Sitting of 19 February 1979

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

    Private Industry (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total of financial assistance, for which his Department is responsible, provided to private industry, since February 1974.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Financial assistance for which my Department is responsible to all sectors of industry in the period from 1 April 1974, including forecast expenditure in 1978–79, totalled £6,148 million at 1978 survey prices and is included in the programme detailed in table 2.4 of the Public Expenditure Survey—Cmnd. 7439. Records are not kept which distinguish in all instances between financial assistance to the public and
    2
    private sectors, but assistance to the private sector during the period in question totalled approximately £5,000 million.
    Mr. Madden: In view of the colossal sums of taxpayers' money which have been given to private industry, does the Minster agree that it is high time that we introduced much better procedures to secure public accountability and value for money? Are not much tougher regulations long overdue to cover top civil servants leaving Government Departments, including the Department of Industry, for more lucrative jobs in British industry which has received large handouts from the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend will know that there are established procedures for monitoring such appointments. Obviously we wish to secure the best value for money. During the period in question investment projects worth £7,300 million were generated from the selective assistance, 235,000 jobs were created and 133,000 jobs were saved.
    Mr. Fell: Is it possible to break down the total amounts? Can they be broken down into areas or even counties? If so, what is the amount for Norfolk or East Anglia?
    Mr. Williams: I do not have such detailed information available at the moment. There is a regional breakdown. If the hon. Member indicates whether he wants the breakdown on a constituency, county or regional basis, I shall

    3
    attempt to provide him with all the information possible.

    Industrial Production (Disruption)
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Industry how far British industry has been affected in the first six weeks of 1979 by employment and industrial disputes.
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects the level of industrial production in the United Kingdom to return to normal following the recent industrial disruption.
    Mr. Alan Williams: On the basis of early reports from industry it is estimated that about 10 per cent. of normal manufacturing production may have been lost between 7 January and 10 February as a result of the transport disputes. It is difficult to say with certainty when industrial production will return to normal, but by the week ending 10 February production was back towards 95 per cent. of normal. I believe that production may rise above normal in the next few weeks as some of the lost production is made up.
    The estimated number of lay-offs rose to a peak of some 235,000 around 30 January at the height of the disruption. The last estimate made was of 85,000 laid off on 5 February. It is believed that virtually all those who were temporarily laid off as a result of the transport disputes will by now have been recalled by their employers.
    Mr. Jessel: Since secondary picketing contributed to that 10 per cent. drop in production and to the 85,000 people who were laid off, why did not the Government tell the public from the start that secondary picketing amounted to a civil offence, instead of leaving it to a private individual to take the matter to court, after which the picketing melted away? Was not that an abdication of government?
    Mr. Williams: No. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is, from the best of motives, over-simplifying the law relating to secondary picketing. We regret that 235,000 people were laid off. But that figure is far lower than the 1,135,000 who were laid off in January 1974.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister agree that there was a sharp fall in production
    4
    in that limited time? Does he agree that further falls in production cannot be ruled out if industrial disruption reoccurs when other large pay claims come through the system? Does he feel, in that context, that the concordat document is a sufficient commitment by the unions to having a higher rate of growth than the low rate that we have had in recent years?
    Mr. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Member, as a member of a party that has advocated free collective bargaining, appreciates that the consequence of free collective bargaining is a substantial job loss. Indeed, during the period of Conservative control in 1972–73 one-third more days were lost because of disputes than we lost in the first four years of office.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the news today, and especially in the Financial Times, comment that we can easily make up the ground that was lost during the strike?
    Mr. Williams: As I indicated in my initial answer, it is highly likely that much of the ground lost can be made up. But we should not delude ourselves that we can go in for bouts of national self-flagellation without creating damage and injury. There is bound to be loss of output and orders. I hope that members of all unions will bear in mind the difficulties and hardships that they may be imposing on their colleagues in their own or other sectors.
    Mr. Adley: The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred to the normal level of industrial production. In the light of our levels of industrial production in this country compared with our international competitors, is the Minister satisfied that we are doing sufficiently well? If not, is it the fault of the Government, the unions or the British people?
    Mr. Williams: We had a considerable debate on this last week. Both sides of the House agreed that it has for a long time been a shortcoming of the British economy that we are not able to attain the levels of productivity and growth attained by some of our competitors. One of the major objectives of the industrial strategy is to secure the competitive base to enable us to do that.

