case and the noble Baroness has given some facts in support of that statement. I ask your Lordships to take a few more facts at random. There are an estimated 1½ million children living in one-parent families in the United Kingdom; the number of children aged between five and 10 left unsupervised during the school holidays is estimated at 300,000; the number left unsupervised after school until their parents return is estimated at 225,000 and there are 120,000 children in care in the United Kingdom. Part of the provision of services for children is, of course, the national Government's responsibility, part is local government's responsibility and part is shouldered by voluntary organisations.
In other European countries, the Government has, in connection with the International Year of the Child, set up a national commission with full Government participation, with Government financial support and staffing support, in conjunction with voluntary organisations. In Poland, it is intended to build a huge children's hospital. In Sweden, they are appointing children's ombudsmen. In Germany, they are improving child care

701
and preventive medicine. I regret that the United Kingdom Government have not felt able to participate in that way. The matter has been left, with some welcome financial assistance from the Government, to the voluntary organisations on their own and, as the noble Baroness made clear, they are making a great effort through the linking body, the United Kingdom Association for the International Year of the Child. However, the Government must inevitably be involved if improvements in the services for children are to be achieved.
In another place on 5th December 1978, Mr. Moyle, answering for the Government, said in a Written Answer that the Government are considering what activities central Government Departments may be able to take during 1979. Perhaps December was a little late to be considering that, but the subjects he mentioned included,
"laying particular emphasis on such policy themes as reduction of perinatal mortality and handicap; finding foster parents and adopters for suitable children at present in residential homes; reducing numbers of long stay children in hospital; limited expansion of day provision for under-fives"
—and I ask your Lordships to note the word "limited"—
"co-ordination of services concerned with disturbed and delinquent children; promotion of safety of children in dangerous environments; preparation for parenthood ".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 623.]
The Government were considering those aspects, but I hope that they will make substantial progress under all those heads.
One of the projects promoted by the United Kingdom Association is this. A working group is collating information on where provision for children in Britain falls short of legislative promise, and where the rights of the child are not observed. I believe that this project could be of immense importance. It could lead to the drawing-up of an agenda, a programme of action to improve existing services, which might be incorporated in a five-year programme with a continuing campaign in support of it, in which all the organisations with an interest in the purposes of the campaign would be banded together. In that way, the Year of the Child would be merely a beginning.
When carrying out this monitoring of existing provision, I hope that the working
702
group will make good use of such reports as the Court Report on child health services and the Finer Report on one-parent families, much of which has not yet been implemented. Another report which I hope they will have before them is the report by the Central Policy Review Staff on services for children with working mothers. That report has pointed out that we spend £1,000 million a year on health, education and social services for children under five, but have still not worked out, in their words,
"any underlying principle governing the way in which that expenditure is distributed".
I have already given some figures about the matters covered by this report, but here are some more. There are 900,000 children under five in Britain whose mothers have a job. The Government provide or control full and part-time day care for about 120,000 children in day nurseries and with child minders. So that there is a big discrepancy there. There are a further 2½ million children between the ages of five and 10 whose mothers work, and for whom virtually no provision is made outside school hours. Mr. Moyle spoke of limited progress in nursery provision for children under five, but it needs more than a limited expansion of the present provision. Of course, during this year voluntary organisations connected with children and working for children will take advantage of the increased interest, not merely so that they have a good year in 1979 but to give a permanent boost to their operations.
Finally, it is right and proper that an important part of the International Year of the Child activity should be carried out by children themselves. In this respect there is the "Tidy Up Britain" campaign which is going to concentrate particularly on 7th May. How necessary this is, because we in this country are in danger of becoming a nation of litter louts. Then there is to be the Children's Arts Centre established in London, where exhibitions, performances and displays by children may be put on. There is to be the Children's Parliament where older children can discuss the question of the rights of the child and other matters. There are also to be various projects for schools.
We must hope, in the words of the leaflet issued by the United Nations, that

703
as a result of all this effort the major legacy of the International Year of the Child will be a permanently higher level of concern with children and an intensified and continuing attention to services benefiting them on the part of Governments and of the public alike.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Faithfull for introducing this debate. It is gratifying that the House of Lords can debate the International Year of the Child so early on, and no one is better qualified to introduce this subject than my noble friend. I should also like to pay a tribute to Lady Soames as chairman of the International Year of the Child and to wish her every success. May I also extend my good wishes to the three maiden speakers. We are very much looking forward to hearing from them this afternoon.
Although the International Year of the Child is concerned with children everywhere, and with their needs, I should like to use the opportunity presented by this debate to say what I think we in this country could do during the International Year of the Child. I do so not because I am unmindful of the needs of millions of children overseas; in many instances, their needs are far greater than those of children in the United Kingdom. If I do not refer to children overseas, it is not because I believe that there is nothing to say about them, or that nothing should be done for them. However, my noble friend Lord Elton will be speaking about children overseas, and I am certain that many other noble Lords will refer to them.
I should like to preface my remarks by two general statements. In political terms, there is always a real danger that children may be forgotten by Governments. For one thing, children do not have votes and, because they are dependent, somebody else must always speak for them. Secondly, any help in real terms for children depends at the moment upon getting our economic situation right, for unless we increase our productivity and become a much richer nation we shall not have the money to help children, either in this country or overseas. Those who
704
ask for more to be spent on children's services—and I should be one of them, for it is very easy to make out a case for a great deal more expenditure—must recognise that the money has to be earned by the productivity of industry. Compassion, sympathy and fine words by themselves are simply not enough. It is a disappointment that at the start of the International Year of the Child we cannot do more either for our own country's children or for children overseas because our productivity is as it is and because we are left, as is so often the case, to redistribute resources.
There is, nevertheless, one thing which we can do right away. In the present appalling economic situation in which we find ourselves, we can ensure that our country's children go back to school. It seems to me to be simply incredible that the start of the International Year of the Child should be marred by the fact that over 1,100 schools in England are now closed and that half a million children are out of school. I would say to members of the Government that they should always remember that in situations like this it is the poorest and the most disadvantaged children who suffer the most.
As we take part in our debate this afternoon, we ought to reflect on the situation at the moment in Haringey, where many young children must be out on their own somewhere, while many older children's educational opportunities are being seriously reduced, if not destroyed, because of the fact that, just before they take important examinations, they cannot go to school. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will say what his right honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Williams, will advise local education authorities to do: whether she will send them a circular indicating that schools could be opened by other people than caretakers and advising them to do so. She has declined to do this so far, but I think that the situation becomes more serious with every day that passes.
This Government have not usually been backward in giving advice to local authorities, either on education or on other topics, and I hope that they will take the opportunity now to say something on behalf of the nation's children.

705
I hope very much that the Government will not hide behind the sequence of legal arguments which I have read through in the proceedings of another place. When I was chairman of an education committee, I understood that local education authorities must provide 200 days of schooling for children, or 400 sessions in a year. I should like to know how the Government intend to see that this provision is carried out. We owe it to our children and we should do it right away.
Secondly, I think that we should see that sick children anywhere get the medical treatment that they need, and they ought to get that treatment when they need it. They ought not to be used as bargaining counters in industrial disputes. We should address all our energies to ensuring that this appalling behaviour by adults towards children stops forthwith.
I speak of sick children, and now I should like to make three positive suggestions to the Government about what they might do, besides these immediate needs for the International Year of the Child. I think that the Government could look again at the Court Report. Members will recall that the Court Report is concerned with medical services for children. The report was published in December 1976 and it was debated in your Lordships' House in February 1977. The Government responded to the report and to our debate by setting up the Children's Committee. Its purpose is to advise the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, by monitoring the provision of services for children covered by a whole range of Acts of Parliament.
This committee will publish an annual report, but there is no machinery requiring the Secretary of State regularly to bring the committee's report before both Houses of Parliament so that Members may know what is going on. I am not one who is in favour of either writing or reading unnecessary reports. Nevertheless, the fact that a report has to be presented does, as it were, concentrate the minds both of those who have to write the report and of those who have to read it. There is, for example, no report overall on the legislation affecting children. This affects the legislation under the Children Act 1969, as well as other Acts. It seems to me that
706
it would be valuable to know, in one volume, what is going on. I should like the Government to consider this proposal.
Were it to be implemented—and this is my second point—we could look again at what has happened to the Children Act 1975. This Act began in your Lordships' House four years ago, and Members of your Lordships' House will recall that it is very largely concerned with adoption. That Act is still by no means fully implemented. Ironically, at the time of the debates, we on this side of the House said that there was not enough money to implement the Act, and that has certainly proved to be the case. If, however, something is not done soon we are, it seems to me, about to achieve the worst of all possible worlds. Hopes have been raised, not just among social workers but particularly among prospective adoptive parents, that they may be able to adopt children, and these hopes are not being fulfilled. Not only are those concerned with adoption worried about the situation but it seems to me that it brings the whole parliamentary procedure into disrepute. Why legislate and then not implement? This is a wasteful and costly exercise and it is certainly not helping children.
Many people, including the Association of Directors of Social Services, have said that the most effective way to make the International Year of the Child work would be to implement this Act; that is, to have the development of adoption services in every local authority and to implement those provisions which the Act has laid down on custodianship. They estimate that these proposals would cost approximately £10 million a year and that this sum could be accommodated by the modest amount of growth now recommended by the Government for the personal and social services, together with the effect of the funds by way of joint financing and the urban programmes. I should be grateful if the Minister, when he replies to the debate, would comment on this and would say whether it is the Government's view that it would be possible, within the finances allowed, to implement this Act. If it is not thought possible then I would urge the Government most strongly to implement under the Schedule to the Act their powers to make rules and regulations about regular reviews for children in care.

707
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, gave us the statistics and I understand that the draft regulations are now being circulated and these include a proposal that such reviews will be made at a meeting of a number of people. The importance of this is that it is now possible for a social worker to write on the report of a child in care "Case reviewed", without it being reviewed by a number of people so that the child's future can be discussed by those with statutory authority for looking after it, in the same way as the good parent would review the future of his own child. This is important because the number of children in care—now estimated to be about 120,000—continues to increase, and is increasing each year at a more rapid pace. It is increasing with the numbers of one-parent families. Many of these children could either be fostered or adopted if only we had the will to make the necessary arrangements to do so. Not only is it far better for a child to be in a foster home, or even more so in an adoptive home; it is in fact far cheaper for the community.
The third proposal that I wish to put to the Government is to look again at that large number of children with mental handicaps who are now in long-stay hospitals. These are estimated to number between 4,500 and 5,000 children, and I have no doubt that many other noble Lords will refer to them in the course of this debate. We need a programme to take these children out of hospital. Many of the hospitals are Dickensian in their setting and it is no fault of the staff that the care the children get is nothing like as good as they would get in foster homes or in adoptive homes or in very small community homes. The cost of keeping each one of these children in a hospital is somewhere between £80 and £90 a week, and what is required is a transfer of this money from the hospital services to support the local authority services, to support the families who could look after these children. I believe that we need a programme for that.
I have touched on just four main points which I believe could be carried out during this year and which would make a start in our difficult circumstances. I took the point made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull in her opening
708
remarks, that in many ways it is a pity that this has not been called the International Year of the Family. For those of us who believe that our society is founded on the family, I was disturbed to see some of the literature put out by the International Year of the Child, parts of which would appear to be anti-family in its approach. I hope there will not be more of this to come. It is not often that all research points in the same direction, but all research shows—and indeed agrees with what common sense and practical experience tell us is true—that the child from a happy family with parents who care for it has a far better start in life than one from a deprived home. During this year I hope we shall not only think of the child in all that we do but, at the same time, try to support the family in order that the family may look after its children better.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness LOCKWOOD: My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to take part in the debate today on the Inter national Year of the Child, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for introducing this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am very conscious of the needs of children throughout the world, but I should like to concentrate this afternoon on three points regarding children closer to home. There are three areas which I think come within the ten points of the United Nations Declaration for Children and I think they are pertinent to it.
The first area to which I should like to refer is nationality. For most of us born of British parents in the United Kingdom, this presents no problem: it is an inheritance that both parents pass on to us. But for those children born of British mothers who choose—in so far as any of us are capable of choosing our parents—a father of a different nationality, then the problem is quite different. United Kingdom nationality is passed on to the child through the father. Wherever a child is born, a British father can confer British nationality on his child, but not so a British mother, and this can lead to the most distressing circumstances and situations for both mothers and children, as I have had cause to represent to the Home Secretary on several occasions.

709
I should like to give your Lordships two examples which recently have been drawn to my attention. The first concerns a British woman whose husband was an Israeli and whose daughter was born in Liberia in 1970. The mother understood that her child had no right to the citizenship of any of the three States involved. She herself could not pass on her own nationality, the child could not claim Liberian nationality, and under Hewbrew law it is customary for the nationality to be passed through the mother; but in this case of course the mother is not an Israeli citizen. The woman is living in Germany, and until 1975, when she renewed her passport, her child was included on it and was thus allowed to travel with her. Since then her husband has died and this British woman wishes to return home and settle here, but she cannot bring her child with her. I now understand that the child may be able to claim Israeli citizenship, but the mother, and presumably the authorities who were dealing with the case, regarded the child as stateless. In any case, it is a situation where a small child does not have the same nationality as her only parent.
The second case concerns again a British woman, now resident in South Africa. She is married to a South African national; therefore her children cannot be entered on her passport and cannot travel abroad with her. Nor, unfortunately, can they obtain South African travel documents in their own right. So here again we have this British citizen who is unable to bring her children to this country in order to visit their grandparents and other relatives. The right to visit grandparents is, surely, something which every child should possess. In both these cases I hope the Home Secretary will use his discretion to allow these children to enter this country with their mothers.
But this is not enough. Today, with communications and interchange between nations and individuals being so easy, leading to mixed marriages and mixed liaisons, all possible steps should be taken so that no child can find itself in such a situation. What is required, I believe, is a change in the law, as I understand is being discussed in another place, which would give the child the right to British nationality from either parent. During the International Year of the Child this is, surely,
710
an important matter for your Lordships to concern yourselves with. The reform this year of nationality law is, surely, an objective that your Lordships' House, as well as other places, could set itself. It would, I am confident, have wide-ranging and all-Party support.
The second area I would refer to concerns educating and training children for the society they live in. May I pause for a moment to look at present-day society? One sees that it is vastly different from the society in which those of us in this House spent our childhood. Then the norm was for a breadwinning father and a home-making mother, a clear division between the roles of each. Today, whether we like or or not, this is no longer the situation. A new economy and social pattern has evolved, based on technology, both in industry and in the home. Many women no longer feel the need or even the desire to devote the whole of their married life to work within the home. Moreover, in order to enjoy the accepted technology of fridges, freezers, washers and the like, two incomes are usually needed to pay for it. Thus we have a situation where at least half of all the wives in this country are in employment outside the home.
This has important implications for children. For example, how can we best educate and train children for society as it is now, not as it was in the past? The strange irony of our present situation is that despite the increasing pace of change over the past three decades or so, boys and girls, but particularly girls, have expectations based on the past. They still think in terms of employment as only a brief interlude between school and marriage. When faced with family responsibilities they realise that marriage is not the happy solution to all problems but only a part of a complex life. The desire for some independence outside the home, together with the economic drive for a second income, emerges, and at this later stage the majority of women find that this means employment in low-paid and unskilled work.
In saying this I am not underestimating the family's place in society, nor the importance of children within the family—indeed, I believe that the family unit is a sufficiently strong institution to withstand these pressures—but I do suggest that by failing to prepare children for this

711
new pattern we are adding to the strains on marriage. We are also failing to conform to the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child by not adequately preparing children for the world in which they will assume adult responsibility.
I was very glad to hear in the debate that there are discussions and considerations under way on how to equip children for their role in the family. But girls need to be educated and equipped for work outside the home as well as for the role of home-maker. In our society home-making can be the joy of shared responsibility, or, sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, indicated, to an increasing extent it can be the lonely responsibility of a single parent. But that responsibility falls to either sex.
The third area I wish to refer to follows from this, and it is that in this International Year of the Child we can surely agree, again as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has indicated, that greater priority should be given to the needs of children of working parents. When both parents are sharing the bread-winning function, there is an enormous gap in the day when neither parent can be present to care for the child. Most parents manage somehow to fill this gap, but often it is on a makeshift basis. For the under-fives nursery and nursery school provision is woefully inadequate. For the older child we have not yet begun to consider what facilities are needed for that mischievous period of the day between school finishing and mum and dad arriving home from work, nor for caring during school holidays.
Therefore, my Lords, I would suggest that each of these three areas to which I have referred is a matter in which we in your Lordships' House could use our considerable influence by discussing and endeavouring to promote yet further the interests and wellbeing of the children of our country.
3.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY: My Lords, it falls to my happy lot to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lock-wood, for her maiden speech, for coming down from the wilds of Yorkshire where she has had a distinguished career in
712
organising one of the sexes, which is not perhaps the easiest thing to do, and to say to her that she will always be welcome as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. There are always equal opportunities in this House, and certainly to make records, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has done this afternoon. However many difficulties Lady Lockwood experiences in the cricketing world in Yorkshire, there will never be a boycott either on her presence or on her speeches.
My Lords, first of all I want to declare an interest. I myself was once a child. Your Lordships must also declare the same interest. While any child sitting in the Gallery looking down upon us as we debate this subject might find it easy to remember that fact when applied to the noble and gracious Baroness who introduced this Motion, and introduced it so swiftly, it might be more difficult when gazing down on the snow-headed penguins on these Benches or, dare I say, even upon some of the more highly polished brains of your Lordships. I know that, had his other official duties not prevented it, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would have been speaking here today on a subject which is of intimate concern to us all.
I wonder if your Lordships would agree that in these days it seems inevitable that the moment we start talking about marriage the conversation drifts to divorce, and, similarly, the moment we begin to talk about children the conversation seems to drift on to delinquent children or children in care. While I should be the last to be starry-eyed, I am glad to know that in some educational circles in this country the International Year of the Child has been interpreted as a celebration of childhood. Dare I say that I think some adults are tempted to spend a great deal of time telling children or other people what is good for them, rather than listening to children and learning from them of their needs.
Although your Lordships may say that it is very difficult not to listen to children—for the little flowers of St. Vitus are not silent blooms—nevertheless I believe that any of your Lordships privileged to have children or grandchildren will agree that, if we are seriously listening to our

713
children, then our sense of awe is heightened, and their ability to go to the heart of matters is constantly recognised. Moreover, they are great prickers of the bubble of pomposity. Shortly after the War I was showing some photographs to my small son of my distinguished naval exploits. "Dad", he asked wistfully, "were you torpedoed?" "No", I replied. "Were you nearly torpedoed?" he persisted. "No, I don't think so", I answered. "Oh, but you did try, didn't you?"
Theologically, too, they have much to teach us on these Benches and possibly your Lordships as well. The hearse was going by in the street and the seven-year-old turned to her mother and said, "What's in that box with flowers on it?" "Oh", said her mother, "that's Mrs. Robinson at No. 17". "What's she doing in there?" Mother—trying to cook a meal and look after other children—said, "Oh, she has gone to be with God". That night the little one, for the first time ever, refused to say her prayers. When closely questioned about her refusal she explained, "You see, God won't listen". "Oh, but darling", said mother sententiously, "God always listens". "He won't tonight. You see, He'll be too busy unpacking Mrs. Robinson".
The very title "International Year of the Child" promotes the temptation to outline schemes and make suggestions with wide-ranging consequences. But if the year is to have any long-term effect, as two of the speakers have said, it must begin at the local level, it must begin near home. We hear a great deal about bringing up children.
My wife, who is a doctor—we are known as "body and soul" in the diocese—often gives a talk about bringing up parents. Surely we hear far too little about that. So, I hope that one of the first areas we examine, wherever we happen to live or work, is what preparation is given for parenthood. Your Lordships may rightly say to me, "Well, you parsons prepare people for marriage; what are you doing about it?" And your Lord-ships would be quite right. Indeed, I am happy to tell you that many of us bishops are encouraging our clergy to look again at their marriage preparation—a golden opportunity for getting to know future parents at a very intimate
714
level. We are making use of the special insights of many dedicated and skilled women, together with other married couples, to help us in this. The object of all this is that the parential life-style after marriage may come to be chosen more deliberately and more responsibly in the full realisation of its demands, constraints, satisfaction and challenges. Presenting a much enhanced image of home-making and child-rearing should be part of that realisation. Otherwise, I suggest that the dangerous trend towards making children pawns in the quest for economic prosperity and the battle for women's liberation will continue.
I believe that we parents who have some experience must encourage prospective parents into thinking that the woman who wishes to devote herself full-time to the care of her pre-school children should not necessarily have to seek employment outside the home for economic reasons or personal fulfilment. Indeed, the last speaker touched on that point. However, when the children do eventually go to school, the facilities must be provided for others who wish to go out to work and find suitable employment to have flexible working hours to fit in with the relatively short school day and long holidays.
I now turn to the subject of children in care, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell me whether my latest figure is too optimistic and the figure of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is right. My latest figure is that there are 101,000 in local authority care in England and Wales. The noble Baroness quoted 120,000 as did the noble Lord. I only hope that my latest information is more correct. Nearly 33,000 are in local residential homes. Some children are placed in the care of voluntary organisations like the Church of England Children's Society, which estimates that it helps approximately 4,500 children and their families each year, of whom an average of 670 are in residential homes.
An increasing number of families are being assisted, I am glad to say, through the Society's new family centres. Four of those will be opened to mark "International Children's Year". Those family centres give rounded and varied provision for children in special need and all those who may be at risk of being taken compulsorily into residential care. But, as