    Capital Returns
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the present rates of return on capital employed in British industry.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The Government have repeatedly recognised that industry should become more profitable.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that in the first four years of this Government the return on capital was an average of 2 per cent., whereas the return on capital under the last four years of the Conservative Government was about 6 per cent.? Does not this prove that the mythical industrial strategy has failed?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must turn his mind to the question that I posed to his right hon. and hon. Friends last week. If the industrial strategy has been a failure, why is investment so much higher now than when the Conservative Party was in office? Last year investment was 10 per cent. higher than in 1973 and 13 per cent. higher than in 1972. If investment by leasing is taken into account, last year investment was 19 per cent higher than in 1972 and 15 per cent. higher than in 1973.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Does the Minister recall that just over 10 days ago the Prime Minister said that he would do everything possible to put the needs of industry first? The next day the Government raised minimum lending rate by one and a half points, at a time when industry is already suffering from strikes. The most important help that the Government could give to British industry would be to cut their spending and borrowing.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of what happened, the Government were able to make considerable placings of gilts last week. This reduced the money supply. If he is preaching to the Labour Party about the level of public sector borrowing, I should point out to him that, during the last year of the Conservative Government in 1973, the public sector borrowing requirement was running at 6·6 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Last year it was running at 5·3 per cent.

    British Steel Corporation
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): My right hon. Friend expects to meet Sir Charles Villiers later this week.
    Mr. Gow: Bearing in mind that the losses of the Corporation were £443 million in the year ended 1 April 1978, can the Minister tell the House what is his latest estimate of the loss of the Corporation for the year ending 1 April 1979? Secondly, can the Minister tell the House by how much he expects the manpower of the Corporation to fall during the next financial year, ending 1 April 1980?
    Mr. Kaufman: At this stage I cannot give an estimate of what the annual loss is likely to be. The hon. Gentleman will know of the half-yearly figures that were given. We do not expect the second half-yearly figures to be as low as that in view of such developments as the road haulage strike. On his second point, demanning is a matter for the Corporation in consultation with the unions.
    Mr. Marshall: Can the Minister tell us what he estimates to be the effect on the Corporation of the recent loss of production through industrial disputes? There has been a lay-off of 26,000 people. What financial impact will this have, and how will it affect the Corporation's hope to break even by this time next year?
    Mr. Kaufman: I sought an estimate on that from the Corporation. While the strike was taking place its tentative preliminary estimate was that it was costing £30 million. That figure may be high, but clearly it cannot have helped towards the break-even point.
    Mr. John Ellis: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Steel, will he impress on him the desirability of looking at the industry as a whole