715
we all know, a child in need invariably represents a family in need. Therefore, a family centre is so named as the promoters seek to support families in areas of social stress and difficulty in order that they may more securely and effectively care for their own children. The centres are in places like Milton Keynes, Rotherham and Telford, and invite every type of support from local people who share their concern for the children of the families served and thus co-operate with the staff at the centre. Here is an obvious outlet for local voluntary effort.
Someone has touched this afternoon on one-parent families. It is estimated that between 50 and 60 per cent. of children in care are from one-parent families. The report of the committee on one-parent families, the Finer Report—which has already been alluded to—confirmed in 1974 that one-parent families suffer severe poverty, are often the last in the queue for housing, suffer social isolation, and risk their children falling behind at school and growing up socially maladjusted. Of a total of 95,000 families receiving an income supplement, 41,000 are lone parents. The guaranteed maintenance allowance in particular, which has not yet been implemented, would help to alleviate the problem of many lone parents, especially mothers.
Another question is that of children still being discriminated against in this country if they are illegitimate. Would it not be a major triumph if, during the International Year of the Child, James White's Private Member's Children's Bill, designed to ensure that the law applicable only to illegitimate children will become applicable to all children without distinction, should reach the Statute Book?
Reference has been made to the Court Report both by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Baroness particularly stressed the need for a definite time and a definite body charged with producing a report. Your Lordships may remember that the Court Report, referring to such a report, said:
"It should be laid before Parliament every three years…Such a report would necessarily review progress in implementing the recommendations of Committees…and preparation [would] impose on the three Departments a more concerted view of their combined responsibilities.
716
Its data would depend on close monitoring of services at local level and could incorporate material on the follow-up of recommendations from HMIs, the Health Advisory Service and so forth".
How appropriate if such a report could be laid before Parliament in the International Year of the Child.
The noble Baroness who introduced the Motion reminded your Lordships of what the United Nations had to say about the Declaration of The Rights of the Child. She spoke of the complementary need for a realisation of the duties of a child. I suggest for your Lordships' consideration that, excellent as all these rights are, far more important is the right of a child to have a faith by which to live. I am glad to tell your Lordships, and I was glad to hear reference to it, that, initiated by the Church of England Children's Society to mark the International Year of the Child, a series of seminars has been arranged by an inter-faith group—not just one denomination—concerned with the United Nations declaration, with particular reference to spiritual freedom.
I dare to suggest that spiritual freedom for children is being steadily eroded by the stranglehold of materialism, and particularly its encroachment on spiritual "space' essential for the growth of wonder and reverence in a child's soul. I believe your Lordships will agree that many of our children and young people are crying out for such a faith. It seems to me that a heavy responsibility rests upon those of us of all denominations who call ourselves Christians. The fact that our society has lost its way is our responsibility because we have failed to set a standard before our children which they recognise as something worthy of attainment. In this International Year of the Child we are called to assert the integrity and dignity of children; to do all in our power to provide the possibilities for children to live in trust, in a communion of open fulfilling relationships and in trustworthiness; in creative use and development of their potentialities for the good of us all. I think it was a Lebanese poet who said:
"Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself".
This International Year of the Child encourages us to look at what sort of quality that life shall be.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for me to intervene at this stage, in case the right reverend Prelate is not present at the end, to say that the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, of 120,000 is correct. The noble Lord referred to the United Kingdom. The figure for England and Wales is 101,000.
4.12 p.m.
Lord VAUX of HARROWDEN: My Lords, I am deeply aware of the honour which I share in being a Member of your Lordships' House. I rise this afternoon with great humility and much trepidation to make my maiden speech. I am afraid that I have never been a speaker. I have spent the last 40-odd years of my life in the wines and spirits trade, which has not called for much public speaking. In fact, the last time I rose to my feet was to address the Society of Hong Kong Barmen on the superior merits of a certain brand of gin, which, of course, this afternoon shall be nameless. On that occasion my audience felt no pain at all as they had all been regaled with copious samples of the famous brand. I am sorry that your Lordships will not be quite so lucky this afternoon.
Like other speakers, I should like to congratulate and greatly to thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull on introducing this debate on the International Year of the Child. This is a subject which goes far beyond Party politics and in my estimation is one of the most important subjects ever to be discussed in your Lordships' House. At this stage I must declare a small personal interest in that I have been lucky enough to be blessed with 12 grandchildren.
We must always keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that the children of today are the citizens and the leaders of tomorrow. It is vitally important that they are given the opportunity to become good citizens. They must be brought up with a very clear idea and knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. This must be taught them at a very early age by good example from their parents. During their early childhood in the family circle parental influence, love and understanding and kindly but
718
firm discipline are essential. To a large extent the learning of what is right and wrong will also be helped by religion, no matter which. Perhaps it is not for me to hold forth on religion in front of the right reverend Prelates but I often used to listen to my elder brother—God rest his soul—who was a Benedictine monk and who, before me, had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for close on 20 years. He always stressed the importance of religion for the young as well as for adults. His theme was always: If you are a Catholic, you must be a good Catholic; if you are an Anglican, you must be a good Anglican; if you are a Methodist, you must be a good Methodist, and so on. Good parents who bring up their children with a good moral and religious grounding will certainly help them to become good citizens; and, God knows, we need good citizens.
We hear and read in the Press much about the shocking deeds of juvenile vandals and the continuous rise in juvenile crime. This vandalism and juvenile crime must cost the country many millions of pounds in repairs to property, in extra work for the police, the courts and the corrective institutions. I am not such an idealist as to think that we can stamp out vandalism and juvenile crime altogether, but there is much that can and must be done to curtail it. Much vandalism and juvenile crime stems from the fact that millions of children suffer from extreme boredom and frustration only because they do not know and are not taught what to do with their leisure time. It was Lloyd George who, 50 years ago, in a message to the National Playing Fields Association on its foundation, wrote:
"The right to play is a child's first claim on the community. Play is nature's training for life. No community can infringe that right without doing deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens".
In this International Year of the Child I hope that more positive efforts will be made by Her Majesty's Government and the general public to understand some of the problems and frustrations with which children are faced in their free time; to understand their play and recreational needs and to take urgent action to provide for at least some of them. The harsh fact is that children must depend on adults for their play and recreational

719
needs. By themselves children are unable to provide either the finance or the pressures which adults can and do apply for their own needs.
I should like to give just one example of how we seem to be unable or unwilling to take these children's needs seriously—needs which are utterly basic to their healthy growth and development. In 1973 the House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure recognised the special needs of children and urged support for the campaign of the National Playing Fields Association for adventure playgrounds. Yet in the Government White Paper, published in 1975, which expressed itself as concerned with the same area as that on which your Lordships' Select Committee concentrated its attention, no mention at all was made of children's needs—not a word.
No one suggests that the Government do nothing about children's needs for recreation. What I suggest is that not enough is being done, either centrally or locally. This glaring omission of children's needs from the Government's White Paper is enough proof of the lack of priority or the lack of importance which the Government attach to these needs. These needs concern many Government Departments, particularly when one accepts the crucial importance of some form of involvement or leadership in the children's play schemes. Perhaps that is only one reason why not nearly enough is being done: there is a readymade excuse for passing the buck.
Would it not be a good and worthwhile idea to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they appoint a Minister specifically to look after and to co-ordinate children's needs? I feel sure that with the right man in this new Ministry, the nation would reap great benefits. Given better facilities for play and recreation, there would be far less boredom and frustration, with the result that vandalism and crime would not enter the minds of very many children. Vast sums would thus be saved from the many millions of pounds to which I referred earlier. Could not some of this saving be allocated to the many worthwhile and magnificent existing organisations—such as the National Playing Fields Association, the cadets and youth clubs—which are always so desperately short of money?
720
Surely in this particular year there is a supreme opportunity to make a fresh study of children's problems—a fresh study swiftly followed by action. Until we get real and positive action there will be an ever-growing number of lonely, bored, frustrated and bewildered children, and society itself will continue to pay an ever-increasing cost for this neglect. It will cost us a lot if we do something, but it will cost us a great deal more if we do nothing. My noble friend has already read out the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. I just want to stress the importance of these, and to say that if we remember these, and that if we always go out of our way to see that they are adhered to, the world of today, and indeed of tomorrow, will be a far better and a progressively happier place.
4.21 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, this is not the first time that I have had the privilege of voicing on behalf of your Lordships our congratulations on a maiden speech. In fact, it was quite clear from your Lordships' reception of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, how greatly you were impressed by, and approved of, what he had to say. The noble Lord started by saying that he spoke with great trepidation. I detected no sense of that. He spoke with confidence, he was clear, he was concise and to the point. He was manifestly sincere, and he also—and this is to me almost the most important addendum to any list of assets to a speech—spoke with a sense of humour. We all hope that the noble Lord will be heard often in your Lordships' House.
I should like to join my voice with everyone else's in thanking the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to debate this most important subject, and to thank her for setting us an example in her brevity, which all your Lordships have followed to date, and I hope to be no exception. It is all the more important because we are discussing a subject today which embraces children and young people, from the cradle to the age of 18—a vast subject with enormous parameters. I have taken to heart the admonitions on the virtue of making shorter speeches in Lord Somers' debate a week ago, and decided that I shall take precisely

721
one theme. I am happy to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in taking as my subject what the right reverend Prelate referred to as perhaps something of an obsession when talking and thinking about young people, but I make no apology for that. My choice of subject is juvenile delinquency in Britain. It is a complex subject with imprecise grey areas, and I shall restrict myself to certain practical measures to deal with juvenile delinquency and crime which are in use already and which could, and I believe should, be further developed—I am convinced that this is in the spirit of this International Year of the Child—rather than taking your Lordships' time in deploring the manifest defects in our adult generations and deplorable urban conditions in which many young people have to live. That is the background against which there is a great deal of juvenile delinquency and crime, but we should be concerned, and your Lordships to date have been concerned, with what can be done, or begun, this year.
Talking about concern, in the message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the UN Assembly and the Executive Director of UNICEF, I noted these words:
"The International Year of the Child should be a year of care, concern and celebration".
The right reverend Prelate referred to that word "celebration". My own reaction to it is that there is at present precious little to celebrate, but I take it that the word implies a call for action so that there may be cause to celebrate achievement before this year is out.
As regards that word "concern", no one needs persuading that juvenile delinquency in Britain is a matter of grave and growing anxiety for the adult generations; but if we also care enough about the young generation, and in particular about children in trouble, it presents a challenge to us too. As regards its gravity, sometimes words mean more than statistics and some words from the Chief Constable of Merseyside in his 1977 report brought it home to me more than any statistics have done for me. He wrote:
"Some children in Liverpool between the ages of 8 and 12 arc not merely delinquent, they are skilful and daring criminals".
But statistics of course supply the dimensions of this alarming state of affairs. In
722
his last report as Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Sir Robert Mark stated that 56 per cent. of reported crimes in London were committed by juveniles between the ages of 10 and 16. The national figure, I understand, is 30 per cent. With figures of this order of magnitude the problem begins to assume grave proportions indeed.
What should be the strategy for dealing with it? There are two obvious headings. The first, measures to pre-empt, or prevent, juvenile delinquency by engaging the energies and interests of young people at risk (and here I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux) in programmes which should be constructive in character, and whenever possible involve them in lawful activities in their own neighbourhoods; activities which are meaningful to those neighbourhoods. Secondly, with exceptions, to treat or deal with young offenders where they live, where they go to school, and where they are looking for jobs.
Both those lines of action are equally important; neither excludes the other. Indeed, provision for children at risk, and for those already in trouble, can often be the same, and should be guided by similar principles. Both call for concerted action—here I follow so willingly and closely the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—in central Government, in towns, and in particular in local neighbourhoods on the part of everyone, and every organisation, which is in a position to make some contribution to this problem, however small.
Some organisations have a statutory duty to do so but they do not, in many areas, as the noble Baroness has indicated, act in close enough collaboration. In fact, she described them as acting in isolation, the one from the other. To work together and to enlist more voluntary support which can be harnessed to the statutory effort is the dual challenge to the police, to the Probation Service, the social services, the education services, in this International Year of the Child. Others—indeed, I would say all others—have a moral responsibility to offer, or respond to requests for, help as volunteers. I would include in that employers' organisations and trades councils; and magistrates too need to play their part by keeping themselves informed from personal contact and first-hand knowledge about the projects

723
and programmes which may provide alternative forms of treatment appropriate to be used in the courts of law.
Most important of all, the challenge in this International Year of the Child should be borne upon members of the public as local residents. No matter what they do, what their occupations are, they all—we all—have a stake in this matter. Indeed, as I discovered in a recent tour in the West Country, some are already the victims of vandalism, of violence, and of breaking and entering. Not least among the value of dealing with young offenders in their own community is the opportunity that may provide for them to make amends, directly or indirectly, for the harm they have done locally. And among the residents, whether or not they have suffered, and indignant though they may feel, caring can and should mean that they could share with young people, whether they are at risk or already in trouble, their own leisure interests and skills, and thus create a link between the adult and the juvenile, a mutual acceptance by one of the other.
I will refer to only three of the initiatives and methods already in use which are showing promise of good results and about which I am personally knowledgeable. First, I recommend to anyone who is not already aware of it to make themselves acquainted at first hand with the initiatives in communal preventive policing in Devon and Cornwall. The chief constable for those two counties has succeeded in creating a quite remark-able degree of co-operation between his police force, other statutory services, local government departments, local councillors and residents in high delinquency housing estates. One result is that in Exeter, offences by juveniles were held down to 4 per cent. in 1977 compared with the national average of 30 per cent.
Secondly, community service orders, though now extensively used throughout the country, are still used on a limited scale. Their value has been amply demonstrated by the successful completion rate of those orders of over 80 per cent., but they are not used anything like enough. I believe that through community service orders we have got closer than ever before to making the punishment not only fit the crime but also fit the offender. I hear
724
the same enthusiastic story at all probation areas I visit. For many of the young people—and we must remember that most of these orders are served on youngsters between 17 and 20—they are beginning for the first time in their lives to discover and care about the problems of other people.
In that discovery lies the germ of a real solution to society's problems; a change in attitudes and values which may remain with some of these young members of the present generation of what I would describe as parentally deprived young people, who have been likened by others to orphans, when they in their turn have children of their own, and in this I am glad to be speaking following the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in stressing the importance of parenthood. It is greatly to be hoped that the courts will see it as their opportunity in this International Year of the Child to step up the use of community service orders.
My third point concerns intermediate treatment in the community. Among many examples which could be given, I commend this Government's initiative in entrusting to the Rainer Foundation the task of administering public funds for approved projects up to a total of £200,000 in any one year. This scheme is developing well and the foundation has taken up the whole amount of £200,000 in the current financial year. The challenge to Rainer in this year is so to stimulate applications for funds for well-founded projects and resources as to be in a position to demonstrate that £200,000 a year is not enough. The challenge to the Government is to respond to the request for more.
All these lines of action involve to a greater or lesser degree the Probation and After-Care Service. That service has, I believe, been given a misleading image in recent years and, in regard to its planned and published intention to mount a salaries campaign, a misleading image in recent weeks. Except in terms of comparability, I do not think it proper for me to speak for the service on this matter. However, I am glad to take this opportunity to praise the highly professional skills, dedication and social concern of its members in carrying out their diverse, difficult and very responsible tasks. I

725
believe we could be in danger of losing valuable officers by underrating and under remunerating the considerable contribution the Probation Service makes to the nation among young people.
I have referred to only three lines of action. There are of course, more and, I would say, the more the better because flexibility in the options open to the courts, the probation and social services is all-important. My plea—and here I am summarising what I have said already—is for closer collaboration between the statutory services with voluntary organisations, and more use of volunteers in a dynamic programme to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and crime now. To the extent that this plea is acted on, I believe there could be something to celebrate in many of our cities, as there is already in Exeter, before this year is out.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is advocating that community service orders should be made for juveniles under 17 in the juvenile courts? As he will be aware, at present they are made only for people over 17.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not begin a lengthy discourse on that subject. I think the answer could be, yes, although one wants to be careful not to bring the age range too far down, to an age at which it would not really be possible to do an effective and meaningful job in the community.
4.37 p.m.
Lord DE FREYNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Baroness Faithfull for enabling me to take part in this debate. I feel that the International Year of the Child should not pass without drawing your Lordships' attention to the increasing need for full recognition of the dyslexic child in this country. Dyslexia, as we know it today, is not a new condition; in 1895 and 1896 a Glasgow eye surgeon named James Hinselwood wrote to the Lancet on the topic of "visual memory and word blindness." The work and research continues today, with such well-known names as Dr. Macdonald Critchley, Prof. Vernon, Mr. T. R. Miles and Mrs. Nardo, Director of the Word Blind Centre for Dyslexic Children, to name but a few.
726
The dyslexic child is one who has been assessed by a trained psychologist and diagnosed as such. The child is handicapped in spelling, writing and reading, and there are of course degrees of severity of the handicap. Those who live in London are fortunate when we seek help for our children, in that three of our famous teaching hospitals offer help; Guy's, St. Thomas's and St. Bartholomew's. I wonder how many of your Lordships know that St. Bartholomew's provides the only clinic in England run entirely under the National Health Service. The dyslexic unit was started over 30 years ago and has developed since. As a teaching hospital, Bart's (as I shall call it) accepts students to train as dyslexic therapists, and this year it had its highest intake ever—40. Today, the hospital assesses 240 children a year. The list is full for this year, and a mounting list awaits 19S0. This means that the minimum waiting period from when a child is referred by its doctor to the hospital for assessment is bound to be at least one year. After assessment, if a child is found to be dyslexic, treatment will be offered without delay.
On the staff at Bart's are 10 full-time therapists, and there are 14 fully qualified therapists who give their time completely voluntarily, thus helping to make this service possible. One hundred and fifty patients are seen a week on a one-to-one basis, the time allowed under the National Health Service being 40minutes per session. A successful treatment is obtained in two years, bringing the child the standard of spelling, reading, and writing which accords with his or her age.
So that your Lordships may appreciate the efforts and the concern of parents to find suitable treatment for their children, I would refer to three cases at present receiving treatment at Bart's clinic: one from Birmingham, one from Coventry and one from Norfolk. Cases flood in from the home counties and the southern counties, often entirely at the expense of the parents, as grants for travel are not always given by the educational authorities. This must lead us to the conclusion that there is an overwhelming need for full recognition of the dyslexic child and its needs, as well as an urgent need for State-aided units, and the setting-up of more clinics spaced throughout England.