    7
    on any decisions that may have to be taken? Does he agree that the fullest consultation with the trade unions is imperative? Does he agree that there should be agreement, and not just consultation, on the future of this great industry?
    Mr. Kaufman: Whenever the Corporation has proposals for a closure, the Government have required it to consult the Trades Union Congress steel committee and the local work force. We have asked the corporation to seek to obtain agreement, and trust that it will do so. In the past 12 months every closure has been on the basis of agreement. But I repeat to my hon. Friend that in the end the Trades Union Congress steel committee or the local work force cannot have a veto on decisions that the Corporation needs to make in order to achieve overall viability. If overall viability is not achieved, the steelworks in my hon. Friend's constituency will also be damaged.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does it remain the Government's attitude that the Davignon plan offers the best method of securing the continuation of a viable European steel industry? If so, how does he explain the conduct of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on 25 January in accepting the existence of the Davignon plan and then urging his hon. Friends to vote against it?
    Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State cast a sensible vote. I would have followed him into the Division Lobby had I not been detached for other duties. The Davignon plan is a plan to sustain the steel market. At the Council of Ministers I have paid tribute to Viscount Davignon for that part of the arrangements. But it boils down to the Commission seeking to intervene in the right of the British Government to aid their own steel industry, and the resolution passed by this House is a resolution that I shall be taking to Brussels with me next month.
    Mr. Hardy: As the Opposition will not do so, will my right hon. Friend commend the Corporation for its continuing and determined efforts to achieve viability and its continuing and increasingly successful endeavour to promote the quality of production and increasingly to achieve efficiency in operation?
    Mr. Kaufman: I wish that the Opposition would on this issue, if on no other, voice the tributes paid to Sir Charles Villiers by the Daily Express, which go somewhat beyond even the admirable tributes paid by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Norman Lament: Has the Minister seen the press reports that suggest that Corby is to be closed before Shotton because Corby is not in a marginal seat? Will the Minister confirm the doctrine that he last week spelt out as applying to British Shipbuilders, namely, that decisions on closures were decisions for management and management alone?
    Mr. Kaufman: I have never read such bunkum as the statement in The Observer yesterday on this issue. The Observer has a long record of accuracy on many matters, and I am astonished that in about three weeks it should have printed two totally innaccurate stories about the British Steel Corporation.

    British Leyland
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet the chairman of British Leyland.
    Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman and chief executive of British Leyland frequently.
    Mr. Neubert: Will the Minister impress upon the strike-happy sections of the British Leyland work force that their company is now tenth in the world league of car makers, producing less than 10 per cent. of the world's largest, and that, unless there is parity of production and parity of productivity, there can be no parity of payment?
    Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member's cheap jibes do not fit in very well with the votes cast by the workers in British Leyland in favour of industrial peace and of sustaining the future of that company. Although the performance of British Leyland leaves a very great deal to be desired, as is acknowledged on both sides, the company has for the past months been the market leader in this country.
    Mr. Litterick: Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ask the chairman of British Leyland to explain the failure of British Leyland to implement the 5 per cent. wage increase negotiated with national officials for the

    9
    whole of Leyland but not implemented at the Long bridge plant—which was the principal cause of the recent strike at that factory? Is my right hon. Friend aware—and will he take it up with the chairman—that I have in my hand a document published by the British Leyland communications and public affairs department which, only five days before the strike started, congratulated the workers of British Leyland on having increased their production over the previous year?
    Mr. Kaufman: I congratulate the workers at British Leyland on their decision to pursue their differences with the management in the proper area of negotiation and not by striking, as they very sensibly decided a few days ago.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Minister say whether the corporate plan is yet with him? Has it been revised as a result of the Longbridge strike? Will he assure the House that the Longbridge work force will be informed of any reduction in output targets resulting from that episode—that not just the shop stewards but the work force will be told what the new targets are?
    Mr. Kaufman: As I pointed out in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) the other day, I attach the greatest possible importance to proper consultation with the work force and proper information for the work force on all these matters. On the other hand, I must point out—and that is why I hope we shall not have a series of jibes against the work force across the Floor of the House—that the work force, including the work force at Longbridge, having considered the consequencies of industrial action, decided that they preferred to pursue their problems through negotiation.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome very much his condemnation of the cheap jibes from the other side of the Chamber against workers in my constituency in the car industry and in other constituencies? Is he aware, further, that the workers in my constituency have a record of industrial relations second to none? Will he also tell the management of British Leyland that brinkmanship in any circumstances at present will do no good to the industry which they serve?
    Mr. Kaufman: It is a great pity, bearing in mind that the Opposition have been prating for weeks now about the importance of votes and ballots among workers, that when workers vote and vote for industrial peace there are no words from the Opposition complimenting those workers but just cheap attacks upon them. That is not the way in which we shall achieve industrial peace.
    Mr. Hal Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to my supplementary question about the corporate plan, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the leave of the House at the earliest possible moment to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Computer Industry
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he plans to meet representatives of the computer industry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): My colleagues and I meet representatives of the leading companies from time to time and keep in close touch with the activities of the computer sector working party. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for further meetings.
    Mr. Spicer: What lead is the hon. Gentleman's Department giving in the application of labour-saving computer techniques? When he next meets representatives of the industry, will he tell them what Civil Service jobs have been abolished in the process?
    Mr. Huckfield: Civil Service jobs, of course, are not primarily a responsibility of my Department. But, in terms of the activities of my Department, I can tell the hon. Member that under various industry assistance schemes about £3·3 million has either been given or is under discussion and that, as part of more general schemes of support for the computer industry, about £4·5 million is currently programmed.
    Mr. Warren: In view of the Minister's reply that only £7 million has been committed of the £400 million which the Government gave us before Christmas as their target for expenditure over the next four years, does not the hon. Gentleman

    11
    think that it is about time his Department got a move on?
    Mr. Hnckfield: I do not think the hon. Member can quite add up. It comes to nearly £8 million. The £400 million, of course, is a package of total support for the whole of the microelectronics industry. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the support being given to the computer industry by my Department and by the NEB, he will see that it is much more substantial than that.

    Investment
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the level of industrial investment during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the com parable figure for the previous 12-month period.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Total investment by manufacturing industry in the 12 months ending September 1978 is estimated at £3,780 million at 1975 prices, 8 per cent. above the level of £3,496 million in the previous 12 months.
    Mr. Knox: What are the Government doing to increase the demand for the products of industry without which industrial investment will never rise to the level we need?
    Mr. Williams: To begin with, the fact that investment is increasing is an indication that industry is satisfied that there are adequate measures to ensure that there is demand for its products. Within the industrial strategy, much of the attention in the relevant sectors is being given to closer relationships between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers and between manufacturers which compete in the same products so that each compliments each other's range instead of drawing in imports of, say, domestic electrical appliances from Italy to supplement ranges.

    Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company
    Mr. loan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Industry what action he is proposing to take to aid the Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company.
    Mr. Alan Williams: We are now considering a modified proposal from KME.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend be generous in considering what aid should be given to KME, in view of the fact that earlier today he said that £6,000 million had been given to private enterprise since 1974? This is an attempt at a workers' co-operative in an area of high unemployment, and it should be given every sympathy by the Government.
    Mr. Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we have given financial support to KME on four separate occasions. There was a grant when it was set up. My right hon. Friend and I gave it a further grant. It has had temporary employment subsidy. I provided interim finance while the working party was in operation. My hon. Friend will also know that the working party was set up at the request of the co-operative on the strict undertaking that it would abide by the recommendations of that working party. It is to be regretted that, substantially because of action on the part of certain people within the co-operative, that recommendation was never allowed to be implemented.
    Mr. Grylls: Is the Minister aware that most people who have followed the sad drama of Kirkby unreservedly condemn Ministers for having given nearly £5 million worth of aid, which has gone straight down the drain, against the advice on almost every occasion of the Industrial Development Advisory Board made up of employers and trade unionists? I ask him not to repeat this folly and send more money down that drain.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that even the IDAB made the point in rejecting one of the co-operative's propositions that it had to bear in mind the difficulties within that locality in employment terms. This is a matter which the Government have also had to take into account. We have tried to consider each application on its merits as required under the Industry Act. The current application will be considered on the same basis.
    Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in fact the money has not gone down the drain? If this support had not been given to KME workers.