727
With regard to the increase in training for qualified therapists, I should say that the facilities are still grossly inadequate, and that provision should be made in our teacher-training colleges at the start of a teacher's career; otherwise, we shall surely slip into the grave pitfall of thinking that the treatment of a dyslexic child lies in the remedial class in our schools, whereas the proved successful treatment favours a one-to-one basis with skilled help. Can we not, my Lords, give especial support to this pressing need in this year, and give every dyslexic child an equal opportunity here at home?
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I count it a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord De Freyne, and on behalf of us all to thank him for the very moving, detailed, and particularly important information that he has brought before us concerning dyslexia. Dyslexia was little known to many of us a mere 10 years ago, whereas now it is clearly becoming most important among a small group of children that they be released into the fullness of life which they cannot have until dyslexia is both recognised and then carefully and faithfully treated. I know that we all look forward to hearing more from the noble Lord, Lord De Freyne, as well as from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden; and it was encouragement to all of us to be told that whatever our denominations, we have to be good ones anyway. I felt that this was helpful to me, and I am sure that I speak also on behalf of my brother Bishop. It was also a privilege to hear at least part of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I apologise for not being present to hear it all.
I must also apologise to your Lordships' House for being late on parade: I shall afterwards be receiving suitable strictures from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I can only say that we had a lunch at our house in Norwich for 30 leaders in our diocese who are concerned with the question of marriage and the child, and, because we bishops are rather better at preaching than practising, I felt that I could not cut that lunch to which we had invited 30 people, saying simply that I was going to make a speech about the matter, rather than do something
728
about it. So I attended most of the session, hurried my lunch, and I am here. I apologise through your Lordships to Lady Faithfull.
A hymn we sing is entitled "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones", and so it is a particular encouragement to us to see that there are some children present in the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery now, at the beginning of the International Year of the Child. We are all strengthened and encouraged by the fact that there are children listening to us. I hope that those two minutes will be counted to me for righteousness by the Short Speech Society and that they will not count in relation to the speech I am now about to make.
We must recognise the fact that, because we have only a year for IYC, we must have our metaphorical skates on from these earliest days if we are to see a lot done. Judging from the literature which all of us have received and have been studying, it seems that one can look forward to the possibility of various forms of legislation being introduced by the end of the year. Here I wish to refer to Command Paper 6494, the Observations on the Eleventh Report from the Expenditure Committee, relating to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which was presented to us in 1976. The paper contained a reference to the building of remand centres, and stated (in 1976) that it was hoped to have remand centres opened in Rochester and Norwich within the next 12 months. I do not know about Rochester, but the remand centre in Norwich is open, and it is a fine establishment. I wish to make one point about it. It is the custom of many right reverend Prelates in this House to go to prison on Christmas Day. If we are lucky, we get out again. I was there as usual on Christmas day. I had my robe case with me, and when they saw me with the case in my hand, they said, "Welcome, Bishop, clearly you have come to stay." The Governor asked, "Bishop, can you spare time again to come across with the Chaplain to the remand centre for the short service there?" I did; there were 60 boys on remand. I talked to them, and on asking their ages I discovered that there were three aged 15, spending Christmas Day on remand in the remand centre. The Governor said to me, "You

729
see, some of them come from rejected homes; others have been in care all their lives and they have nowhere else to go, even if an order was so made." I thought: here is a simple, clear-cut issue—in the week of Christmas it ought to be possible for secure foster families to offer to take in for a week over Christmas 15 year-old boys who are on remand. Such a practical development may well arise from our concentration on children in this particular year.
I find a tremendous unity of purpose in government, social societies, and voluntary church societies. All of us who have anything to do with voluntary organisations were heartened by the greeting which we received at the beginning of the year from Her Majesty, when she wrote to IYC:
"I am glad that the voluntary organisations are taking the lead in celebrating the International Year in our country. They have great achievements to their credit—and we look to them for fresh inspirations".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury has spoken fully about the Church of England Children's Society. I am pleased simply to support him in this, and to say how humbly proud we are in the Church of England that we have a society of this size and of this ability which is really entering deeply and fully into the needs of children. We have heard of the family centres which are about to be opened. This society not only helps to keep us informed about the work among children but also helps in the actual task of caring for them.
Secondly, I should like to mention a society which is deeply involved in the care of the child, and that is the Mothers' Union, which usually receives a not very good Press even though it does absolutely first-rate work throughout the dioceses of the country. They are planning a great central service, I gather, in Westminster Abbey; but I have been impressed by the local initiatives through the Mothers' Union. They are having competitions for banners, the best one to go up to the Abbey; in our diocese, they are encouraging people to give one sensible, properly written, relevant and cheerful Christian book to each child in the area; and they are seeking to work on a rather delightful series of Family Days of Faith and Fun.
730
I say this because I think it is important for us to remember that the International Year of the Child is not going to be a gloomy year or a legislative year or a "tell them to shut up" year, but is going to be a joyful and cheerful year, when children actually get a chance of being heard themselves. Certainly, if any of your Lord-ships would like to come to the 14 Family Days of Faith and Fun among the fields, the Broads and the beaches of Norfolk—and the sun shines, as always, on Norfolk; it was shining a little time ago, anyway—we would welcome it. The Mothers' Union and many other Christian organisations are entering fully into the work of this International Year of the Child. TEAR Fund are seeking to raise interest in local churches in order to raise money, workers and services for children in the deprived parts of the Third World, so this is not just in our country. It is, of course, the International Year of the Child, and I am glad to say that voluntary organisations in the Church are reaching out to them.
I want to make one particular, concerted comment, if your Lordships will allow me so to do, on a particularly important book—more important than its thickness suggests, I think; it is quite a slim volume. It is called The Spiritual Rights of the Child, and it has been written by John Bradford and produced, again, by the Church of England Children's Society to alert us to the fact that Principle 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child—20 years old this very year—made this point:
"The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner…".
I would commend this book, The Spiritual Rights of the Child, as well as the interfaith meetings which are taking place quite soon in this area, for most of the major religions are concerned with this, because it touches upon an issue which we could easily miss, with all the other areas of caring for the child. It touches on the spiritual development of the child.
In fact, it is a very fair document, because it reminds us that, not only have we a responsibility for the spiritual care of the child but we have to be careful not to coerce that child into ways which would appear to make it religious rather

731
than to help it become religious in its own desire to respond to the good, to the right, and I, as a Christian, feel, to Christ himself within the Christian faith.
"It is necessary",
says this brief report,
"for a child or young person to have a first-hand experience of the mainstream spiritual tradition of his or her culture, for him or her to be able…to 'read off' emerging spiritual trends…".
It takes up Article 18 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion",
not only privately but
"to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance".
It is with some sense of responsibility that now, at the end of this speech, I make specific reference to Spiritual Right No. 5 in this booklet:
"A child or young person, especially in his or her early life, has the right to such protection from spiritual damage and handicap as is reasonable and appropriate".
When I say that I seek to act responsibly here, I recognise that we in this House are privileged by ancient custom, but it seems to me that we are coming to the point where we need not only to think but to speak fairly openly about the Unification Church, or the Moon Church, as it is called, because of the problems that many young people in many parts of our country are now facing in a coercion (to use the word of this booklet) which appears to be coming to them. I quote from Time in June 1976, when the founder of this particular Unification Church, which has 30 different names now used in this country and throughout the world, said:
"God is now throwing Christianity away and is now establishing a new religion and this new religion is Unification Church. All Christians in the world are destined to be absorbed by our movement".
This seems to be an heretical movement; but, secondly, it seems to be a dominating one. The author writes:
"I am a thinker. I am your brain. When you join the effort with me you can do everything in utter obedience to me …".
I am glad that FAIR—Family Action, Information and Rescue—on an absolute shoestring of a voluntary budget, is seeking to care for a number of young
732
people who have become enmeshed and controlled in that particular movement. So it is to me an encouragement to see in this very useful book, which no doubt will be used in study in these coming months in the inter-Church and inter-faith study, that the danger of children being hurt spiritually is clearly set out; that they may not have a spiritual handicap. My Lords, with those comments I would hope that this may be a year which we shall never forget and which will be for the good, physically, mentally and spiritually, of all the children of Great Britain and of the world.
4.58 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, I thought I was going to make my maiden speech on this occasion, but according to the Whips' Office I made my maiden speech in Committee. Your Lordships will therefore excuse me if I do not conform to everything that is laid down, and so on; but please take this as my maiden speech in this House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising this matter, because it is a subject that I have worked on all my public life. I have been chairman of a education committee for 22 years, and have just presented a report (which will come before your Lordships within, I think, the next few months; I hope so) on an educational Bill, on managers and governors of schools, and so on. So this debate gives me an opportunity to say one or two things that I want to say about this.
I think the noble Baroness has done a first-class job in asking for Papers in the way that she has, and is to be congratulated on the way that the debate has gone forward this afternoon. But I get extremely worried. I get worried in this sense. Do we look carefully at the child who is not eligible to go to school—that is, the child under three, or from three to five where local authorities now do not take them? Then I get worried about what Parliament has done in the past in encouraging young people to stay on at school when they do not want to stay on at school or when they would be better off playing their part as apprentices in industry and so on. These are points that worry me greatly and I am sure they worry quite a number of people.

733
I was hoping that this debate would not be a political one, but the noble Baroness, Lady Young, brought in the political side and I am sorry that she did so. I was hoping that we should be able really to cross the Floor on this subject and bring in points that we all felt, that we had all experienced, on one side or another, points that would help us a great deal in trying to influence local authorities and Governments of whatever Party.
First, I think that we should look very carefully at what we are doing in this country at the moment, because even though it is the International Year of the Child, it is important that we look at our own children first. I get very worried about our own children, our own children who are not being allowed to go into school at an early enough age. Secondly, I get worried about the way in which teachers are not bringing forward subjects in the school that will help our own children in their after school life in industry and commerce. Thirdly, I get worried also about what is happening to our children when they leave school: about whether they are taking up the right sort of career, whether they are being advised in the right way, whether we are taking on careers masters and mistresses in schools who are just doing that job as a secondary occupation rather than after a first-class training, and so on. I should like these matters to be considered by the Government at the moment and I should like them to be considered as further points as we continue with the debate.
5.5 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, it is as a doctor that I have been invited to speak today on the care of children under five. I, too, must declare a special interest in this subject although I cannot claim to have as many grandchildren as my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrow-den told us of in his excellent maiden speech; but my wife and I so far have five grandchildren under four, and at this rate we hope that we shall soon catch up with my noble friend. The International Year of the Child's Fact Sheet tells us that there are about 3½ million children under five in Britain today. Their physical, emotional, social, spiritual and intellectual development is of enormous importance for the future of
734
our country. There is a saying attributed to the Jesuits:
"Give me a child for the first seven years, and you may do what you like with him afterwards".
The Jesuit Information Office could give me no old reference to this. In fact they almost disowned it and said that the Jesuits did not start training children until the age of 10. But Mr. Kenneth Woods, an Assistant in your Lordships' Library, found for me a reference in a four-volume work by Vincent S. Lean published in 1902 in which it is referred to as a "Jesuit maxim". (Proverbs (English amp; Foreign) Folk Lore amp; Superstitions Vol. 3, p. 472.)
Others have said much the same thing. Lenin, in 1923, talking to the Commissars in Moscow, said:
"Give us the child for eight years, and it will be a Bolshevist for ever".
Proverbs tell us (xxii. 6.)
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it".
If we can start these children on the right road it should be easier to help them throughout their school years and far beyond. Money spent now on children in this way may mean that less has to be spent later, perhaps, on illness or on delinquency.
My Lords, in a short speech, I shall try to outline very briefly what mothers and families, statutory bodies and voluntary organisations are doing at present and what more they should do in the future. First, parents and families. The role of the parents is, in most cases, crucial. Mothers play by far the greatest part in a young child's life; but fathers are taking now a larger part than they did before. Young children can be very fond of their fathers and like to talk about them in their nursery schools. Grandparents usually help as much as they can if they do not live too far away; so do other members of the family and close friends. A mother's continuing, tender love for her child is terribly important. Robert Frost wrote:
"A child misses an unsaid 'Goodnight' and falls asleep with heartache". (The Black Cottage, 1914.)
In our society there is no substitute equal to the loving, mutually enjoyable relationship between most mothers and their

735
young children. My belief is that mothers should stay at home with their children whenver they possibly can. When the mother cannot be there, we recognise a particular need for a reliable, consistent, mothering element in any alternative arrangement which may have to be made. Continuity of this care is important. Children do not like changes.
A great number of mothers, fathers and their families manage extremely well on their own without help from outside; but many need services and support for a multitude of different reasons—far too many for me to mention them all here tonight—which vary from severe illness and bad housing to divorce. Any one or more of the supporting professions may have to give a helping hand and, again, there are a great number of these—from the family doctor, the health visitor, child minders, nursery officers and teachers, to play-group leaders. The important thing is that they should co-operate together and work with the child's parents.
About four to five per cent. of mothers of young children in Britain go out to work full-time. About 25 per cent. do so part-time. They may do this because of a need to increase the family's income which helps everyone, or because they feel they need a change from poor circumstances at home for at least part of the day. Some mothers realise that they are not good at looking after their own babies; they recognise their own limitations, especially if they have handicapped children, when they are only too willing to accept help from others who do it better. Some mothers have no real choice between whether they stay at home or go out to work, and little or no choice between types of services provided for their children.
In Russia, 19 years ago, I saw many children's kindergartens where mothers left their children on their way to work, to pick them up again in the evenings. In Britain, place-of-work nurseries like this are being developed, but only very slowly. I am told that in Russia and Hungary this trend is being reversed, partly because of expense; and that mothers are being encouraged to care for their children at home with financial help from the State. In France and
736
Hungary, a salary is paid to mothers comparable with that of trained teachers. In Sweden, one or other parent may have seven months' leave, on full pay, after the birth of a child. We are told that about six per cent. of fathers take this.
In our country, the status of mothering is now being upgraded and regarded as a worthwhile job, financially comparable with other careers. It has been suggested that training for parenthood might soon be introduced into our schools and establishments for higher education, as a major academic subject for study by girls and boys.
Some child-care teachers, as in other professions, have been among the academically less able. But there have been many extremely good and professionally-well-qualified and experienced people in the forefront of the child-care field in Britain who have made wonderful contributions. My noble friend Lady Faithfull is an outstanding example.
Turning now to our statutory bodies, what many of us believe has been a very great step forward has been made recently by the implementation of the recommendation of the Court Report that a Children's Committee be formed to combine the work (connected with children) of the Central Health Services Council and the Personal Social Services Council. This Children's Committee is now chaired by Professor Frederick Brindlecombe. It is not a statutory body itself, although it is paid for by the Department of Health and Social Security; but it has been given a special brief to advise the Government of the day on the development of supporting services (national and local) for children and their families, working closely with the child-care professions and with academic bodies such as the British Paediatric Association and the Royal Colleges. Much of its work is done through study groups; and one of these is concerned now with the care of the under-fives in families. It is generally agreed that education, social and medical services should work closely together, hand in hand, and with more co-ordination between them.
Resources at present available for the proper care of the under-fives fall far short of what are needed, although in 1976 about £850 million of public money

737
was spent in the United Kingdom on social services and health education of children under five. The range of services vary greatly in quality and quantity from place to place; there is no clearly-defined policy or co-ordination of central and local government programmes throughout the country as to what type of provision should be made available and the level of financial resources required for them; there is patchy recognition of priorities and not enough research is being done into what is really needed.
A TUC working party has quite recently issued a report with 14 major recommendations and 50 interim suggestions Many of these are right; but with some, one must disagree. This report merits careful study. Its main recommendations are, shortly: A national programme for the care of under-fives must be drawn up by the State jointly with the trade unions. (I should like to see parents, voluntary and academic bodies, and others involved in the care of children, taking part in this planning, too.) Pre-school services must be available on demand to parents or others who use them. These must be free of charge; and a statutory duty must be placed on local authorities to provide them.
The importance of day care is stressed in this report—quite rightly—most of it based on nursery centres with health services, child minders, play groups and other workers attached to them for back-up and training purposes. There must be close co-operation between parents and all child workers in these centres, with classes for parent instruction in child welfare, and with book and toy libraries.
New legislation, the TUC suggests, should be introduced for child-minders, for whom new minimum standards should be laid down, and their training, pay and pension rights reviewed. Many more nurseries at places of work where mothers can leave their children should be developed. The job status of everyone working for the under-fives should be improved. There should be changes in maternity rights and in National Health Service benefits for mothers and children. Maternity grants should be increased from £25 to £100—so the TUC suggests.
Another controversial recommendation in the working partys recommendations concerns amendments to the Employment
738
Protection Act to cover women who have had the same employer for six months or more. They should have the right, the TUC recommended, to 29 weeks' maternity leave on full pay (that is for more than half a year), during which their employment should be safeguarded with a right to resume their jobs up to a maximum of one year after their babies are born. Fathers should be entitled to two weeks' paternity leave; and leave to either parent should be granted to look after a sick child.
All this would be enormously expensive, my Lords, especially when girls have several babies in a row! How it is to be paid for is not made clear in this TUC report. Will the State pay for it all or will some of the financial burden have to be carried by employers?
This brings me in conclusion to the last of my three headings, the voluntary services, which the TUC in their recommendations have not mentioned. One more very important development in child welfare in our country, recently, has taken place through the initiative of Lady Plowden, who founded the Voluntary Organisations Liaison Council for the Under-Fives—called VOLCUF for short. It is a federation of voluntary bodies to promote the interests of young children and their families. It co-ordinates the work done by a great number of voluntary organisations (from the Save the Children Fund and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, to Dr. Barnado's Homes) which are providing non-statutory support for young children and their families, much of it directed to single-parent families.
VOLCUF is making the voluntary sector much more effective and complementary to what is being done by statutory bodies. Mr. Roland Moyle, Minister of State, told us recently that voluntary services in Britain make a larger countribution to child care than they do in any other country in the world.
Some people think that speed of action, innovation, flexibility, experiment and freedom from political bias are all more easily attained by voluntary bodies than by statutory ones.
The VOLCUF council has recently made suggestions, some of which are much the same as those made by the TUC

739
working party, with four important additions. These are: (1), that the Government should ensure full participation, continuity and a permanent role for voluntary organisations involved in child care; (2) meaningful co-ordination of all workers at all levels should be encouraged with the breaking down of barriers between the statutory and voluntary services; (3) parents should be able to choose which service they want for their children; and, (4) more funds should be allotted to the voluntary services.
My Lords, these recommendations of the TUC working party and of VOLCUF, the initiatives of the Children's Committee and the work done by the British Paediatric Association and by the Royal Colleges all show us the way ahead. They all support the objectives of the International Year of the Child campaign.
5.21 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to join with others in congratulating all our maiden speakers today, and particularly my noble friend Lady Lock-wood. I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord De Freyne, because during his speech I moved out of my seat. I was not aware at the time that he was making a maiden speech, but I listened with great interest indeed and I would congratulate him on the conciseness and clarity with which he made his first speech in this House.
There are eight very good reasons why I should welcome and support the objectives of the International. Year of the Child, and they are in Northern Ireland: they are my five granddaughters and three grandsons, whose ages are from one year to eight years. As others of your Lordships have, with great pride, declared their grandchildren, I thought I should also like to get it on the record on this occasion. Like most grandparents, my wife and I would wish to see our grandchildren grow up healthy, happy and able to enjoy the fullness of life. Again like most grandparents, we should also like to think that in the process and the experience of growing up they may be enriched in character and knowledge, so that they in turn may be able to join with persons of goodwill in the promotion of general community wellbeing and in the sharing of human
740
happiness. I am sure these are the modest hopes and aspirations of all grandparents in this House.
I think it can be said that throughout the United Kingdom most of our children grow up in love and in the relative comfort of home and family life. Experience and records show that most of those children who have been socially disadvantaged and who have perhaps been deprived of a normal family life also grow up to become respectable parents and citizens. However I need hardly remind your Lordships that we live in a very imperfect world. Even the strong, the able and the healthy find it difficult to cope with the complexities of modern society. Alongside the children who enjoy love and care and hope, there exist among children of all groups and sections much unnecessary and preventable suffering, sorrow and tears.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in her Motion called attention to the implications for the improvement of the conditions of children both in this country and in the developing countries. Last week I received a typed note about the International Year of the Child programmes. It was headed: "The International Tear of the Child". Some poor harassed typist had made a typographical error; but that mistake brought me a significant message. It is the tear of the child that we are concerned about in this Year of the Child. The tear of the child in Birmingham, in Belfast and in Bombay can be a sign of unnecessary suffering and it can be a cry for help. The International Year of the Child is important because it should awaken us all to take a fresh look at the way we treat our children. It may also provoke us to take the necessary measures to alleviate some human suffering and to remedy some of the problems of children and parents.
Although I have spoken in very general terms, I fully realise that sympathy must be translated into positive action and that words must generate effective commitment and deeds. I should be one of the first to admit that there is no single solution to the problems of children that we are considering here today. We may recognise and identify many of the problems. Some are genetic, some biological, some environmental and some arise from deep-seated social conditions, from economic

741
change and from politically-generated differences and difficulties.
As we have heard today, over 200 organisations at national, regional and specialist level have embraced the objectives of the International Year of the Child. These organisations and bodies are sponsoring programmes covering a wide range of projects and events. While I am sure it would be an impossible task for the United Kingdom Association of the International Year of the Child to examine and vet the various programmes, I would hope that only genuine projects would be approved, endorsed and publicised by the Association. I may be wrong, but at this early stage I can detect some very "gimmicky", doubtful and publicity-stunt-riddled proposals.
Perhaps I am being over-cautious—maybe even cynical—but, in my opinion, far too often the effectiveness of machinery which is set up to achieve chosen ends remains the subject of speculation rather than of knowledge. Time and money are spent in establishing social apparatus which it is hoped will be the means of achieving stated objectives, however vague those objectives may be, but little time and effort is spent on assessing whether the social apparatus is appropriate for the purpose. It has been my experience that, when objectives have been vague and the means devised to achieve them not thoroughly assessed, the achievements are at best limited and at worst wasteful and damaging to future projects. I should like to suggest that, for lasting and beneficial results for the improvement of the conditions of children, the projects should be thoroughly researched both as to objectives and as to the remedial and social apparatus.
If I may, I shall attempt to give an example of what I mean. In dealing with the educational problem of an individual child, it is not unknown for 14 or more various professional interests to become involved. Among them are the teacher, the school administrator, the career specialist, the welfare worker, the child psychologist, the social worker, the medical officer, the school liaison teacher, the referral officer and sometimes the parents themselves. However well-meaning they may be, the child becomes a case number, and sometimes a case number in a big bureaucratic machine. Unfortunately, I believe that at times the child becomes a thing to
742
be looked after rather than a person to be cherished.
In conclusion, I should like briefly to mention four practical points. First, I should like to commend as a basis for the International Year of the Child projects the excellent Warnock Report, which was published in May 1978. The Warnock Committee studied the problems of the education of handicapped children and young people, and produced a very comprehensive document containing some 29 pages of recommendations. The report stated:
"The evidence of the surveys of the proportion of children with special educational needs suggests that about one in six children at any time, and one in five at some time, during their school career, may require some form of special education provision".
Those facts are staggering and they demand immediate attention by specialists in this area. The report also recommended that, wherever possible, there should be greater recognition and involvement of parents, as the main educators of their children during their earliest years. Here I must again apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I was not here when she opened this debate today, but I understand that she referred to the basis of our society being firmly rooted in family life. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and the Warnock Report underlined that in the educational field.
My second point is the importance of broadcasting in International Year of the Child projects. Here I must declare an interest as a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. I am aware that the BBC and Independent Broadcasting Authority television and radio companies are mounting a series of very helpful television and sound programmes dealing with International Year of the Child objectives. One of the documents which I have, dealing with the IBA proposals, indicates that, out of 34 million people covered by independent local radio, 6 million or 18 per cent. are children aged between 4 and 14. I suggest that the powerful influence of broadcasting should be encouraged to participate fully and to be very much involved in IYC projects.
Thirdly, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, dealt in some detail with the TUC report entitled The Under-Fives, of which I have a copy here. He went into a considerable amount of