    13
    they would have been on the dole in an area with 100,000 unemployed. That would have meant paying out unemployment and other benefits to those workers. May I remind my right hon. Friend that there is a PAC report which indicates that with certain changes the co-operative can be made profitable and that the workers have worked exceedingly hard in extremely difficult circumstances? Instead of everyone always criticising them, they need assistance and management expertise. At present, the Opposition are constantly knocking workers who are doing their best in a difficult situation.
    Mr. Williams: When I went, at the request of the directors of the co-operative, to speak to the workers, other than for perhaps three or four people on whom understandably the Press and television concentrated, the impression which came over to me very strongly was one of people who desperately wanted to work. One respects that wish. Our aim is to ensure that whatever work is provided there is provided on a long-term viable basis. It would not do a service to the work force in Kirkby if we kept propping up projects which were not properly considered and properly conceived. I will still consider financial support for a project which offers long-term viability.
    Mr. Tebbit: Will the Minister confirm that the money that has gone to Kirkby is included in the sum of £600 million or so of financial assistance to private industry? Does he not agree that most of the money which goes as so-called assistance to industry goes for the same reason that this money was given to Kirkby—that is, to provide jobs in areas where people have resolutely refused to cooperate with management in making industry productive enough to stand on its own feet?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) could not be further from the truth—
    Mr. Heffer: He is a squalid little man.
    Mr. Williams: Nearly all the projects which come to me—many brought and supported by Conservative Members concerning factories in their constituencies—require considerable rationalisation and restructuring. I think, for example, of the textile and footwear industries where fin-
    14
    ancial support has been given with an acceptance by trades unions and management that restructuring and higher productivity with, if necessary, the shedding of manpower, are an essential part of ensuring the long-term viability of the industry.
    Later—
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we are used to robust debate in the House. Nobody takes exception to that. However, may I ask you to say whether you think that the expression used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was in order? My hon. Friend made a comment that the hon. Gentleman did not like. The hon. Gentleman replied that my hon. Friend was wallowing in vomit. Will you, Mr. Speaker, rule that that is going too far, even taking into account the language that we sometimes use in the House?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are often noises below the Gangway which I am unable properly to hear. That is not for lack of hearing. It is that nobody in this place can hear everything that is said below the Gangway. I know how fortunate I am. I know that complimentary—and other—remarks are exchanged there.
    In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that it behoves all of us to remember that we are the highest court in the land, that we are the Mother of Parliaments and that we should behave according to the high office that we are privileged to hold.

    British Shipbuilders
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of British Shipbuilders.
    Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly.
    Mr. Montgomery: The next time that the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Shipbuilders will he ask whether the corporation will publish its proposals for manpower cuts in the industry? If it is true that these cuts have been announced to the trade unions concerned, does the Minister not think

    15
    that Parliament is also entitled to that information?
    Mr. Kaufman: The corporate plan, which has been put forward by British Shipbuilders to the Government, is being carefully considered. We will make our conclusions known at the appropriate time. The trade unions are being consulted on the corporate plan in accordance with the duty laid on British Shipbuilders by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. By consulting the trade unions British Shipbuilders is obeying the law.
    Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend say whether British Shipbuilders is now meeting an increased proportion of British orders?
    Mr. Kaufman: The problem is that scarcely any orders are coming forward from British ship owners or anyone else. However, without the intervention fund we would have lost many orders which have come from British ship owners but which otherwise would have gone abroad, almost certainly to the Far East.
    Sir Paul Bryan: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman will he tell him how the Government justify providing Vietnam with ships at favourable or subsidised rates when the Vietnamese Government are profiteering from a disgraceful traffic in refugees who are put into countries which are known to be too humane to refuse them entry?
    Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development made a statement about the ships for Vietnam last week. If the hon. Member quarrels, in regard to the provision of overseas aid, with having those ships built in Sunderland, he had better have a conversation with the Opposition's favourite shipbuilder Mr. Derek Kimber who pressed the Government very hard for these aid terms.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Are British Shipbuilders able to offer the same kind of credit that Japan was able to offer Pakistan for a large order for six ships, namely, 100 per cent. credit payable over 30 years?
    Mr. Kaufman: Since we have hopes of Pakistan, I do not think that I had better enter into any controversy on that issue.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the Minister of State assure the House that his own well known personal and political dislike of Mr. Christopher Bailey will not stand in the way of the possible sale of Falmouth Ship Repair to private enterprise? If some jobs can be saved in this way, would it not be wise to consider it?
    Mr. Kaufman: Since I have never met Mr. Christopher Bailey, it is impossible for me to entertain any particular view of him one way or the other. On the other hand, if Mr. Bailey wishes to make a proposal of genuine quality and viability, British Shipbuilders will consider it.