743
detail, with much of which I fully agreed. There ought to be wider discussion of this report, and it should not be confined merely to trade unionists. Trade unionists are parents who are involved in living and are part of society, but there is a wider remit than just the narrow field of trade unionism. The report aims to focus attention on the pressing need for the development of a nationwide programme to provide facilities for preschool age children, and it makes 64 recommendations which could be usefully undertaken by some of the IYC project promoters. In spite of the earlier remarks made here about the current industrial strife, I am confident that genuine cooperation will be forthcoming at national and local levels if such a programme is set up for discussion.
Lastly, I believe that the Northern Ireland Regional Committee of the International Year of the Child have some of the most difficult and deep-seated problems of children to deal with. At the same time, the Committee have an advantage in that the Government, through the Northern Ireland Office, have given priority to the development of services for children over the past few years, and various reports, studies and research projects have been undertaken for some time. I do not want to recite a litany of the problems of Northern Ireland, because this is not the time or the occasion, and they are relative to the whole problem of children throughout the world. But there are some very sad facts about suffering and hardship in the Northern Ireland situation.
I believe that the Northern Ireland Regional Committee of the International Year of the Child are tackling these problems in a positive and objective way. They are building up their approaches to remedies by the provision of suitable social apparatus and measures to deal with the problems in Northern Ireland. They are dealing with these in a very positive way, and have started to analyse existing research reports and studies about child problems. This is the correct starting basis, so that in this year we can build upon what has already been done in this field, by devising measures and providing the necessary structures by which something may be achieved in areas of need.
744
I am glad it has been said in this House that the International Year of the Child transcends Party politics, because the child is paramount. The future belongs to our children. Finally, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, every success in her position as chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Panel and I am sure that, as the year goes on, we shall hear more from her on this subject.
5.36 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, it is a great honour to take part in this debate on such an important subject. In much more than a formal sense, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for introducing the debate so well and I express my good wishes in all the work that lies ahead. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child recognised that children need to develop their spirits as well as their minds and bodies, and it is on spiritual nurture that I should like to offer a few thoughts and, in particular, to stress the role of the family in this field. I acknowledge my lack of qualifications being only a not very good lay Christian; my qualifications do not compare to those of the two right reverend Prelates who have spoken. In fact, my qualifications or achievements in spiritual nurture are minimal, since I have only one three-year-old son. Great joy though he is to us, I have still to convince him that when you go into church with a Sunday school for the Communion part of the service, it does not do to go in sucking a lollipop, and it certainly does not encourage your neighbour to concentrate on his devotions if you poke it into his ribs!
Most, if not all, children at some time or other seek for spiritual fulfilment, whether consciously or not. As has been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, we cannot use this seeking to coerce them towards faith in a living God. However, if we do not lead them and help them, there are plenty of other influences abroad who will guide them into blind alleys; for example, into astrology, transcendental meditation, spiritualism or the occult. These areas can be extremely dangerous for children and everyone else, because they involve the use of spiritual forces which we neither understand nor can control. Just as dangerous, the child may become a prey

745
to those pseudo-religious cults to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich also drew attention.
Who is it, then, who can try to meet the spiritual needs of children, who can tell them what God has promised them, and who can give them a vision of what acceptance or rejection of that promise involves? The State and the public authorities can do only a limited amount through religious education and, in my view, religious education is an ally of spiritual nurture, rather than spiritual nurture itself. Only a spiritual body can provide spiritual nurture, and that means the Church or the family. Of course, the Church has an important role through its teaching of the Gospel, through Sunday Schools and through the fellowship of Church members. However, it is parents who have the ultimate responsibility for their children, and, in general, only parents can give them the necessary time, love and understanding.
What can we parents specifically do for our children? I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, drew attention to the role of the father in this respect. I feel that five points can be identified in spiritual nurture. First, we can pray for children; secondly, we can teach them; thirdly, we can talk freely with them about spiritual and moral issues. I am thankful that it is easier for my generation to discuss these matters with young people than perhaps it was for previous generations. Fourthly, we can do our best to lead children by example. If we cannot show children how to live a Christian life—by, for instance, parents having a row and then making it up and apologising—then we can never expect them to do the same. Lastly, we can train children with loving discipline.
Yet many parents feel themselves to be up against it. With our so-called advanced urban civilisation, we have perhaps allowed the role of the family to be diminished. It is possible that we have much to learn from what might otherwise be regarded as more primitive societies. Then there are also the constant attacks upon anything which has been learned from past generations and the denigration of authority—including parental authority—and the holding of Christian or other moral values, often made under the guise of increasing personal liberty.
746
To take one example, small in itself, there is a recently published book on sex called Make it Happy. Its theme I think can fairly be described as, "Anything goes, as long as you enjoy it". Regarding the laws on sex, it says that the basic idea behind many of them seems to be that all sexual activity is bad unless it is between a married couple in order to have a baby. It comments, and I quote its comment:
"Such an old-fashioned view of sex needn't matter to most people".
One might dismiss this as unimportant, but it is disturbing that one finds that the Health Education Council has supplied illustrations to this book and that the Family Planning Association recommends it as a book that should be in every teenager's library. Perhaps the Family Planning Association's recommendation is not entirely surprising, as the book agrees with the Family Planning Association that contraceptives may be supplied to children under 16 without informing the parents.
Especially in view of the outcry that there has been in Yorkshire and Suffolk against this practice, may I respectfully suggest that perhaps the Department of Health and Social Security should look again at their family planning service memorandum of 1974 which, fairly or otherwise, is used as a pretext for what I believe to be an infringement of parental responsibility. For I look upon the upbringing of a child by its parents as something done as a trustee on behalf of God and of society. The exercise of that trusteeship, which equates with parental responsibility, appears to me to be not only a duty but a basic human right. It therefore seems to me to be reasonable to ask the Government to continue and to increase their help for the family and to look very closely at any support, financial or otherwise, given to organisations which might undermine the family.
In an earlier debate in your Lordships' House, the suggestion was made that there should be a Minister for the Family, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has suggested that there should be a Minister for Children. This may or may not be the right answer, but is there not some way of building into the system of Government a means of ensuring that the needs of the family are taken into account in the framing and implementation of legislation?

747
So far as the education authorities are concerned, I would call for priority to be given to the education of children in parenthood and family life within the context of marriage and for that to be the main theme of sex education. To take one point, I believe that we simply have to get it across that, whatever impression is given in teenage magazines, or whatever example is set in some quarters, there is a world of difference between living together and getting married, not only for the happiness of the two people involved but because of the need to provide the children with a fair chance of growing up in a stable family background.
Lastly, perhaps I may address a word to the Church. Perhaps the Church's greatest problem is to provide the young with the vision and the challenge that they so desperately need. Much can be done by teaching the Gospel without watering it down and by developing Sunday School facilities for all ages. Nevertheless, we in the Church still have much to learn about working with and through the family structure. Perhaps in all our varied church activities we need to be more family-minded. Certainly we need to redouble our efforts to encourage and to enable parents to follow up the declarations made at the baptism of their children.
I was wondering how to end my speech when, last weekend, I came across a letter from my own vicar in our parish magazine. I found that in a few lines he had put a great deal better what I have been trying to say during the last 10 minutes. May I end, therefore, by quoting some lines from what he said. Writing that the Church, as opposed to the State, must assume a far greater responsibility for the spiritual nurture of the child, he says:
"But the resources and the time factor of the Church are limited. In one hour on a Sunday morning you cannot achieve the spiritual formation of the child. This can only be properly done in a Christian home. In this Year of the Child let us not only pray for the child alone but pray for our young parents that they may love the Lord Jesus and by their example bring up their children in the knowledge and love of Christ".
5.48 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to an extremely interesting and very moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of
748
Oakridge. I would endorse everything that he has said, but, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I shall not follow his line because it is not the one which I intend to take in this debate. Nevertheless, I have been most impressed by what he has said during the last 10 minutes.
May I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for inaugurating this debate. I do so with particular pleasure because I am very interested in the work which is done by the United Nations in its sponsorship of different subjects for one year so as to alert the world to the many different problems which are facing us today. As some noble Lords may remember, I was closely associated with the World Refugee Year which took place between 1959 and 1960. It was an outstanding success. We in this country were charged with raising money. It was not the same kind of year as this one: it is not a question of raising money this year, in the sense that we are going to give it away. The purpose of the International Year of the Child is to initiate projects in the countries which are members of the United Nations. On the occasion of World Refugee Year, however, we raised in this country alone £10½ million. World Refugee Year was followed by other years. Not so long ago there was a year which I think was called International Women's Year. That was also important and a great success.
At this point I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber at the moment. However, the noble Baroness has taken on the onerous task of being chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I think that she is making a great success of it, and I was glad to hear her make her maiden speech today on this subject. It was extremely interesting. We have also had two other—or almost three other maiden speeches since the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has assured us that he considered his to be his maiden speech; and I should like to say to him, as he was speaking as someone with a great deal of experience of local government, that I too have had enormous experience in local government and I also feel very strongly that the subject which we are discussing today is shared by all political Parties. That some of us may have different views as to how to do something,

749
does not mean that we are not in favour of any political Party with a good idea putting it into effect, if it is going to help the principles upon which this debate is being conducted.
We are all agreed, and it has been stated over and over again, that there is no more important subject in any nation in the world than the child, and how to give children a good start, and how to make grown-up people more concerned about children. I think in this country on the whole we are deeply concerned about children, but I am sure that cannot be said of many parts of the world, and I hope that the propaganda and the widespread interest of the United Nations will spread this feeling of concern for children throughout the whole world, because then it will have had the desired effect of making people conscious of this vital subject.
I should like to thank the office of the International Year of the Child for sending me a number of interesting documents. Doubtless many other noble Lords have received them, and I thought they were extremely good. Figures have already been quoted in the debate so perhaps I should not quote them again. I am particularly interested in the pre-school matters that arise, either play groups or any other kind of pre-school work. I have seen how important and how successful they can be. One figure which impressed me was that today the number of children in play groups—and after all they are easier to organise than almost any other kind of pre-school work—has risen from 13·9 per cent. to 23·7 per cent. It is not a very large figure but it is a rising figure and I hope very much that the work which will be undertaken through the International Year of the Child will concentrate on the pre-school provision, and will give the play groups the credit they deserve for what they are doing.
I suppose that to some extent one always speaks from one's experience because that is the only way in which one can make a contribution. For 20 years I was the chairman of a children's committee which subsequently became the social work committee. Our problems were largely with the children who for one reason or another came into the care of the local authority. Here I always found it more satisfactory to try to get the child adopted
750
or into a foster home for real individual family care, rather than into a residential home. That does not mean to say that the residential home does not have an extremely important part to play, because there are some children who cannot be fostered and cannot be adopted, and many of the residential homes, which now are in much smaller units than they used to be, are of great importance.
Also, of course, we have the problems in this country—and I am sure they do elsewhere—of refugee children belonging to different races and different nationalities. Very often if they are orphans one can only really care for them through residential care. I should like to encourage very much, through the work that is being done, the National Foster Care Association which, as I read from the documents sent to me, has admirable plans to increase the provision of foster homes, the training of foster parents and the adequate remuneration of foster parents. All those are badly needed and local authorities—and here I am only speaking from my own experience—are happy to co-operate with the voluntary organisations in these matters, because it is largely the co-operation with voluntary organisations that brings about so much of the change in the administration in this country. Taking another figure from the literature, there are 34,109 children being fostered. No doubt that is not so large a number as we should like, but it is certainly quite a large number.
I should like to say one word about the handicapped children. It is difficult to get even adult handicapped people accepted into the community of able-bodied people. Probably one would not think that one would have to say that in 1979, but it is sometimes even more difficult to get children integrated into the community life of other children. I should like to see more day centres started which could be attended by handicapped children and also by some able-bodied non-handicapped children, in order to create the atmosphere of ordinary life, rather than concentrating on one side of life, namely, the handicapped children. Here I would commend an organisation called the Physically Handicapped and Able-bodied, run by one of the great voluntary organisations, the Youth Club Organisation, which has done a wonderful job in trying to integrate

751
both the handicapped and the non-handicapped. In the case of children that is extremely important.
Another group which I think has been mentioned tonight is the one-parent family. There are 1.5 million children in this country who are in one-parent families. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is far too many; but we are faced with that position, and anything we can do to help the one parent in such families, so that they can give their children care in day centres—and again the idea of day centres rather than residential is important—is something which we could add to the many things we want to do during the International Year of the Child.
I remember that when I was working in local government I tried very hard to get classes for mentally retarded or handicapped children in ordinary schools. It was sometimes easier to get special classes outside schools than to get them integrated into the schools. People are frightfully busy and it slows things down if there are handicapped children in classes; but whenever I succeeded it was wonderful to see how the transition could be made of the handicapped child into the class with the non-handicapped children. It was far easier than if one had to bring them from somewhere else and put them into the ordinary class at school. I should like to support any local authority which is trying to have the retarded and mentally handicapped children in a class within an ordinary school rather than outside it.
It has taken many years to persuade the ordinary public that in many conditions a bridge between mentally handicapped and physically handicapped into the ordinary life of the community can be built with a great deal of success. I have been particularly interested in the publications of the National Children's Bureau, an admirable organisation for which we are indebted to Dr. Kellmer Pringle for having started it some years ago. They have published a small booklet called Shared Care which gives a fascinating account of centres in London, Yeovil, Coventry, Manchester, Southend-on-Sea—to name just a few—where the shared work of doctor, social worker, parent, teacher and child is obviously working wonders for the mentally and physically
752
handicapped. I should like to add one more name to that—Somerset Court for Autistic Children and Young People. All these centres are pioneering new operations and new approaches to the problems of handicapped children. This is wonderful work, and I hope that the International Year of the Child can spread these ideas not only throughout the United Kingdom but also in other countries. We would give great help to children suffering in this way if we could get other people interested in this type of work.
I am sure your Lordships will not mind my making mention of Scotland. In Scotland they are, in this International Year of the Child, mobilising as many of the voluntary organisations as they can in order to get as much help as possible, because through voluntary organisations you get at a wide circle of the community which, if you only deal with the professional side you do not get. The Girl Guides in Scotland are running a great scheme of linking young people, first of all from the big industrial centres, with the country centres and rural areas, and then linking the slightly older groups, Rangers and others, with children overseas in other countries, possibly in the Girl Guide movement, but in order to bring together a linkage of children throughout the whole world in this idea of the International Year of the Child. I am sure that will have a great effect. It may be slow; it may not go as fast as we want. But we are on the right lines; we are on lines that have the future in all this. If we can arouse, not only in this country but throughout the world, the kind of interest which the United Nations aroused in the other "years", particularly the World Refugee Year, then we will have taken part in a great work which I am sure will be of benefit to the whole of mankind.
6.2 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for her Motion and for her most admirable speech, and in congratulating the maiden speakers on their notable success. I would gladly follow the noble Baroness who has just spoken in speaking of day centres for the handicapped. I have some experience of the importance of such centres. I would gladly follow those who have spoken of violence, of juvenile delinquency, and I

753
should like to urge that the right use of sport and music could reduce the incidence of violence, of juvenile delinquency, could save as much taxation for prisons, police and courts, and could enrich our national life. It would mean a big investment in both sport and music, but it would pay the Treasury a very handsome dividend indeed. I leave that for another day.
In the interests of noble Lords who still wish to speak, I shall confine myself to the second part of the noble Baroness's Motion, the children of the Third World. As others have, I desire to speak about their poverty, but to paint the picture with a rather broader brush. Their poverty takes many forms. To me the most grievous is their ignorance. Incredible as it may seem, there are 1,200 million children in the world who cannot read or write, and their number grows. Their number grows because there are 400 million children for whom there are no schools. Can noble Lords contemplate the future of these unhappy little folk, condemned from a tender age to no hope of progress or advancement, economic, cultural or political? To them the words "democracy, co-operation, intellectual achievement" are words and nothing more. They are doomed to join the vast assembly of the voiceless who have no knowledge or power to improve their status or to influence the blind force of destiny that shapes their lives.
The poverty of education in the Third World, in institutions, in personnel, in resources, even in ambition, is something which imposes a grave wrong upon the children and which is a tragic mockery of what could be and ought to be. My Lords, education is closely allied to shelter. In a bad house it is not easy to read. And in the Third World shelter is another grievous problem—the mud huts of Africa and India. A little while ago 15,000 people were killed, no one escaped, when their mud huts were flattened, simply swept away by a tornado wind. The shanty towns of Calcutta, Buenos Aires and Mexico contain dwellings made of petrol tins and bits of wood: perpetual discomfort, no protection against the extremes of heat and cold—and in those cities they have both—mud and dust with every meal, water problems, lighting problems, washing problems at every hour of every day, nagging and acute discomfort until they die.
754
Shelter is connected with preventable disease, and preventable disease plays a major part in the poverty of the Third World countries. Malaria is a horrible affliction; I have had it and I know. It saps your power to work; it comes back and back. Children get it. It can stunt their bodies and their minds; it can ruin their lives. In 1978, 200 million people were victims of malaria. Trachoma makes you blind. Children get it. They are burdens to themselves and to their families till they die. Leprosy makes you a social outcast. In the Middle Ages lepers in Britain were made to wear white clothes, to carry a bell, to call out as they walked about "Unclean, unclean". Yaws covers you with hideous ulcers—body, legs and arms. You can neither work nor rest nor play. These diseases impose a vast burden of suffering and economic loss on the children of the Third World now.
And they are all preventable. With none of them is there any clinical problem any more: they can be cured. The problem is resources, and nothing more. Give the World Health Organisation—the WHO—the resources that it needs and it can wipe them all out in a short period of years. The resources that it needs are 500 million dollars to deal with them all. It sounds fantastically low, but that figure was given to me by Dr. Martin Kaplan the very able Head of Medical Research in the WHO, and it is a real figure. The WHO has just finished the job of wiping out the scourge of smallpox in 30 countries where it was still endemic on an epidemic scale. To do that, it spent 83 million dollars: one B-1 Bomber costs 90 million dollars to produce.
Poverty means ignorance. It means slums, mud huts and shanty towns. It means preventable disease but, above all, it means hunger. There are 300 million children in the world who are hungry and who will be hungry—unless things change—from the cradle to the grave; who never have a proper meal and who are kept alive by a minimum of food. I repeat, 300 million. The social indicators show the terrible result. In most Third World countries infant mortality is 200 per 1,000—in other words, one baby in five dies in its mother's arms before it is 12 months old. The expectation of life for the parents who should bring them up is often less than 40 years. They die by millions

755
before their time—indeed, decades before their time—because they do not get enough to eat.
Famine sometimes comes to strike the hungry. The rains fail or floods wash the crops away. Famine starts death by starvation on a major scale. I knew it in Russia in 1922. I cannot describe to noble Lords the full horror of what it means. However, has anyone forgotten that picture in the papers a year or two ago of the little black boy—the little Ethiopian—who was begging for food? Has anyone forgotten his spindly legs, his swollen stomach, his protruding ribs, his wizened little face and his frightened, pleading eyes? Tens of thousands of them turn their frightened eyes on the richer Governments to ask for food, and the richer Governments answer coldly: "No, we cannot afford the paltry millions it would take to keep you all alive. We must spend £200,000 million on armaments instead".
In 1979 the world stands at a crossroads. If we want our children to have children we must end the poverty of the children in the Third World, and we must start to end it now. There is only one way in which it can be done: we must reallocate the unimaginably vast resources which the Governments now spend on preparing for the war which we know we dare not fight. If that urgent and indispensable reform cannot be achieved, then we may drift on with the mounting arms race until at last we fight the war, and—who knows?—the great heritage of man's genius may perish and our planet Earth may go on spinning through space as silent and as desolate as the moon.
6.16 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, this debate covers so wide a range of matters that it is certain that no one person can cover the whole of it. I have listened with great interest to what other noble Lords have said and to their ideas on the subject, and especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is not only deeply interested but outstandingly experienced in this field.
As has been said before, and of course I agree with it, today's children are tomorrow's parents and we must do all we can to help and prepare them. In
756
this, the International Year of the Child, we should surely give every baby who is conceived a chance to be born, whether the mother is married or not, and give her all possible support. There are many different child rescue agencies and among them the Roman Catholic bishops have guaranteed a place for every child that is brought to them and every help the mother may need.
In one way our society has made very remarkable advances in the conquest of what used often to be called the "childish" diseases. Fifty years ago or so, in the spring, measles, mumps and the rest were widely prevalent and often with serious consequences. We can, to some extent congratulate ourselves that preventive medicine has largely eliminated the childish diseases—but, alas! only for them to be replaced by others. I refer particularly to the increase of psychological troubles among children. The Samaritans even have children of nine years ringing them up, and I have been informed on most serious authority in York that the services of psychiatrists are in ever-increasing demand for the troubles of children.
We can say, therefore, that our society has succeeded in educating parents so that they take advantage of preventive medicine as a matter of course, but the increase of psychological problems among children, and especially those under five years, has yet to be tackled from the point of view of educating parents. In York I am told that the money available for research in this sphere is inadequate. My guess is that that may be so throughout the country. I wonder whether savings could not be found somewhere, and the money thus saved channelled into this research.
Mr. Edwin Brown, the Director of Social Services for North Yorkshire, has written to me:
"Most of all, we need to put more resources in to the under-fives, because this is where all our problems begin, and the research conducted by such bodies as the National Children's Bureau has shown that we can detect incipient problems even at this age".
One of a number of reasons he mentions—and I agree with him—is high-rise flats where mothers have no opportunity to mix with others in similar situations. That is but one of the symptoms we should be tackling at the earliest possible age. Other casual factors are one-parent families or

757
families where there is an inadequate or intermittent father.
It is encouraging to learn that schools are giving courses for 15 and 16 year-olds on parenthood and child development. Perhaps the most important aspect of this must be the prevention of psychological disturbance. The status of parenthood has been greatly devalued in the course of what we call the liberation of women. Of course, I can feel no objection to the liberation of women, but this must not be at the expense of children. Rather, it is a challenge to treat the status of parenthood with new respect—and by "parenthood" I mean, of course, father as well as mother.
In this respect a number of commendable efforts are being made to help young parents. For example, the Open University has two courses, each of eight weeks. The first is on "The First Years of Life" and the second is on "A Pre-school Child". There is other good material on the radio as well as in TV programmes. There are also some valuable hand-outs. The most noteworthy is the pamphlet of the Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children, published by the National Children's Bureau, called Help Starts Here for parents of children with special needs. It has been distributed free to parents and has been very well-received.
The Warnock Report pays particular attention in Chapter V to the needs of children under the age of five with learning difficulties, either mental or physical. I have just referred to the Warnock Report on Children with Special Educational Needs and I feel strongly that we should be having a full debate on that report and do all we can to implement its recommendations quickly. That report laid great stress on the training of children under the age of five with learning difficulties. It is not merely a question of the prevention of trouble later on; that is clearly indicated by the increase in psychological illness to which I have already referred. It is of the greatest importance that disabilities or other special needs should be diagnosed at the earliest possible opportunity. Once the diagnosis has been made—and this may involve a number of persons professionally—the co-operation of parents becomes the key issue. Mrs. Warnock's committee
758
regards it as essential that a named person should provide a continuity of advice for the parents. Parents need to be informed of the facilities available to meet the special needs of their child, whether they are provided by the State, or by voluntary agencies.
But all the advice that a health visitor can give is in vain unless early educational opportunities are available. Mrs. Warnock wishes to see a fully developed peripatetic teaching service, and I see sound sense in that. I very well recollect the excellent visiting teachers at the Wingfield Orthopaedic Hospital in Oxford when my son had to spend several months in bed there at the age of 10. Some local authorities have already provided this service, with teachers visiting mentally handicapped children below school age.
I am, of course, not against Mrs. Warnock's recommendation of nursery schools for two to five year-olds, but I am greatly fearful that they may become dumping grounds so that mothers can go out to work. Again, I am not averse to mothers working, but when chidren are little, and especially when they are handicapped, they should have the security of a stable home and the first call on mother. This was especially brought home to me by the experience of one of my daughters. For several months she looked after two small girls whose mother is a state registered midwife and on duty by day and at night. Until their father rejoined them after an absence abroad, when my daughter then left, she took them to school, fed them and generally acted as mother to them. Last week she called to see them and the five-year-old hugged her legs and said, "I love you. Will you come and look after us again?" This surely demonstrates that sort of desire for security and affection that I have been talking about, especially in regard to the disabled.
As regards handicapped children, there is great concern among aging parents about the fate of their children when they themselves become incapable or die. The parents are concerned with the difficulty of finding residential accommodation when a handicapped person needs caring for. There are orders of Roman Catholic nuns who do this kind of work, but always for the more seriously handicapped. Perhaps some way could be found to help the less seriously disabled in this respect.

759
In this, the International Year of the Child, we should be listening to those who deal with children of all ages, and seriously review their needs in conjunction with State bodies. One area of great concern is the plight of the handicapped young person who has reached school-leaving age and has no occupation. The parents of these young people need help and advice, especially when they feel that they themselves are getting older and less able to cope. There are grey areas of handicap, and if the International Year of the Child means anything, it will perhaps focus on a few problems such as these.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, in this particularly important debate we are discussing the future generations of this world, not only in this country but internationally. It is a privilege to be able to take part in such a vitally important debate and to listen to so many brilliant speeches. In my view every child who is born into this world should have three essentials: love, health and security. Those are my words, taken from my experience.
This evening, for a short time—thinking of the debate we had last week—I want to say a few words about each of those. To me "love" means cherishing and caring for a child, preferably by both parents, by foster parents or by one parent, but at least by one person per child. I also believe that a child needs discipline. In my experience a child needs to be taught the way to go and needs to be told what to do; he should not be left on his own, to find out what the world is about for himself. I looked up the meaning of the word "discipline". "Discipline" means:
"An instrument of penance or punishment".
Or it can mean:
"A training or mode of life in accordance with rules; subjection to control and order".
In these days, especially in our country, I think we have seen a lack of discipline. Through that lack and through the abrogation of the responsibilities of the parents for disciplining their children, we have had an escalation of juvenile crime. I shall not go into that branch of the debate, because the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, covered it so very well.
760
One of the disciplines which teaches a child that he shall do what he is told is to ensure that he goes to school. I have been chairman of a juvenile court in a vast area which covers part of Haringey, the whole of Tottenham and Enfield. One of my main troubles is the lack of discipline caused by parents who do not instil discipline into the children: the children do not go to school and they get into trouble. If a child in this one instance is made to go to school, is made to get up every morning and is made to come home at a certain time, I believe that that is one step towards discipline. A long time ago I was at boarding school and there was a very rich fee-paying school in the same town. I well remember that the headmistress decided that the children should decide for themselves what to do in school hours. They had to conform to eating at the right time, but what they did between their meals was entirely up to them. I am sure that you have all guessed that there was complete chaos in the school, and the headmistress had to be relieved of her post.
I had another instance of discipline not long ago in the juvenile court. I had sent a child to a detention centre for the maximum of six weeks, which the Home Office think is the correct period for a child. He came before me again after three months. I said, "Bill, what on earth are you doing, coming before me again?" He said, "Please, Miss, can I go back to that nice place? I was told what to do, and I did something all day, and I throughly enjoyed it. Please may I go back?" He had offended again to try to go back to discipline.
Those are two facets of love, but of course there are many more. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, has given us an insight into the Third World as regards health. I was going to say a few words on that, but he has told the House so brilliantly of the disaster in many cases that the children of the Third World face, that I feel that I cannot say more than one or two words from my own knowledge of our erstwhile colonies when my late husband was Secretary of State for the Colonies. I was visiting Africa recently and was in two countries. They were suffering there from malnutrition, blindness, deafness, leprosy, poliomyelitis. But I am only skating over that particular

761
disastrous pond in order to pay a small tribute to the noble Lord who is to follow me, and that is the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. Until recently he was chairman of the Save the Children Fund; a Fund which has done remarkable work throughout the world. I should like to say what a marvellous job they have done, I know they are doing, and will continue to do.
My third word is "security". A child needs security. If he cannot have the loving arms of his mother or father he needs to know where to go home to. He does not want to be a latchkey child. Also, he does not want to be a member of a family living in a high-rise block where, although mother or father may be at home, he has no friends, he has no security and he does not know where is is coming to or going from. As we all perhaps recollect, if we have been fortunate enough, as I certainly was, to be brought up in a happy home, it was going back to mother after school that one remembered so well. In these days perhaps some parents—naturally not all, but some—do not pay attention to the fact that they are the most important people in their childrens' lives and that they should be at home when the child comes back from school.
In talking briefly about school, I should like the Government to consider an idea that I know some education welfare officers have, and that is to ask voluntary workers to "chase up", I suppose is the word, and look after children who do not go to school; find out why they do not go to school, and then see to it that they are taken back on to the path of attending school in a disciplined way. This is done in many boroughs by voluntary people and would cost the Government absolutely nothing. I think it ought to be done more widely. This debate is vitally important. The very fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is being followed by 29 speakers speaks for itself. I can only say that anything that I can do in any way as a mother, grandmother or chairman of a juvenile court, to help the future generation I will always try to do.
6.35 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I say right away that if my short speech
762
is a little incoherent it is all the fault of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, because I have suddenly received this wonderful tribute to the organisation of which I had the privilege of being chairman for six and a half years. I know that those who work for it will be immensely grateful for these kind and generous words that she has just spoken. Perhaps, as I am no longer active in the Save the Children Fund, although I am still a member of the Council, I may thank her on their behalf, and may I also thank all those who are still working for it for so well deserving the tribute she has paid.
I had thought that perhaps the best subject to refer to would be abroad because most of the speeches, quite naturally, have been about home. This is absolutely, as it should be, but there are one or two special things to say about abroad. Perhaps I should fit in one word also as regards the Save the Children Fund and also our friends at Oxfam and the Churches, and say that we are much happier in this age than we were just a few years ago in the 1960s, when it was the fashionable pursuit of lots of extremely clever young people to explain that voluntary organisations were wasting their time, and other people's money, doing what was not needed. It was a disagreeable experience to go through that, and one is happy that that seems now to be over.
Perhaps I may give one little picture of what it is like to be doing work round the world with an organisation of that kind. You just simply have so many photographs left in your mind; photographs of feeding Korean children in the bitter cold winter of that country before it had recovered its economic equilibrium. I have a wonderful picture in my mind of witnessing a thrilling football match in Morocco played with great zest by crippled children. Perhaps the most vivid of all was landing with my wife in a small aircraft in Bangladesh—I was so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, began with Bangladesh—and being received with rapturous cheers (which I have never had before or since) because we were feeding and taking care of innumerable small children in that terribly over-populated country. We saw how these children came in from the countryside and they walked to a little clinic, not as you might suppose, in a

763
house or a hut but on board a small boat. Those are the sorts of experience which leave this kind of work for children in your mind for the whole of your life.
While I am on the work abroad, perhaps I might share with your Lordships two ideas about this which I gather are gathering some support. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley touched on the matter with his usual wisdom by talking about young people helping each other. I would expand that by saying that there is, I think, from the speeches and also from what I have seen, a growing understanding that one of the best ways to help children, or young people, is for older young people quite definitely to help younger young people. Young people are enormously used to being bossed about by grown-ups, and I think one can probably say that it was Lord Baden-Powell who first discovered the virtue of getting older young people to help younger young people in whatever the activity was. That has surely been the secret of the vitality of the Scout movement.
This can certainly be applied particularly in the thickly populated developing countries, where family ties remain much tighter and farther reaching because populations in each family are much greater.
One constantly sees older children looking after younger ones. That shows of course a difference in civilisation there, when compared with what happens in an urban population in a country like ours. It means, nevertheless, that this technique can be used—by Government aid, charity or whatever it may be—to spread the help given to children and to make it something indigenous rather than something done benevolently by others, older people and foreigners.
By extending that principle, I hope we shall see growing in the developing countries a concept which can be taken from example—namely, that if one works for quite a time in a particular country one sees the beginnings of a certain hankering for the work to be done by the people of that country. One must not, in considering this, lump together all the developing countries at a certain economic level, because there are all sorts of low
764
levels, but differing ones. I am sure that another development which should be greatly encouraged is for the more developed under-developed countries to assist other countries that may lag behind. I am sure this could be done and I am equally sure it would be a welcome development, giving the developing countries a feeling of being able to do something by themselves for themselves. I am sure we should exploit and expand that idea as far as we can.
Those are some positive ideas for the future and I should like to think we could leave this debate in a happy state. I have therefore been doubtful about saying anything on the gloomy side, but the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has given me courage to do so. A few days ago we saw, unhappily, a children's hospital being visited by a Minister of the present Government. The day after we saw that hospital shut by, not to use too dramatic a word, pressure, and the children forced to go home and do without medical care. I found that monstrous and I hope not only that this country will do something to make that impossible in future but that all concerned with the welfare of children will feel a duty to try to remove the possibility of that sort of thing happening in our so-called civilised life.
I should like to feel there is a real response here and I believe that that response is growing, but I am sure we must all work for this objective. It will not be easy to accomplish and I am not kidding myself. It is desparately important both if we are to be considered a civilised country and for the sake of the suffering children. Happily, we have heard a great deal on the spiritual side today. I conclude by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull: Well done, good and faithful servant.
6.44 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate because this issue and the way we are debating it is proof of what this House should be all about in terms of the conditions by which it can survive; namely, that it shall be the House of the future and not of the past. In other words, our constituents are posterity. What we are

765
discussing today is an indicator of the sort of things with which we must deal, and the wisdom with which this subject has been discussed today adds emphasis to that.
My brief speech has been made all the more easy because of the speeches that have gone before. I shall therefore contract out of all the things I might have said and instead follow, as an economy in time, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. One of my main justifications for speaking is my concern with the Third World, a concern that goes back a very long time. I have been a consultant to UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, ever since 1948, a consultant to the Children's Fund and to the partnership of that fund with the World Health Organisation.
I could take noble Lords to places in the world today and introduce UNICEF's grandchildren, the children of the children we saved in those countries. We began with dried milk, followed through with maleria control, consolidated with mother and child health centres, eventually moving in recent years, even more so today, into the whole business of growing-up which is the kind of family responsibility of UNICEF; in other words, they have grandchildren. Generations have grown up and the first children of UNICEF have had children and they have children. That is the commitment we have.
As my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker said in his magnificent speech, we live in a world of great suffering and privation. In many parts we may be a long way short of famine and starvation, but we have malnutrition the world over; that is, children are not only being deprived of a square meal, but in many areas, including Bangladesh, no child goes to bed at night with a full belly, and no child in many places knows what it is to have a meal adequate for wellbeing.
The tragedy we are facing every hour of the day is that we are confronted now, and have been for some years, with a generation of people afflicted by our neglect—I do not mean the gross neglect of saying, "Don't worry about it"—by the deficiencies of our own services to those countries, including the deficiencies of the nature of our famine relief. We are seeing in some countries of the world
766
millions of children (I think about 70 million) who are crippled mentally, physically and psychologically by the nutritional deficiencies of our relief supplies.
We talk eloquently about investment in human resources and we say that if we invest properly in human resources today we will get a full return in material resources. But I fear that in the circumstances of which I speak the investment in human resources will not provide human assets; they will be liabilities causing social problems. We must look again—in fact, we are doing so and have been looking at this matter—at the whole nature of the relief problem. That brings me to Lord Gore-Booth's point about the need to recognise (though I must tell my noble friend that in United Nations circles it was recognised certainly 20 years ago) that the one sure way to produce results from anything being done, including the big material developments, is by encouraging the people to do it themselves. I believe we did a great deal of harm, and I say this advisedly, in our well-meant and well-intentioned interventions in the Third World by going in and doing it for them—imposing our ideas—when we should have been encouraging them to do it for themselves.
Now, in the principles of the WHO and UNICEF itself, we are back among the people. We are back in the villages again; we are back giving them the resources which will make it possible for them to do something about their problems in their own way, provided we can supply the back-up. But there is an education problem here, and, as my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker pointed out, the tragedy of education is stark. When we are talking about the shared knowledge and skills we see that there is a considerable handicap if in the first place, in terms of clinical manifestations, there are mentally handicapped products of our good intentions, while on the other hand they cannot be educated because there are no schools, or because they do not have enough food, or the state of their health is such that they cannot take advantage of education. This is a matter which is now paramount.
My experience with UNICEF, Save the Children Fund, War on Want, Oxfam and other organisations, with which I have been associated both here and in the field, shows me—as has been properly

767
said here—that much that we want to do is better done by voluntary movements not relying simply on Government re sources expressed in terms of money, but expressed in terms of dedication to what is being undertaken. Here I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. I have seen how, in the circumstances of improvisation, living, working and identifying with the people, you in fact help them to identify with others. Again, in the United Nations' picture there is what I call the relay race in which one brings up people to a certain standard in one country, or perhaps one reinforces their standard sufficiently for them to lend people to go elsewhere and help. Such people are much nearer to those whom they are to help than would be those who come out of a more sophisticated society. Well, this is—
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I should like to make a point in order to be fair. The noble Lord has been extremely kind, and I am most grateful to him. In fairness to Governments, it needs saying that there is a period at the beginning when probably the overseas country has to do more than it wants to, and then it gradually hands over.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention; it clarifies what I was trying to say. I was about to consider what would be the situation if there were the resources within Britain for greater support not only for UNICEF and for the World Health Organisation, but for all the overseas development, which I may say at the moment is running at a fairly generous level. But the point I was trying to make is that with the Government underpinning I have mentioned, we hope eventually to see a propagating of ideas of the right kind by depending on the people to develop in their own idiom the nature of their own requirements. In the 30 years that UNICEF has existed we have seen generations grow up with all the problems in the developing countries that we have been talking about in terms of our own country—above all, problems of delinquency, and so forth. But poverty breeds conditions in which there is no exemplar existing to persuade children who are neglected, or who are in circumstances where rural life has broken up and they
768
have drifted into the towns and have become the surplus population of the urban development. One then sees exactly the same picture. We must have a social imagination not only to deal with child problems within our own country, but one which will transcend our own needs and which will make a very substantial financial, as well as imaginative, contribution to the problems of the world at large.
6.54 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, what a very excellent thing my noble friend Lady Faithful has done, not only in introducing this important subject at this very apposite moment, but in introducing it with such startling clarity and brevity, in which she has been followed to an extent almost unique in the annals of this House by those who have spoken after her; and not merely by the three maiden speakers who have made very workmanlike and welcome introductions to their own careers in this Chamber.
Since my own childhood the perception that we have of this world has changed in one remarkable sense, because since those days we have all, thanks to television, gone out into space, circumnavigated this globe, looked down at it from every side, photographed it, and summed it up. Thus, when I was a child and I said, "the whole world", or referred to the human race, I meant in fact an abstract concept which stretched beyond the horizon of possible conception. But when I say now, and when many of us say, that in discussing children we are talking about the future of the human race, I am using an idea which we can all of us grasp. That means that in a real sense for the first time we are all members one of another, and that is not true merely of poets, saints and novelists. Therefore, in asking your Lordships to consider a tiny segment of the child population of this world—one so distant that it takes the very sunrise seven hours to get from their home to ours—I am in fact asking your Lordships to consider your neighbours.
Since man can remember Indo-China has been riven by strife, and recently it has in fact been tarnished by unmentionable atrocities committed in the name of ideologies which seek to eat up the diminishing freedoms of the world. In Cambodia

769
about 2 million out of a population of 7 million have died in the last 10 years, half of them in warfare, and half of them in political purges. From this seething and venomous cockpit, and its neighbouring Laos and Vietnam, have escaped a steady, a growing, and an entirely tragic stream of refugees.
I shall be asking your Lordships to consider the whole question of refugees in a larger context on this day week, and if any of your Lordships feel able to contribute to the subject, I shall be most grateful. But at the moment it is about the children that we are talking, and I want to talk about those who are caught up uncomprehendingly in the tides which have engulfed their families. Often they have witnessed appalling atrocities, undergone extreme dangers, and borne great hardship on the way to safety; and I do not refer only to those who travel by sea. Great as our compassion must be, extreme as their predicament and danger is, immediate as their need of rescue has been proved to be, and despite the large numbers that have descended on the coasts of Malaysia and the harbour of Hong Kong, none the less this is a small fraction of the problem of Indo-Chinese refugees.
When they eventually reach sanctuary they are instantly a burden to the country in which they have arrived. They have to be fed, clothed, housed, and very often cured of malaria, malnutrition, and simple nervous exhaustion, as well as countless other ills. I shall not dwell upon the political and administrative aspects—I will be going into those next week—but I wish to commend to your Lordships the work of one or two British voluntary organisations that are particularly concerned with young people and children, and to suggest that they are showing a humane and admirable courage which we ought to admire and support, and which shines in a dark world as a precious light.
The most remarkable of these organisations in my view—it is invidious to choose an order, but I must speak of those which I know—is a very small concern, which I mentioned once before in this House, called Project Vietnam Orphans. It was born of a chance remark in a vicarage sitting room some years ago, and now supports six young volunteers working
770
full-time, with one part-time assistant, in two camps in Thailand. One camp is at Aranya Prathet, the other at Surin. Aranya Prathet, on the Cambodian border, I visited 15 months ago. Things have changed a little there, but I should like to describe briefly what I saw and what I deduce. It had been built inside a high-wire compound for a population of 4,000. There were 7,000 inhabitants in it when I was there. The latrines had been constructed for the original population and were, almost without exception, not in working order. The area around them was foul beyond description. The drainage was surface drainage, and, although the water was in danger of running out at that time, in the wet season it did not suffice to prevent the roads from becoming oceans of mud. My Lords, 47 per cent., as I recall, of the camp population was malarial at the time I was there, but that was not the main ill; the main ill was malnutrition.
These young volunteers had worked every day to combat both the demoralisation and the threat to health, to which, of course, the young people were the most exposed. They had organised, and are still running, a system for the distribution of reconstituted liquid milk by teams of distributors, valuably drawn, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, from the refugees themselves. My Lords, 1,900 children got a mug of this very valuable supplement to their diet every day. Each member of the team of British volunteers went with a different team of distributors each day, so every family was visited and quietly checked for signs of distress and disease, for referral, every other day.
They also provide 120 under-nourished children between the ages of one and six with a daily bowl of high-protein and vitamin-supplemented soup; 100 babies whose mothers cannot breastfeed them get extra milk and cereal protein; mothers are given instruction in hygiene, and are given weight charts; and newly-born children are provided with clothes, soap and mosquito nets. These people also run play groups for 400 pre-school-age children, and English and French classes for both children and adults. Here, again, they are assisted by the refugees. They do a lot else besides for the adult refugees, and I will not go on about it this