    National Enterprise Board
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to meet the chairman of the National Enterprise Board.
    Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman very frequently.
    Mr. Budgen: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman will he ask him when the board proposes to pay a dividend?
    Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Member genuinely wants my right hon. Friend to put that question to the chairman, my right hon. Friend, when he returns from China, will think about it.
    Mr. Rooker: Is my right hon. Friend able to make a further statement following the exchange at Question Time on 15 January regarding the allegations about Allied Investments, apropos the NEB? Has he spoken to the chairman about the matter since then? If he has, has the name of the company Project Developments come to hand? That is the company that allegedly was used for the transfer of £3 million of bribes from Sir Richard Marsh's company to Saudi Arabian sources in order to get that order before the NEB took the company over.
    Mr. Kaufman: As I undertook when the House discussed this matter, I communicated with the chairman of the NEB. I have had a reply from Sir Leslie

    17
    Murphy in which he reiterated the assurances he gave me. I know that my hon. Friend will accept that the NEB, having twice reiterated those assurances, would not wish to move from that position. I repeat what I have said before. Anyone who feels, as a result of the various allegations that have been made, that his own reputation has been traduced has remedies available to him.
    Mr. Christopher Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for holding the conversations to which he has referred, but is he aware that the situation is not yet satisfactory? The next time he has conversations about Allied Investments and the other companies involved, will he tell the NEB that it is not sensible to concentrate so much investment of medical exports of this kind in one or two Gulf States where there is a real danger following what has happened in Iran? If we are seriously entering the business of medical exports, at least our investments should be spread rather more widely.
    Mr. Kaufman: I am sure that by now the NEB has come to study very carefully all the exchanges in the House on these matters.
    Mr. Grylls: Does the Minister of State recognise that Question Time is the time for giving information to the House of Commons? Will he therefore treat the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) seriously? The Minister of State is responsible, after the Secretary of State, for the NEB. When will the Board pay a dividend on the thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that have been put into it? It is a simple question.
    Mr. Kaufman: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) was going to take the opportunity of his supplementary question to apologise to Lord Stokes for the wanton way in which he traduced his reputation in this House.

    British Steel Corporation (Investment Projects)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list those investment projects valued at £1 million or more which are currently under way or which have been completed
    18
    during the last five years in the Sheffield or Rotherham areas of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: There are 44 such projects, costing in all £337 million at outturn prices. I am arranging for the Corporation to supply my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) with details.
    Mr. Hardy: In view of those commendable and already justified investments, will my hon. Friend ensure that the opportunity they provide is not diminished by the unreasonable level of special steel import penetration that we continue to experience? Does he agree that urgent and emphatic action is needed in the interest both of the regions and the nation?
    Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the substantial achievements of the steelworks in the Sheffield area. We have acknowledged the continuing problem of special steel imports. I hope that my hon. Friend will take cognisance of the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 24 January which showed that in some sectors of that market import penetration is no longer increasing. I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in continuing contact with Commissioner Davignon on this matter.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: When the chairman of the British Steel Corporation replies, will the Minister ensure that the reply is deposited in the House of Commons or is printed in Hansard? Will the Minister indicate the extent to which investment in Sheffield has given and will give the best return on capital? Will he indicate the extent to which funds have been provided by the European Investment Bank, the European Coal and Steel Community and other Community sources?
    Mr. Huckfield: I shall certainly arrange for this reply to be placed in the Library. I shall do my best to ensure that the other information to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) has referred is included. I refer, also, to the offer that my Department has made to the special steels section of the industry