771
week because I shall be going on about it next week; but your Lordships will realise that, if you help parents, you in fact help the children as well, so this is relevant to what we are saying.
Aid, I believe, has been increased since, and conditions improved, though the population has gone up by a further 500, despite of resettlement in third countries of many of the inmates who were there when I was. Those people have left tin, sacking and wood cubicles, very small, to start new lives in welcoming countries. At this point I should like to say that, whatever lessons we may draw today about the need for more money, laws and regulations to solve the world's problems, one thing is quite clear and much more important, to my view. It is the generous, dedicated and unselfish spirit of young people like these that is finally going to lick problems that will never be solved by all the money in the world and all the laws in every Statute Book in it.
But, of course, money is needed, my Lords, to buy the materials; and it is needed by other organisations, such as the Save the Children Fund, who have six medical teams operating in eight camps in Thailand. They are supported on a pound for pound basis by the Overseas Development Ministry, who also support other efforts in Cambodia. The Ministry has given £127,000, I understand, to voluntary agencies on this basis in Thailand alone, and I thoroughly commend this way of channelling aid. First, it is easier to get money from the public if they know that every pound they give will be matched; secondly, it is spent by people on the ground, who can see that it is effectively used and know how to use it; and, thirdly, as they are in effect spending their own money, they are going to do it carefully anyway. I was delighted to learn that the Prime Minister last week told the executive committee of the International Year of the Child that they would use this method of supporting children's projects in the Third World provided they were approved by the IYC. I think that is very good news indeed.
The third organisation I should like briefly to mention is the Ockenden Venture. Most of your Lordships will know of the admirable work they are doing in taking responsibility for refugees
772
arriving in this country and for getting them settled in homes and in society. They now plan an education and training scheme for young refugees in Thailand that will draw in the local population also, and so help to relieve the tension between refugees in the camps and the local community. When you remember that the local community is often living below the poverty line, and in some cases is working enormously hard every daylight hour of every day merely to be able to give a meal to their family on most days of most weeks, and that they see the refugees sustained, without work, the other side of the wire, you can see that there is a dangerous political problem there.
My Lords, the world is a small place, and when I said so I implied that we are able to know it and to know its problems. But those implications were wrong in one sense, and I wonder how many of your Lordships knew, for instance (I did not know until recently) that over and above all the refugees I have spoken of so far, the 205,000 in South-East Asia, there are a further 150,000 Khmers who have fled to Vietnam from Cambodia since 1977, of which approximately 70 per cent. are children under the age of 15. That puts a new perspective on the problem, and a new obligation on us to support the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which at present has programmes running for them to the value of 126,000 dollars. I must not go on too long, but I think nobody that I have heard has referred yet to a publication called The Refugee Child. It is published jointly by the UNHRC and the International Year of the Child, and it contains lists of 27 projects directed directly to refugee children. It is an invaluable thing, and I will not further plead their cause.
My Lords, in dealing with child refugees we are dealing with young people who have suffered injuries which go too deep to be clearly seen and will last, I think, beyond absolute cure for the whole of their lives. So many of them have seen their parents, brothers or sisters humiliated, brutally treated or actually killed. So many of them have seen what they thought was the centre of the universe and the source of all security in their lives swept away or driven from them—if they are lucky, able to drag the children with them to safety. My Lords, the emotional and

773
mental shock that this provides does, as noble Lords have already said, add another dimension to the problem, and one which means that merely providing for them in the camps and hoping to assist in sending them to new countries is not enough. I think we have to look to see what we can do.
Let us remember, then, as we weigh up what it is that we owe, that these extra, hidden burdens add to the balance, and let us take them into account when we measure what the extent of our own generosity ought to be. When we decide that measure, I hope it will include living room for as many of those children as our own excellent voluntary agencies are able to place in our own country, and that that process will be speeded up wherever possible, because there is nothing more demoralising than sitting inside what is really a prison camp, however humanely it is run, wondering when your life is going to begin. Unsettled as our country may seem to us now, it is a paradise of calm and of wealth compared to what these poor mites have had to come through. Let us give them the warmest welcome we can.
7.9 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I am President of the Burton-on-Trent Branch of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I should like to say a few words about two groups of children, those under the care of this Society and the mentally-handicapped children in subnormality hospitals. In this International Year of the Child, it is a sad and immensely sobering exercise to calculate the unbelievable total of over 9 million children who have been protected by the NSPCC since its inception in 1884. The latest figures show that in just 12 months the society helped no fewer than 58,000 children.
In focusing public attention on the needs of children in this Year of the Child, there is an urgent need to extend the Society's network of special units for the treatment of battered children. At the moment, these units exist only in Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northamptonshire and Coventry. The special units maintain central registers to help in the early detection of non-accidental injuries and in monitoring the progress and safety of an abused child.
774
The Society has been greatly encouraged by the reduction in the physical and emotional damage to children which has been brought about by the work of these units. But there is a need to extend the network and this will only be possible if adequate grants from statutory funds are made available to meet the costs.
The Society's reliance on voluntary income to fund its work is due in no small measure to the accident of history which determined that it should not become involved in children's residential work. Because it is committed to the protection of the child in his own home, and because of the difficulty of measuring the value of time given to any case reported to the Society, there is no agreement as to the value to the Social Services department of a local authority of having a NSPCC worker in its area. The lack of this has led to a situation where funds from local authorities for the work of the Society's inspectorate are sufficient to meet operational costs for about one week in every year.
The Society has always had difficulty in trying to discover the children who need its help. Its work is greatly inhibited when those who know of a child's distress prefer to remain silent in the mistaken belief that to speak out will lay them open to legal action should their fears for the child prove to be unfounded. So the Society was very relieved when this House ruled that it cannot be forced to break its promise of confidentiality for people who report cases of suspected child abuse. This important judgment may help to overcome some of the reluctance to report suspected cases and enable the Society to do what is its prime task and prevent cruelty before it starts, so that every child will be safer in its own home.
These children are being helped to remain in their own homes; but now I turn to the plight of the mentally-handicapped children not in their homes but in sub-normality hospitals. Despite quite a sharp drop over the last decade in the number of young children admitted to mental-handicap hospitals, there are still about 5,000 children living in these hospitals today. The present situation is not fair to these children, their parents and families or to the staff caring for them. The Government provide homes for

775
children unable to live in their own homes—those "in care" for example—so why should the mentally-handicapped children in hosiptals not have the same advantages, a chance of a real home with the normal patterns of social life which would help them grow up to share in their own community? If the Government would make it mandatory on each local authority to provide for each mentally-handicapped child from their own area now in a mental-handicap hospital, within their normal range of provision for children not able to live with their own families, the children's wards could close.
Successive Governments have reaffirmed the priority which should be given to mentally-handicapped children; but as it has not as yet been made mandatory on local authorities to provide the care needed, local authorities are free to do as they themselves dictate—and that, too often, means that they do nothing. I realise that the very severely-handicapped, both physically and mentally, need more than a home; but many are being successfully fostered and many are living in ordinary children's homes. Others are living in special children's homes, in ordinary houses or at special residential schools.
My Lords, we are never going to have enough specialists to run our normal community services and provide the same standards in mental-handicap hospitals. The only way these children will have access to all the help they need is to bring them out of hospital into a caring community. Well, here is another plate asking for more. So many problems can be solved, apparently, by release of funds. I have heard it said that one of the aims of the International Year of the Child is to make children happy, but we cannot provide happiness by legislation. Even the best of parents cannot always provide it for their own children. I think, in the case of children who are handicapped or in danger, we have no choice but to concern ourselves with their immediate needs; but in the case of normal children, "in care" for various reasons, the happiness of the child should be secondary to encouraging growth of sturdy independence and good citizenship.
7.17 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I am not one of those who think that to designate "Years" as being particularly in favour of one thing or another is a bad thing. I think that it definitely helps to concentrate the mind, particular in areas where there is a great deal of general goodwill; but one needs to turn one's mind to the particular problems involved. It is that function of concentrating the mind which this debate is having in this House, concentrating the minds of us, of the Government and of the civil servants in the Departments concerned. For that reason, we must be more than conventionally grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for starting the debate—as also for all the work that so clearly she is doing for children. We know how much she has done in her life; but the attitude which she has taken since she came to your Lordships' House in getting hold of the people who have goodwill towards children, both here and in another place, and getting them to meet together and become more organised is one which I know will have a lasting effect and will have been helped by the fact that in the International Year of the Child it is right that we should be studying some of the problems and thinking of some of the solutions.
Among the suggestions for concentrating our minds, another that we might take seriously is one which has been mentioned in this House in this debate. I must apologise for having missed the intermediate speeches (although I heard the earlier ones) owing to a couple of unavoidable engagements. But the suggestion which I know has been put to a number of noble Lords by Lady Lovell-Davis is that the Government should be asked to produce three-yearly reports, putting together the responsibilities of the various Government Departments in one, so that we can look at and, if necessary, debate the progress which is being made in all fields.
My Lords, there are all sorts of things that we could discuss today and I should be tempted to discuss a number of them. Education is something in which, as your Lordships know, I have been interested over a long period of time Again, my environmental interests mean

777
that I think that we ought to be considering—and I should like to consider in depth—the whole environment in which our children are being brought up: the situation in some of our inner cities; and what is to be the future of the town child as our cities seem to get worse and worse in their environment, despite all efforts.
But the one subject on which I am going to speak briefly is the question of money; because I agree with the noble Countess, the Countess of Loudoun, that in fact money can do a great deal of good; and it is in this field of children that very often a small amount of money goes a long way. As one of my tasks in life, I am working professionally for a body called "Make Children Happy", the posters for which some of your Lordships will undoubtedly have seen. The object is to try to extend the amount of money available for charities and children's work by tapping in a more professional way the whole commercial field; not in any way by asking for money which is already going to other charities as donations, but by earning more. Therefore, we are particularly aware of how much a little extra can do.
I have a particular point that I should like to put to the noble Lord who will reply to the debate. I apologise very humbly for the fact that I have not given him advance warning of this. Although he may be sceptical, there were reasons why I was unable to do so, partly, I confess, because I did not receive the brief on this particular point until very recently. It comes as part of the campaign which the Child Poverty Action Group have so rightly and so successfully been fighting over the past few years. We must pay a considerable tribute to the changes in policy on child allowances, and to the amount produced which this Government have produced over the past year, and are producing. But there is still more than can be done.
It is in fact the family with small children which over the past 10 or 20 years has suffered most under inflation and under the burden of taxation and national insurance. The tax take on a single person on two-thirds average earnings has increased by 54 per cent. over the years since 1964–65. For a married couple with the same level of earnings,
778
the tax take has increased by 76 per cent., as opposed to 54 per cent., while, for a married couple with two children, the tax bill rose by 186 per cent. This transfer of burdens from the childless to the families with children is something which really must be reversed. In the category of households with children, tax has increased even more for the poorer families than it has for the better-off ones. That is just a generalisation and no doubt it is a matter which the Government will be considering and which we should be right to keep on asking them to consider.
The particular point I wish to ask the Government about is really almost an accident which has happened. The introduction of child benefits, and the consequent getting rid of the child allowances for income tax, while in some ways a very good thing, obviously has taken the money which will be going to families to support children out of the allowance system. In the last Finance Act, that allowance system was in fact indexed by an Amendment in another place, so that unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides not to do so, all personal allowances will in future be indexed according to the cost of living. Taking the child allowances out and turning them into child benefits has turned them into an unindexed fund of money going to families. It will be the only allowance which is not indexed. Obviously, this could have a very retrogressive effect over a period of time particularly in a period of inflation. The Government might find themselves—we might all find ourselves—back in a worse position than we were before the Government took this extremely good and courageous action last year.
Therefore, what I am really asking the Government is: what are they going to do about this? Do they intend to index the child benefits in the same way as the tax allowances would have been indexed had they stayed in that particular category? With that very specific and, I hope, slightly helpful suggestion, that this might be a contribution which in this year the Government might make to stop things slipping backwards, I should like once again to thank the noble Baroness for this debate, and for all that we are going to learn from it and from the contributions of individual noble Lords, including the extremely important, useful and helpful speeches by our maiden speakers.
7.26 p.m.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, preparation for parenthood is one of the five main themes of this International Year of the Child and it has already been referred to by several noble Lords. I wish to draw attention to some of the demographic developments of the past 30 years which have affected the institution of marriage and the lives of children, and which must be taken into account in this area when shaping attitudes and policies concerning children.
There has been a dramatic swing to higher probabilities of marriage in the past 30 years, so that today in the age groups in which nearly all marriages occur only 6 per cent. of women and 9 per cent. of men are unmarried. Fewer than 30 years ago, some 16 per cent. of such women were unmarried. Not only does a startlingly high proportion of the population marry but a significant section of it does so early in life. Since the end of Hitler's war, the proportion of brides marrying in their 'teens has doubled and stands today at almost one-third. Only 10 per cent. of bridegrooms are under 20 but that proportion has increased four-fold in the same period. Although the Family Law Reform Act reinforced the popularity of marriage among youngsters in 1969 by lowering the age of majority, the proportions of teenage brides and grooms have now flattened out. However, no one can yet tell whether this will herald a marked trend towards later marriage.
There is little information about the characteristics of these couples and their families. We know that teenage brides nearly always marry manual workers and that they are more likely than their older contemporaries to be pregnant at the time of their marriage. Indeed, 10 years ago this was the case with nearly 40 per cent. of them; but by 1973 there were significantly fewer because more than half of them were taking the pill. We know, too, that women marrying under the age of 20 tend to have their children earlier on in their marriage than happens with older wives, and that there is a greater likelihood that their completed family size will be larger than the average. Moreover, there is a very much greater risk of divorce for any duration of marriage in which the bride was under 20.
780
If the groom was also under 20, the risk of breakdown is very high indeed.
Accordingly, the great increase in teen-age marriage has been associated with high rates of breakdown and has contributed disproportionately to the steep increase in the number of one-parent families and to the distressingly disadvantage lives of the many children involved. On the other hand, it may be pointed out that the highest remarriage rates among the divorced population—and they are very high—occur among the youngest age groups. Even so, there is no statistical data to show what the chances are that mothers of different ages with dependant children will be able to marry again and hence to bring them up on a new two-parent family.
In addition to these significantly higher rates of recorded breakdown, mothers under the age of 20 share with those over the age of 35 a heavily disproportionate experience of having illegitimate children and abortions. These statistics underline the recommendation of the Finer Committee that:
"the concept of the best years for child-bearing should be examined by those responsible for family planning services, with reference to the desirability on medical, psychological, social and economic grounds, of incorporating specific advice about training for pregnancy into courses in health and social education directed to the young".
The committee further said:
"We hope to enable people to choose not only how many babies to have but when best to have them".
In her notable maiden speech, my noble friend Lady Lockwood emphasised similarly the importance of training boys and girls about the transformations which have taken place in the last 30 years in their still too-often conflicting roles within the family and in the labour market. This silent social revolution in marriage habits which I have been describing has attracted little study, despite, as I think, its great importance. We do not know what influences have drawn working-class girls in growing numbers into marriage during the last generation. We might speculate perhaps that they may feel socially rejected within the educational system; that they may look with distaste upon a labour market which offers them the least skilled and worst trade jobs in the whole community; that they may desire to escape

781
from parental restraints and hence flock into marriage as refugees from narrow lives and bleak prospects.
I do not know what the explanation may be, and speculation would not be helpful. Nevertheless we know enough to make us at least sceptical about two assertions which are becoming part of the conventional wisdom. The first argues from the cumulative removal of restraints both of custom and of law upon certain forms of sexual satisfaction and behaviour and upon their public portrayal to an assumption of widespread sexual promiscuity in a permissive society, especially among the young.
It has never been easier to secure the sexual advantages of marriage without troubling to enter the institution: yet there is little evidence of sexual permissiveness either in the recent behaviour of the young or in the Registrar-General's marriage statistics. Such surveys as we have suggest that even the young girls who are pregnant when they enter marriage become pregnant because they intended to marry and are thus conforming to a European marriage habit which has persisted over many centuries. Of course, some are promiscuous, but many boys and girls pair off very young nowadays and they seem to me to behave much more in accordance with mid-Victorian standards than ever the Victorians did.
Why, then, should their marriages have an exceptionally high rate of breakdown? Here we come to the second assertion about which I am sceptical; namely, that young marriages often break up because the spouses are immature and irresponsible. There is a very different possible explanation. We all think that young people—indeed, we all think that everybody—should start married life in a home of their own. Unhappily, married teenagers have a worse access to housing than any other section of the population. Many of them have to share accommodation and to start their families in the most testing and difficult of circumstances, where the realities of bad housing mock the promises of welfare.
I do not believe that the young are less able than their elders to make a sensible choice of a spouse. Marriage is, as John Stuart Mill observed:
"a romantic lottery, and whoever is in a slate of mind to calculate the chances calmly and value
782
them correctly is not at all likely to purchase a ticket. Those who marry after taking great pains about the matter generally do but buy their disappointment dearer".
Finally, my Lords, I join with other contributors to this debate in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, both for her initiative and for her elegant and succinct introduction.
7.36 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull for putting down this Motion today. She and I are very old friends from Oxford days, when she was a formidably powerful officer of the City Council and I was a humble, though noisy, member of the City Education Committee. I remember one tremendous row about alarm clocks for enuretics. I am afraid your Lordships are unfortunate tonight, as one professor follows another: the professor who has just sat down, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, wrote what is undoubtedly the most informed and readable study of marriage and divorce which has been published in this country. I think his wise words will certainly commend themselves to this House and to those who read Hansard tomorrow.
In the past quarter of a century I have travelled extensively in the Third World and in the past year I have visited no fewer than 11 developing countries. The condition of the children there is, of course, frequently appalling. I had occasion to reflect when I was in Bangladesh this last time that some of the hungry babies I saw might just be the grandchildren of the hungry adolescents whom I saw there 25 years ago. In that time the position of the child in Bengal has, if anything, worsened.
There are parts of the Third World where there has been a real improvement in the condition of children—India is a good example—but, generally speaking, the problems are enormous. There are two solutions which go hand in hand. The first is economic development—in other words, to try to raise the standard of living—and the second is population limitation. Where living standards rise, there is inevitably a rise in the rate of population growth as infant mortality drops, but then, as we have seen in Korea

783
and Japan, there is a dramatic fall in the birth rate.
However, it is not principally about the Third World that I want to speak tonight, though it seemed to me important to make this point because this is the International Year of the Child. I want to talk about our own children here in Britain. In my own view, it is a basic scandal that so many of them are still being brought up in conditions of great material deprivation. I will not use the word "poverty" because I think that word darkens counsel. Who can talk of poverty today in Britain if they have seen what life is really like in Bangladesh?—because all our children, whatever the condition of their homes do have the right and opportunity to, for example, free and adequate educational and medical services. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a great many of our children grow up in families which are really hard up. I want to put two questions tonight. First, how many children live in these really deprived conditions; and, secondly, what, if anything, can be done about it?
According to my friend Frank Field—I am delighted to see that he has been chosen to succeed Mr. Dell as the Labour candidate for Birkenhead; I suppose it is one of the few seats that might survive the flood—there are in this country about 1½ million children under the age of 16 who live in families which are at or below supplementary benefit level. I shall not blame Frank Field for these figures, because they are my own calculations. Not all those 1½ million children are permanently in that condition; people obviously fall into poverty and come out again. But many of the people are permanently really hard-up, and about half of the 10 per cent. of the population of whom we are speaking probably spend virtually their entire childhood in families that are really hard-up.
I need hardly say that the studies summarised in Social Trends No. 9—a really excellent publication—suggest that these children come from homes which also have the other serious problems, notably poor housing and delinquency, to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris has just referred. If you look at the tables in Social Trends, some of them are almost incredible. Eight per cent.
784
of the boys aged 14 to 16 have been convicted of serious crimes. I do not at all believe that there is a direct link between material deprivation and delinquency, either one way or the other, but there is an association. Moreover, this association of deprivation is associated not only with single-parent families, about whom we hear so much, but also with two-parent families where one of the parents is in full-time work. The hardship of this half-million or so children is really a problem of low wages, both for single-parent families and for two-parent families.
Contrary to popular impression—and I have studied the figures—the main source of the problem is not large families, which is frequently asserted to be the case. It just is not the case. I am very strongly in favour of responsible family limitation. I am a vice-president of the Family Planning Association and I think that we do the most excellent work. The message about family limitation has got across to the general public. There are not very many large families in Britain today. It is interesting to discover how rapidly family building habits have changed during the course of the last generation. The bulk of children who come from really deprived material backgrounds come from families with one or two children and with a low earned income.
What can be done about this number of children?—and let me remind your Lordships that it is about 1½ million at any point of time, and about half a million pretty steadily, year in and year out, who live at or below supplementary benefit levels? I should like to pay a heartfelt tribute to the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and to its chairman, Professor David Donnison, for the way in which they cope with these terrible problems, because they have to cope with them within the context of the social policy which is legislated by Parliament, which is what I want to touch on today. The Commission gave evidence on this and has put forward its views, and, substantially, has said absolutely sensibly what ought to be done.
There is one way to tackle this problem of the deprived child. It is a way that I am glad to say both the Government and the Opposition have followed; that is, to raise child benefits. Under Mrs. Castle's Act on child benefits, there has

785
been a massive increase in child benefits—it is 30 years too late, but I suppose it is better late than never—and we are at last following our European partners in a proper system of child benefits. All tribute is due to those who have mothered and fathered this scheme, not least to Barbara Castle and Patrick Jenkin. By moving our benefits up to the European level, many of these means-tested benefits, which people, quite rightly, so dislike, and which are so frequently not taken up, can be abolished. This is the really hard point of what I want to say tonight. At present prices, this would require a rise to a benefit of something like £10 or so week.
Obviously, this is a big commitment. It would have to go with the long overdue reform of our whole tax structure, to which I am delighted to say the Opposition, at least, is very deeply committed. Above all, it would have to go with a restoration of our economic conditions to something like that of our European partners. But that is another story. The truth of the matter is that we can raise child benefit and eliminate the material deprivation of the 1½ million of our own children, and help the 2 billion or so children in the Third World only if we do something about the economy, and that is for another debate. May I say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, about the need to index child benefits in order to keep up with our inflation.
Before I sit down, there are two other points that I want to make about things which we can do here and now, short of raising child benefits to £10 a week at present prices, which ought to be the prime aim of our social policy as the economy is restored. As your Lordships will know from my contributions to other debates, I am very reluctant to advocate anything that raises public expenditure at this or any other time, and what I want to talk about for the next couple of minutes will not increase public expenditure. There are two very simple steps which could be taken and which would not increase public expenditure, and in one case might decrease it and benefit children at the same time.
The first point is this. Quite a while ago, we debated the Court Report on
786
Child Health and it was an absolutely splendid State paper. Needless to say, the other place has never debated it and shows no sign of doing so, and, needless to say, the Government have done scarcely anything about it, which is par for the course with most immediate Government inquiries. But one recommendation the committee made was of great importance. It was that every three years, the three great Government Departments concerned with children—the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office—should report on the present state of the child population. The children fall between those three Departments. There is no Department of Children; they fall into the orbit of those three big Departments.
If there was such a report every three years—a kind of social audit or a report on the condition of children derived from the data already existing in those three Departments—it would focus the mind of the country, and, not least, the mind of Members of Parliament, to a very great degree. It is a very important recommendation of the Court Report. I do not think it would cost anything, because the data is already collected by these three Departments, and the Department of Education and Science, in particular, has an excellent statistical department. It is just a question of bringing things together and focusing them.
The other point I want to make might initially cause a small rise in expenditure but in the long run it would save a considerable amount of money; that is, the implementation of the latter part of the 1975 Act. I refer to the whole question of fostering. When this debate was in prospect, I received a number of letters about the whole question of foster children. We would all agree that it is infinitely preferable for any child or family of children to be put into fostering rather than into children's institutions, first, for obvious psychological and social reasons, and, secondly, because it must be cheaper to have children living with families than to have them in institutions, with all the trade union regulations and so on about paying people, and with the fire regulations and all the rest of it. Common sense tells us that this must be very much cheaper.

787
However, it looks as though implementing the last half of the 1975 Act will, at the point of transition, raise public expenditure in the short-term, even if there are long-term benefits. We do not want to be pennywise and pound foolish. I am glad that the daughter of a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House who is present tonight—I shall not embarrass him by naming him—has a family of five children whom she is fostering at the present time. It is something that a lot of people do, and from which they get a great deal of benefit for themselves and the children, and I have no doubt at all that just by implementing this Act, which has been passed by Parliament, we should make a substantial long-term contribution, not only to the health and happiness of a particularly unhappy section of the child population, but to containing public expenditure, which is something that we would all be in favour of. With that, I should like once more to thank the noble Baroness for allowing us to debate this matter today.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for having introduced, so admirably and so shortly, an enormous subject, about which there is a great deal to say. Anything, therefore, that I say at this time in the evening must not have been said before. The only reason that I put down my name to speak in today's debate was because I thought that conceivably I might ask a question. It is not a question which can be answered tonight. Nevertheless, it is an important question to be asked in the International Year of the Child, and it is this: what is a child? Most people would say that a child is a child until it reaches a certain age, but we might differ as to whether a child is a child until the age of 21, or 18, or 15.
As many noble Lords have said, every child is different. To my mind, Children's Year, like Women's Year, would have been a better name than "International Year of the Child". My point is, when does a child become a child? It is not a child if it is too old. Is it not a child when it is too young? I am thinking of children before they are born. I shall not labour this very difficult point, because it has
788
been discussed many times in your Lordships' House. The document from which the noble Baroness quoted mentions that children have 10 rights; but no mention is made of the right to life. However, the third paragraph of the preamble states:
"A child, by reason of its physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate protection before as well as after birth".
Clearly, therefore, "child" may mean something which has not yet been born; but at what stage it becomes a child we do not know.
It seems to me that this is one of the most important questions that this century has to deal with. I believe that in future children before birth are going to be regarded as a neglected species, rather like factory children in the nineteenth century. Very few noble Lords can now conceive of many objections being made—as they were, I am afraid, in your Lordship's House—to children not working a 14-hour day when they were under the age of seven. The reason was that only a few people had seen these children working those hours and it took a very long time to regard them as human beings. It will take a long time before children before birth are regarded as human beings. This is one of the points that should be thought of very seriously in the International Year of the Child.
It seems to me that a child before birth has the worst of all possible worlds. It can inherit various rights—the right to a title, the right to a fortune, or the right to a washing machine—but it cannot get them until it is born. To that extent, it does not inherit the right to life. I remember the late Sir Alan Herbert talking about the marriage laws, which he did a good deal to improve, and he produced a rather moving ballad about a lady who was not legally married because she was married after three o'clock. If I remember correctly, the refrain went:
"Nor widow, maid, nor wife am I
Nor ever hope to be,
For I was wed, the Bishop said,
Considerably after three".
If I were still a foetus—which some of your Lordships may think that I still am—I should be inclined to say:
"Not vegetable, animal, mineral I,
I have no rights on earth,
For I was dead, the surgeon said,
Considerably prior to birth".

789
I do not believe that when we look into it—as gynaecologists can, knowing what they are doing—we can feel that the present number of children who are being killed before they have a chance to compete in the race of life is justified. Certainly, I shall not go into the question of when abortion is justified and when it is not. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, some excellent views about delinquent children, with all of which I entirely agree. The opposite to a delinquent child would be an innocent child, and the nearest approach to an innocent child is something as innocent as a babe unborn. We have heard about handicapped children. I am old-fashioned enough to think that to be killed without one's own permission, or without having done anything, apparently, to deserve it, is a serious handicap.
I put forward those points for your Lordships' consideration during the International Year of the Child, because I think that lawyers, doctors and others who are concerned with the problem are thoroughly dissatisfied with the legal status of children before birth. With those words, once again may I thank the noble Baroness for having put before the House such a clear statement. I hope that she will forgive me for raising only this one point, but I believe that it is one which has not yet been raised.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for having initiated this debate. When she put down her Motion I told her that I was allergic to international years. My opinion is that up to the present so few of them have done any active work—or, if they have done any active work during their particular year, it has been forgotten and dropped. However, as a result of the excellent speech with which the noble Baroness opened the debate, I have a feeling that we shall take more than one year to consider this great problem. Perhaps I may support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley: that we should have a three-year programme. One can do so little in a year. It will be finished almost before anything concrete has been done. Therefore, may I suggest that we should consider a longer period programme.
790
May I pay tribute to Mr. Henry Labouisse who is the Director-General of UNICEF. He has made it one of the most efficient of the United Nations agencies. He has put his heart into UNICEF and has worked out a first-class organisation. That is another reason why I am supporting the International Year of the Child.
What causes difficulty in the United Kingdom is that we have so many charities. In a recent article in the Municipal Review, Dr. Mia Pringle, the Director of the National Children's Bureau, hoped that the International Year of the Child would promote greater co-operation between voluntary and statutory organisations and services. She said this with the object of getting better co-ordination and utilisation of existing resources and also improving the identification of unmet needs. Tonight, noble Lords have put forward quite a number of these unmet needs.
May I endorse what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington. He is the only person so far who has touched on the question of child labour. It is a fact that there are 45 million children under the age of 14 who are working. What is so sad is that only eight countries have ratified the ILO Convention on the minimum age for admission to employment. Countries such as Brazil have over 2·9 million children under the age of 15 who are working. Haiti has 17 per cent. And strange to say, in 1971, 800,000 children were working on the land in the USA. According to the anti-slavery report, their ages ranged from four to 12 years of age. Therefore, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for having made this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, may be quite pleased with the information which I am going to mention now. The noble Lord spoke about books and education—children helping children. A most excellent book has just been produced, called Child to Child. It is simple, and contains excellent diagrams which are capable of being understood by children. One version of the book is intended for children in India; the illustrations are for Indian children. However, it is produced in other languages. If noble Lords would like, I shall be pleased to put a copy in the Library for them to

791
study. We are indebted to Dr. David Morley of the tropical health unit of the Institute of Child Health, which now has co-operation with 14 different countries and people come from both rural and urban areas. This book is couched in very simple language and I think it will be intensely helpful in the future. Four out of five of the world's children are in developing countries and there are 23 times as many episodes of illness among children in their second year in the underdeveloped countries as there are in the industrial countries. Of course the underdeveloped countries have very few doctors and para-medical workers, and in comparison they have very few people with knowledge of health matters.
I now want to discuss blindness. In July last year a conference was opened at Oxford by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. This was the first conference of the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, and I am glad to say that the director of the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind has been made the first president of this organisation. The main question that was discussed was that of blinding malnutrition. There are two very bad ways in which the eyes are attacked: xerophthalmia which is the initial stage and keratomalacia which is the eventual blinding form. It was stated by the FAO that 300,000 infants are blinded annually through blinding malnutrition. In India, for example, 90,000 are going blind annually, and approximately 42,000 remain alive but totally blind. In Bangladesh which has been mentioned by one or two people, 100,000 went blind in the famine of 1972 despite energetic action by the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind; but 25,000 go blind annually at the present time. The blind population has increased because of the fact that smallpox, malaria and, increasingly, intestinal infections have been to some extent controlled so that the mortality rate has gone down from approximately 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. in some areas of what I call mass population countries. However, in the critical 10 per cent. the people either die or are blinded.
Blind malnutrition is related to the whole complex of poverty. Therefore action can be taken and organisations
792
should be asked to help with emergency programmes to distribute vitamin concentrates, because these can help the healthy children. Also, there should be some preventative work done among those who are less healthy. I realise that it is difficult to reach a lot of them in the rural areas, but if this could be done—and I am sure it can be done eventually—it would save a great deal of eye trouble. Then quite a number of organisations give aid, including dried skimmed milk, and if only they could fortify it with some vitamins it would be a great asset.
One difficult point is nutritional rehabilitation. We know in this country how difficult it is from the fact that when tourists from this country go to Spain they demand fish and chips because they do not care for Spanish food. Therefore it is even more difficult to wean uneducated people off unsuitable food; but if they can only take the green leafy vegetables and add them to their children's diet it would be of enormous help. This has also been suggested by WHO and UNICEF, who recommend this type of diet. It costs about £8 a month to give courses on this aspect, combined with what they are doing in some villages, namely, simple courses for the mothers in selecting and cooking the vegetables in the right way. A film has been produced by the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind called Food for Sight and this quite dramatically shows the way in which blindness can be helped to be overcome. If noble Lords are interested I shall be only too pleased to arrange for the film to be shown in the Grand Committee Room in Westminster Hall.
Another point is the vastly increased and improved technology for the corneal and retinal surgery. In Asia and Africa 15 per cent. of the blind children could be helped in this way by means of a small operation. With regard to the rights of the child UNICEF recommend that there should be compulsory education for all handicapped children. Of course that is very difficult in the developing countries. On the other hand, in Nigeria, for example, which is a vast country, there is training in Braille for the teachers, and they are taught how to teach blind children. The blind children are going along, not to special schools but to schools into which they are integrated with other children.

793
Sometimes they have a special classroom and sometimes it is built on to the existing primary school, but the point is that they get an education. Surely, if you are blind you do not want to sit about and do no work.
Finally, I should like to make a suggestion. I have recently been to Morocco, and it was interesting to observe that there were aerials on a lot of the little tin shacks that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker. I inquired about these and found that the people were able to see television, but of course they do not have any films that are of real use. I should like to see simple educational films which the women could understand, lasting perhaps half an hour each and showing them what to do in the bringing up of their children, particularly in regard to food, because in a great many of these countries—and particularly, I think, in Morocco—although there is not a great shortage of food, there is not sufficient knowledge of how to cook it. When I was in Malaysia, in the time before television, they used to bring round a film which showed how to cook, how to clean one's teeth and all the essential things for keeping the body healthy. It was a great asset to the people, and now in Malaysia and Singapore there is neither the poverty nor the children who need the great care that I am speaking about now. I hope that tonight we may agree to take action on the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and in regard to the blind I should like more to be done, so that we can say:
"He who walks in darkness may see a great light".
8.8 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, as I expected when I saw where my name was coming on the list of speakers, everything that I wanted to say has been said already, so I shall not weary your Lordships by saying it all over again. However, I should like to comment on one or two really outstanding speeches. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, insisting on the necessity for the guidance of the very young. To my mind that is a very important thing. We all need guidance when we are starting to learn something about which we know nothing, and surely that is very true of young children.
794
In that connection I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden—who made one of the most outstanding maiden speeches I have yet heard on the necessity for a religious basis for this guidance, because unless one has a belief in something that is higher and greater than oneself I do not think there is any hope of keeping the young on the right lines. The great difficulty, of course, is that unless the parents believe in it themselves it is very difficult for them to convey it to the child; but let us hope that more and more parents will come to believe in it. My Lords, I would end by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on having initiated this debate and congratulating her on its having been so outstandingly successful.
8.10 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in opening this debate gave us the six principles which the United Nations have laid down for the rights of the child.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, it was 10 principles.
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, 10. I think those principles can be summed up in one phrase: that they aim to give the child the right to fulfil all its potentialities of body, mind and spirit. In the debate today almost every subject related to the child has been mentioned. I should not like the duty of winding up the debate from the Front Bench. We have heard of the unborn child, the delinquent child, the child separated from its mother and under care, the child who is ill, and the many disasters from which children suffer in the Third World. But I have been particularly pleased that during this debate it has so often been recognised that the worst crime against children is the poverty in which so many of them live, poverty which denies them bodily health, mental development, spiritual expansion, all that human fulfilment needs. And we have to face the fact that poverty exists all over the world. It is one of the most ironic and tragic features of our time that we have now developed a technology which could end poverty in the world within 10 years if that technology were directed

795
to the needs of man instead of the interests of those who control it. That is true within nations and all over the world.
I want to begin by looking at the problems here in Britain, where the poverty resulting in the stunting of child life has actually deepened in our midst during recent years. In 1974 there were 260,000 children living in families below the poverty line defined by the State; that is, the standard of supplementary benefit. In 1976 that number had risen to 500,000. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, which is very accurate in its figures, almost one million children today live in families that are on the poverty line. We have to face the fact that if the aims of the International Year of the Child are to be met, there must be a complete transformation in our social and economic system, so that it may be directed to meet the needs of people instead of the benefits of a section of the people. But, my Lords, I go on to say this. We must act immediately, even while poverty lasts.
I particularly welcome the Government's child benefit scheme, which has been one of the best reforms which have been introduced in many years. In April last year the family allowance was £1 for the first child and £1·50 for subsequent children. Next April it will be £4 for each child and £6 for the children of single parents. I believe that will do more to end the deficiencies from which children suffer than almost any suggestion which has been made during our debate today. That decision embodies the principle that the child is the most important human being in the nation and should be the first charge on all our resources. I should like to see a guarantee that children, in prosperity or recession, should be given a standard of benefits and services which will allow a realisation of the full potentialities of their bodies and minds.
My Lords, one has been pleased to listen to this debate for a second reason. This is to be an International Year of the Child, and therefore we must think of the world as well as ourselves. Many of those who have taken part in the debate have pointed to the tragedy of so many millions of children in the Third World. I pay tribute particularly to the speech which penultimately preceded mine from
796
the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in her detailed examination of this situation. I pay tribute particularly to the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, who spoke of the children who were stunted through illiteracy and destroyed by disease. My Lords, can one begin to contemplate this problem calmly? The United Nations survey says that one in eight of the population of the world is actually starving. It says that half of the population of the world suffer from malnutrition. It says that children in the developing countries are 15 times more likely to die in their first year than children born in the industrial territories.
It is not just a question of aid. If the problems are to be solved they must be met by the establishment of a new international economic order which will mean that the economy is directed towards the needs of people instead of to the advantages of great powerful sections within the industrialised countries. We must establish a new international economic order based not on the benefit accruing to the industrialised nations but on the satisfaction of the peoples of the world.
Finally, if people's needs are to be met we must devote the resources of the world to construction and not to destruction. The countries of the world spend £600 million every day on weapons of death. We need to divert those resources to constructive purposes. It is said that preparations for war are safeguards of peace, but all history denies that. If we continue this great concentration on the manufacture of nuclear weapons, a nuclear war will ultimately take place. Therefore, we need to divert these resources not merely for the child but to prevent our children growing up only to be massacred in a Third World War. For the sake of the child, we should, in this International Year of the Child, be exerting pressure on the Disarmament Committee meeting at Geneva with radical proposals from our own Government and the Governments of 15 Western countries; with even more radical proposals from President Carter; and with the most radical proposals from the Soviet Union, which seek to destroy all weapons of a massacring kind. The International Year of the Child gives us the opportunity to save the child from the war which will come unless the peoples of the world determine to take action against it.
8.25 p.m.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I am last on the printed list of speakers, or at least the last before the Government reply, and if I sense a wave of relief going through the House I shall try not to disappoint your Lordships. At no stage did I intend to make a long speech and I shall try to make it even shorter than I intended. Therefore, I must be nearly the last speaker to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on this exceedingly interesting debate, and I hope that at this late hour I shall not be misunderstood if I add my congratulations on her fortitude for listening to it all.
I had hoped to make my speech a cheerful one, and by chance something happened this morning that cheered me very much for the International Year of the Child. Two young men came to see me who are forming one of those unlikely student undertakings—a student company of players to perform Shakespeare all over the world, including Great Britain, and significantly they are calling their company, which is only in the course of formation, "The Poor Players". As your Lordships can imagine, they are in desperate need of funds. However, they were much the most concerned with what could they, as a brand new company scarcely removed from childhood themselves, do for the International Year of the Child. They were busily planning a charity performance at the Mayfair Hotel in the middle of the summer to raise funds for it. That seemed to me most encouraging.
I believe that something of that spirit has been heard in a great many of the speeches in this Chamber today, and I hope that it spreads far beyond this Chamber and all around the country. I find the situation most encouraging. I had intended and had hoped to be able to preface my speech with an honest avowal of an interest—alas! I have been disappointed. I am a practising film maker and when I first heard about the International Year of the Child it occurred to me that, both in celebration and for the purposes of recording, films must surely be needed. So, as soon as there was a director and a headquarters I hurried down to Whitehall to suggest baldly that I might be just the man to make the films. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that the funds available were
798
barely enough to run the organisation itself, let alone afford the luxury of even so much as a foot of film. So, my disappointment was complete, but at least swift.
However, I must say that the enthusiasm of the director, Judith Stone, was such that, in spite of not seeing a future in the film making business, I inquired what film she would have liked to make if there had been the funds available. She told me of one or two exceedingly intriguing projects. For example, she told me about something of which I had never heard before, the PPIAS, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, will know about. It is the Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services, which is an extremely informative information service because it is run by parents. I met the people concerned. It seems to me that they do all sorts of good things, and surely this is the year in which that information service should be encouraged, enlarged and generally better known. However, I am not an expert on these matters and I shall not weary your Lordships much longer on the subject, but perhaps the noble Baroness herself can add to what I have said.
What intrigued me most about what the director told me was a project very close to my own heart because it was concerned with the arts. If I trespass for two minutes more upon your Lordships' time it is because the arts, so far in this debate, have not received much of a showing. There has, very properly, been some mention made of spiritual matters, and I hope that it will not be taken amiss by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, or by the two right reverend Prelates who spoke in the debate, if I point out that the spirit of man is not the exclusive concern of the Church. Indeed, today's debate has shown only too forcefully that without bread man cannot live at all. However, the notion that man cannot live by bread alone is a notion shared by the clergyman and the artist.
The project that I heard about was so exciting that I thought that I must tell your Lordships a little about it, in the hope that it will be an encouraging end to the debate. The project concerns an international centre for children's culture. I hope that that notion will commend itself

799
to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrow-den, because he was much concerned with the use of leisure time put before children. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the maiden speakers on their speeches because I enjoyed them all. But I particularly enjoyed his, and I should like to echo the congratulatory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, by saying that when the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said that he was speaking with some trepidation, if that is how he speaks with trepidation I am agog to hear him speak with confidence!
This project, I hope, will also commend itself to the right reverend Prelates. In case I have offended them already, let me put myself in their good books by saying that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury was concerned that this should not be a year where parents or grown-ups simply tell children what to do. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich was concerned that in this year children should be heard to speak for themselves. This project does exactly that—it is for a children's art centre; a centre for children's culture. Which of us, indeed, has not been excited by children's prowess in the arts? Which of us has not had insights and visions from children's art exhibitions, from children's drawing, painting and sculpting?—which are often more and different in kind from that which we get from adult art. Which of us has not been excited by the remark-able youth orchestras which, it seems to me, are proliferating happily through the land? Which of us has not been excited by the sheer directness and simplicity of children's acting in the theatre, and dancing?
It seems to me that we now have an opportunity to set up a place where children can do these things. If by some chance noble Lords are so excited by the words I have just spoken that they determine tomorrow to go to see a children's art exhibition or hear a youth orchestra, they would find it very difficult to do so. It is only occasionally and by chance that these wonders appear. They are like comets in the artistic world; they appear rapidly and disappear. This would be an opportunity for a centre where children could display their excellence in the arts all the time. They
800
would not always be the same children; there would be a continual turnover of children.
This would require premises with a theatre, with performing spaces and with studios—because one must not forget the arts and the crafts of pottery and sculpture. However, premises can be come by. Of course, this would need funds. Funds can be sought. It would have ramifications of great complexity. Of course, adults would be needed to administer it. It would need experienced staffing by those who knew what they were about in the arts. Above all, it would need tremendous accommodation. A perpetual turnover of several hundred children is obviously an accommodation nightmare. A hostel of some sort might be needed.
The question arises where this centre should be located. Should it be in London, which is the place most visitors make as their first target, or should it perhaps be elsewhere?—because London and the arts is always thought to be a spider that attracts too much to itself. As yet we do not know. However, just at this moment a very exciting prospect has arisen which seems to have much to commend it. As many noble Lords will know, the Brighton West Pier is in desperate straits. It needs refurbishing to prevent it from simply falling into the sea. Above all, it needs a good use. As I understand it, having estimated that for safety reasons it would cost £300,000 to demolish, the Brighton Council has said that it would much rather give that sum as a contribution towards a real purpose for the pier. If that fairyland of a pier is one of our architectual curiosities, it is surely one of our architectural wonders. Might not it be exactly the place where children could perform?
Having said all that and having put this exciting prospect before the House, I would add that it is the international centre for children's culture that is being planned. I am well aware of the implications of the Third World and, indeed, of nations throughout the world in this debate. Like all noble Lords, I was literally stopped in my tracks by the sheer power and eloquence of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, about the Third World. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will not disagree with me that,

801
however dire the physical needs of the children of the world, their minds and their spirits must not go unattended.
This centre would be neither a college, nor a school. It would not be a teaching academy. However, it would be able to perform one marvellous teaching function; that is, teaching by example. The thought of children from all over the world and in all arts and diciplines meeting to perform, to see each other's work and merely to come as visitors to see the work of their contemporaries, must surely be an excitement to them and it must surely be an excitement to us.
I have gone on at some short length about this simply because I wanted to finish on an optimistic note, and I think that that is an optimistic note. Noble Lords will gather that it is too early for me to lean menacingly towards the Government Front Bench and demand funds, but in due course, no doubt, such approaches will be made. When they are, I only hope that they will be listened to sympathetically, because I believe that it is projects like this which it is precisely what this year is for. If we could build such a centre and, looking back, say "We built that in 1979", why, we could be proud of the year.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to make a suggestion. I believe that the noble Lord could do immense good by producing a film himself—with or without funds—of the Emperor's New Clothes. It would not be a nudist film but a film putting into effect the substance of this debate, that we can learn from children. It would have only one part for one child with only two lines to learn. I believe that it would do much good.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, like all artists, I am always happy to steal ideas.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, if my noble friend goes to South Wales, he will discover that we already have an international college on the lines that he indicated.
8.36 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I be permitted to say that if noble Lords rise when a speaker sits down,
802
they are required to ask him a question and not make a statement. I mention that because it has happened quite a number of times of late.
As everyone knows, the Motion has stimulated a very lively and informative debate. I am in some difficulty, as I always am on matters of this kind when we have a large number of speakers, because I can only take up a certain amount of your Lordships' time. It means that one cannot answer adequately most—I shall not say "all"—of the questions which have been put by noble Lords taking part in the debate.
I should like to add my personal thanks to the three maiden speakers and I am sure we all hope that it will not be too long before we hear them again. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Freyne, who raised a matter of some importance in the medical field without criticising the Government or the National Health Service—it must be almost a record for some considerable time. I wish to apologise for being out of the Chamber for most of the speech by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the whole of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. It was beyond my control. But notes were made of what was said and I think I can say that I know their contributions.
The fact that the International Year of the Child in the United Kingdom has, at this early stage, already met with an enthusiastic response from the Press, the television and radio, as well as from the general public, is a tribute to the wisdom of the United Nations in designating 1979 as a special year for the child throughout the world, and to the energy of all those, including my noble friend Lady Faithfull, who have been working for its success. The Motion refers to the improvement of the conditions of children both in this country and in the developing countries. Therefore, in replying on behalf of the Government I should like to refer not only to what we hope the International Year of the Child will mean to children in this country and what voluntary and other bodies and the Government aim to do here, but also to what we are doing for children in the developing countries through the Ministry of Overseas Development.

803
It seems to me to be highly appropriate that in this country, where voluntary organisations have played such a vital part in the development and provision of services for children, a group of voluntary bodies should have taken the lead in co-ordinating the national response for the Year. I know that we have been criticised—and by "we" I mean the Government—in some quarters on the grounds that we are the only European country in which the Government themselves have not taken the lead. However, I believe that that criticism is fundamentally mistaken. The co-operation between the Government and the voluntary bodies is something absolutely peculiar to this country. We have a tremendous record of voluntary service which is unmatched by any other country in the world. I believe that we have achieved what we have achieved today because of this partnership)—regardless of who has been in power—between Government and voluntary organisations. I believe that this will have a real measure of success because I think that the Government have come in in one respect and said to voluntary workers, "Now, we are prepared to do this if you are prepared to do something else".
I should like to say to those who are participating in this that they are not only making a contribution in that field as co-partners with the Government but are in fact making a quite unique contribution to what this is all about. The Government are therefore particularly happy to assist the United Kingdom Association for the International Year of the Child, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute on behalf I of the Government, because I have been asked to do so, to Lady Soames for her energy and imagination and the part that she herself has played and is playing in it. In a few short months since its inception, the Association has stimulated so much activity and interest that hardly anyone in this country can be excused for not knowing the special significance of 1979.
Noble Lords will be aware, as I am, of the programme of events which the Association has published, and I should like to refer to these for a moment or two. The Government have made, as many of you may know, a contribution of
804
£125,000 over two years for the Association's London headquarters and its committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The London headquarters is provided in rent-free accommodation at 85 Whitehall, and the Property Services Agency—that is a Government body—are supplying the furniture and services. Arrangements have also been made for the Central Office of Information to circulate the Association's publicity material free of charge. This contribution has recently caused some misunderstanding, and I should like to make it clear that it was after considerable thought that the Government decided to make a modest but realistic provision towards the central administration of the Association, its secretariat and regional committees.
The director, Mrs. Judith Stone, has a very small staff—and I want to emphasise, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the word "small"—who have performed wonders in stimulating national awareness, in designing a really first-class programme and, for that matter, in raising money from voluntary sources to finance it. Some people have complained at the grant being used for administration, while others have criticised it for not being enough; but, let us face it, unless there is money for administration you cannot get anything off the ground at all. This was the reason why the Government came in. Having regard to some of the difficulties that we are all facing, the progress which has been made by those responsible for the International Year of the Child says a great deal.
I believe that your Lordships have some idea of what the Association's programme is. As you know, the Association has seven working groups, and each group will cover a particular aspect concerning children. I do not propose to go into that in any great detail. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's response to the year, has told representatives of the Association that the Government Departments concerned with services for children will give special consideration to applications from voluntary and other organisations for grants in support of worthwhile schemes connected with the year—but they must be worthwhile schemes. We have

805
received quite a large number of applications so far.
My own Department has a major campaign for the reduction of perinatal and infant mortality and handicap, including a campaign of vaccination against rubella. We have one on the treatment of young offenders in the community, one on the ending of prison remands for girls under 17, and a seminar on preparation for parenthood (which is jointly undertaken with the Department of Education and Science and the National Children's Bureau). I think it right to mention that the Department of the Environment is including in its 1979–80 urban programme projects related to children, guidance on safety in children's playgrounds, and follow-up programmes related to the problems of children in high-rise blocks and the needs of one-parent families.
The Department of Education and Science has a research project on preparation for parenthood, and some further expansion of provision for under-fives which it will undertake jointly with my own Department. In the Department of Transport there will be continued emphasis on child safety on the roads. Although some of your Lordships may feel that this is relatively unimportant, the casualty rate resulting in death on the roads among children in this country is much too high. I shall not say anything more about the perinatal programe. I had intended, had I had the time, to say something more or less in detail about that, but in view of the time I shall not do so. We are also proposing to do something about environmental and social deprivation, and we have a scheme and a policy for that.
I should like now to turn to the developing countries. The Government think that the major aims of the International Year of the Child as defined by UNICEF are sensible—and I do not say that in at all a patronising way—and should result in practical improvement in the condition of children in both the developed and the developing world. They particularly welcome the third of the youth aims—to promote recognition of the vital links between programmes for children on the one hand and economic and social progress on the other. In addition to this and our aid programme, there are also certain specific areas where our aid is likely to be of the most direct benefit, and that is in the medical services, includ-
806
ing primary health care, mother and child care and family planning.
I myself represented the Government just over a year ago at the Fifth Commonwealth Medical Conference in New Zealand. This meets every three years. This Government are spending a great deal more money than many people realise in combating sickness and disease in the Commonwealth countries. I was able to address the Fifth Commonwealth Medical Conference on our ideas for the forthcoming three years.
We also have plans for nutrition and food production, and for education, for aid to multilateral agencies such as the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and also for aid to non-governmental organisations active in assisting children. We welcome also the IYC's emphasis on national and local action programmes which are likely to be of particular value in developing countries, and which we hope will lead to a concentration of expenditure on activities on the ground. We therefore strongly support the United Nations Children's Fund's decision to make 3 million dollars available to the developing countries to help them prepare such programmes.
As an indication of our own support, our contribution to UNICEF has been increasing steadily over recent years and has gone up by £1·3 million to £5·8 million this year. In addition to this contribution, we shall, subject to Parliamentary approval, contribute a sum of over £1,622,000 to UNICEF for projects which are projects identified by UNICEF and for which regular funds are needed and are not available at the present moment. We are doing something similar in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, supplying them with capsules, drugs, diets, supplementation kits and so on.
The Ministry of Overseas Development has contributed £40,000 towards the cost of a conference in London organised by the Institute of Child Health as part of the Child to Child Programme. I pointed out that one must have money to launch such projects and get them off the ground. That programme aims to encourage school children in developing countries to concern themselves with the health and welfare

807
of their younger brothers and sisters or other younger children in the community, and where this has been done it has proved more than worth while.
In addition, the Ministry of Overseas Development has made grants of £150,000 over three years to the IYC Secretariat so that they, too, can undertake a good deal of planning and projects. I wish to stress that the United Kingdom is concerned that the IYC should be a success not only nationally but internationally. Lady Faithfull was right to remind us that the vast majority of the world's deprived children are living overseas in developing countries and that we should have them in our minds during the whole of this particular year of activity.
I have hurried through what I wanted to say because I think it only right that your Lordships and the country at large should know the Government's view, the Government's response and what the Government are doing and are prepared to do. I will try now to answer some of the questions raised in the debate, though I appreciate that they will not be adequately answered because of the time factor. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, reminded us of 900,000 children under five of working mothers. I do not think it was his intention—indeed, he did not do so—to suggest that there were 900,000 children who were being abandoned by their working mothers and in need of some kind of day nursery. While it is absolutely true that there are 900,000 children of working mothers who undoubtedly want to do something with them while they are at work, we must bear in mind that the capital cost of a day nursery place is £4,271, so we should need about £4,000 million if we were to provide day nursery places for that number. I appreciate however, that it was not proposed that we should provide that number. The running costs work out at £1,410 per child per year, so it is a problem.
We do not have enough, and we recognise we do not have enough, day nurseries. A combined nursery school with day nursery is so expensive to set up and run that they will always be thin on the ground. We are alive to that and, as I say, we know there are not enough; but we must face the fact that for a considerable time to come there will not be enough because of the enormous cost involved.
808
But, having recognised that, we must ask ourselves whether there are other ways of dealing with the problem, and perhaps one way to deal with it is through voluntary people and organisations, who made such a contribution years ago in this field; say, through an army of child minders, with all the usual safeguards. As I say, it is not that the Government are unmindful of the problem, but just the very considerable cost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised a number of points including that of the inappropriate admission of mentally handicapped children, a point also raised by the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun. Last June we sent out a draft circular for consultation which asked health and local authorities jointly to set dates by which alternative services would be available in the community to avoid and prevent inappropriate admissions to hospital. The circular made it clear that some children were always likely to need the specialist services which were available only in hospital. Moreover, it stressed that children should not be discharged from or refused admission to mentally handicap hospitals unless suitable alternatives were available.
A large number of bodies commented on the draft circular and most of them welcomed its aim, but some organisations also called for the discharge from hospital of mentally handicapped children who were admitted for inappropriate reasons in the past. That would entail considerably more expenditure than the prevention of inappropriate admissions, a fact that we must face; it is a fact of life. It is not something we like, and as soon as we can do something about it we will do so.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of the Children Act 1975. I have said before that much of the impetus for current development in family placement came from the passing of that Act, which contains major reforms of law on adoption, custody and the care of children, and a number of important provisions came into force in 1976. Some provisions not yet in force would require substantial increases in resources to be made available, but we hope to be able to introduce custodianship orders within the next year. I cannot hold out a great deal of hope of being able to do anything other than that.

809
The noble Baroness also raised the question of reviews of children in care. My Department had discussed the possibility of introducing regulations to govern the conduct of reviews of children in care with the local authorities. Decisions have not yet been made. The important aspect is the development of good practice, whether or not based on the regulations. As I say, this is something we have taken on board and we are doing as much about it as we can, though final decisions as to what we have been or shall be able to do I cannot give at this stage.
The noble Baroness then asked what the Secretary of State for Education was doing about the opening of schools. The short answer is that I hope the noble Baroness, along with all noble Lords who are feeling "uptight" about this—that is, most of us—will read the Statement in yesterday's Hansard made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, in which she gave details of steps which are being taken to mitigate the effects of the industrial action. I appreciate, and have some sympathy with the view, that a number of your Lordships feel that that is not enough. She urged local authorities to open and keep open their schools wherever possible; to make provision in suitable alternative accommodation, such as church halls, for the teaching of children who are preparing for examinations; and to arrange where possible to set homework for children in other years. That is a definite request made to local authorities: that if they cannot open schools they should try to provide accommodation in church halls and elsewhere.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood raised a matter which I knew nothing about myself, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was good enough to pass me a note stating that the problems referred to had been discussed in the Home Office Affairs Committee on Monday, when the Home Secretary had said that he proposes to deal with the matter in question administratively, without the need for legislation. We shall have to wait and see how soon that happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised one or two points regarding community service orders. He also spoke of the work of the probation officers. Those of us who have been associated with them
810
know the value of their contribution. I would mention, particularly for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, that we fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said about community service generally. My own Department had been funding community service volunteers centrally for pioneer schemes with the 14 to 17-year-olds who are under supervision orders. We have not said very much about this. It is an experiment which is taking place in, I think, five or six places, and we believe in keeping our light under a bushel until it is advisable for us to bring it out for all to see. There are a number of local schemes backed by local authorities. I do not want to say very much about it now, other than to mention that it is a community service volunteer scheme for the 14 to 17-year-olds who are under supervision orders, mainly under the supervision of a local authority social worker.
The noble Baroness also suggested that something might be done by the Government to reduce the gap relating to those children who simply do not go to school; she suggested that perhaps voluntary workers should be brought in to deal with this. This is a new idea, and I should like to put it before my right honourable friend to see whether we can do anything about it—
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: It is done in some boroughs, very satisfactorily.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that information. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, referred to the Warnock Committee, which reported in May 1978. As she knows, the report contains 224 recommendations. The Government decided that there should be the fullest possible consultation before decisions were arrived at. A consultative document was issued in July 1978, and we have requested those to whom we have sent it to let us have their views and observations by the end of this month. The Government are anxious to take account of all the views on future education provision for handicapped children, and as soon as we receive all the views, and we have been able to assess them, I hope that it may be possible to have a debate on this question.

811
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked in particular why child benefit is not index linked. I can give the noble Lord only a short answer; namely, that our first priority is to get a good rate of child benefit. We can then consider whether child benefit should be index linked, although one must bear in mind that it is not a maintenance benefit provided against the interruption or cessation of earnings, as are all the other social security benefits. It is a separate benefit. However, once we have a reasonable level of benefit, I expect that we would wish to see whether we can have it index linked.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, the comparison is not with the other social security benefits; it is with the personal allowances against income tax which are now index linked, and which the child benefit system replaces.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vaizey also raised the matter of child benefit, and I understood him to say that we ought to try to raise it to £10 a week. We have been thinking about this, and the figure we got round to was £9·35 a week, which is not far short of what my noble friend suggests, but when we worked it out we found that that would cost no less a sum than £3,000 million; and we have not yet recovered from the shock of that. Thus, I think it hardly likely that we shall be doing very much about it in the foreseeable future.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey also raised the question of the triennial report which was recommended by Court. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services considered the matter in detail he felt that the volume of reports published by Government was, if anything, already too great, and he was doubtful about the benefits of adding to it. My right honourable friend feels that such reports are time consuming, costly to produce, and often somewhat tedious to read. Periodical reports in particular tend to attract less attention than White Papers and discussion documents directed to specific problems. But I must admit that my noble friend Lord Vaizey was rather convincing, and in the light of what has been said, I propose to put this matter to my right honourable friend.
812
I believe that if I have not answered all the questions which have been raised in the debate, I have certainly answered all the major ones, even if not to the satisfaction of noble Lords and noble Baronesses. In view of the time I do not feel that I ought to continue, other than to thank the noble Baroness for raising this subject. We are so good in this House in dealing with matters of great moment that are not raised in another place. There is such a wealth of experience here, as I have said before, and such a fund of knowledge, that at the end of such a debate one cannot come to any other conclusion than that a great deal of good sense has been talked. I therefore express my own gratitude to the noble Baroness.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships' House for very long, but I wish to make just a few comments. First of all, may I now congratulate our maiden speakers. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, must have had quite a shock when she heard that between the time of her speaking and the time the Minister spoke her troubles over nationality had been dealt with—and not by law! It will be very interesting to see exactly how this is going to happen, and we look forward to hearing about it from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on the change in the social scene. Not only has it changed, but it is even changing again.
We are deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his speech. At the moment, in my own area, I am having a slight contretemps over the whole question of recreation, and I think we all agree with him that recreation is one of the things we need to think about in this year. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord de Freyne, who spoke of dyslexic children, we know very well what a great struggle the Association for Dyslexic Children have had, and we are very glad to hear that the noble Lord will be speaking in your Lordships' House on their behalf. To the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, may I say that, although he said he was not a maiden speaker, I am going to regard him as such because I believe that will put us into the Guinness Book of Records as having had more

813
maiden speakers than in any other debate. I therefore say that he is a maiden speaker for that reason. But, apart from that, we are very grateful to him for his contribution.
My Lords, I thank all speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—and this was followed up by the Minister—said that there was great knowledge, great depth and great commitment. I am almost inclined to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that perhaps all those who have spoken today, together with the Government and the Opposition, could well run the country and improve everything within a year. I will not detain your Lordships' House much longer, but I think I must just say that, in the speeches, great knowledge has been shown as to the needs of children under five, parental responsibility, poverty, handicap, delinquency, planning for parenthood and the spiritual rights of the child. Here, perhaps I may say that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett (and could I say that the last are often first?), will have a drink with the right reverend Prelates and with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, so that we can see how wide are the spiritual needs of children and how they can be met on a very wide plane.
My Lords, of the speakers, seven and a half spoke on the needs of children overseas, and what they had to say was deeply moving and deeply realistic. With my committee, I was responsible for bringing up a boy from the age of 16 to 18. He was a photographer, and he was sent to Bangladesh. He took a photograph which was so very moving—in fact, deeply moving—and I said to him, "That photograph is so painful. What made you take it?" He said, "That is how I felt when I first came into care. I was therefore able to take the photograph, so that other children who suffer as I suffered will be able to benefit."
That brings me on to the question of action. May I say that I think children can often help children, as has been said by many noble Lords. If some of our children could be shown films and could be taught of the sufferings of children overseas, as was suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Noel-Baker and Lord Brock-way, by my noble friend Lady Vickers
814
and by many others, we should enrich our own children if they felt they could help other children less fortunate than themselves.
My Lords, on the triennial report I would say to the Minister that I hope very much that he can give thought to this. I would also say that, generous as the Government have been, it might be helpful if they were a little more generous on the question of administration and staffing. But I leave that with the Minister. I should like very much to support the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and I hope he gets the Brighton Pier. I thank your Lordships again, but may I also thank the Minister for his very able reply, both for the first part of his speech and also for taking the individual points of speakers that have spoken. It must be very difficult. It is very satisfying to those who speak, to feel that he listened and felt with and for them. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
  CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
  TOBACCO AND SMOKING: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  TOBACCO AND SMOKING: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS: MRC LABORATORIES OVERSEAS
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS: MRC LABORATORIES OVERSEAS
  SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO: SOVIET PRESENCE
  SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO: SOVIET PRESENCE
  BARENTS SEA: INTERFERENCE WITH BRITISH VESSELS
  BARENTS SEA: INTERFERENCE WITH BRITISH VESSELS
  GATWICK AIRPORT: LOAD PER PASSENGER AIRCRAFT
  GATWICK AIRPORT: LOAD PER PASSENGER AIRCRAFT
  HEATHROW/GATWICK AIRLINE TRANSFERS: STATUTORY POWERS
  HEATHROW/GATWICK AIRLINE TRANSFERS: STATUTORY POWERS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES
  NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY CASUAL WORKERS: INCOME TAX
  NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY CASUAL WORKERS: INCOME TAX
  SHIPPING HEALTH REGULATIONS
  SHIPPING HEALTH REGULATIONS