    19
    of a section 8 Industry Act scheme to help that section of the industry.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has had concerning the future of the British aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kaufman: I regularly meet the chairmen of the publicly owned aerospace corporations, and others, to discuss a wide range of matters affecting the future of the industry.
    Mr. Adley: As regards sales of military aircraft by British Aerospace, including the Harrier, will the Minister of State confirm that he is not unduly influenced by the Morning Star, by the Kremlin or by the Tribune group, all of which are singing the same song on this matter, but that his main concern is the strategic interest of NATO combined with the commercial interests of both British Aerospace and the British taxpayer? Will he take it from me that the shop stewards at BAC Hurn fully support Her Majesty's Government in a determination to proceed with the sale of Harriers to China?
    Mr. Kaufman: I do not know what that was all about. It was the usual load of vituperative pseudo-rhetoric which we get from the hon. Gentleman, when I was in fact hoping that we should have from him a good question on Concorde, which I was all prepared to answer. On the question of the sales of Harrier, I have nothing to add to the statement made in the House last month by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: That is not good enough. After the invasion of Vietnam by China this weekend, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to exclude from his negotiations in Peking the supply of military goods to China and confine himself, as America and Germany have done, to non-military goods? Would it not be shameful if at this moment, when the United Nations are asking for restraint, we heightened the war danger not only in the Far East but perhaps in the whole world by acting as merchants of death?
    Mr. Kaufman: I recognise the strong and sincere feelings which have motivated my hon. Friend on all these matters over
    20
    many years. He has a consistent record of opposition to sales of military weapons, and the whole House respects him for that. Nevertheless, I stand on the statement on this issue made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Emery: Does the Minister realise, however, that there is considerable concern and that there is a developing pressure group from certain areas—they may be described as the extreme Left—which are trying hard to suggest that the Harrier order should not be proceeded with? Will the right hon. Gentleman take well on board that it is my belief that the majority of the British people would wish to see this magnificent British aircraft able to be sold overseas, and that an order from and delivered to the Chinese could well stimulate a great deal more orders from overseas countries throughout the world?
    Mr. Kaufman: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not join many of his hon. Friends in the cheap way in which some of them approach these matters, and he is endeavouring to speak constructively. I know also that he will accept that some label of "extreme Left" or other is not to be attached to people who for sincere conscientious reasons have long opposed sales of military weapons to any country for any reason. Nevertheless, this Government have stated a policy on this issue, and that is their policy.
    Mr. Heffer: Although I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), may I ask my right hon. Friend another question? What discussions has he had with Lucas Aerospace in relation to Merseyside, and can he say what will happen on Merseyside, especially in view of the possible forthcoming closure of the Victoria works?
    Mr. Kaufman: Last Wednesday I took the chair at a tripartite meeting of representatives of the Government, unions—including members of the combine cooperative committee—and management of Lucas Aerospace at which we discussed the future development plans of Lucas Aerospace. A most important agreement was reached which, among other things, included a decision that Lucas Aerospace would proceed immediately with the construction of new

    21
    factories at Huyton and Bradford, that the new factory at Huyton would employ 800 instead of 500 as originally proposed, that there would be no compulsory redundancies at Bradford and no compulsory redundancies at Liverpool in the next two years, that a group would be set up to consider the possible development of some of the alternative products proposed by the combine co-operative, and that if this group came up with positive recommendations Lucas Industries would use its best endeavours to manufacture those products on Merseyside so as to create or preserve jobs there. I hope that the House will agree that this is a useful and promising outcome of these meetings, and I shall arrange to publish in the Official Report the agreement which was reached after the meeting last Wednesday.
    Mr. Warren: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Aerospace has announced that more than half the contracts for the 146 airliner project are being let to foreign companies? Is it the wish of his Department that taxpayers' money should be used to keep foreign workers employed or to keep our workers employed?
    Mr. Kaufman: When I announced last summer that the 146 would go ahead—of course, it went ahead only because of nationalisation—I said that British Aerospace would look to the possibility of collaboration with overseas partners in the manufacture of this aircraft. British Aerospace has been successful in finding partners, and, of course, that assists the project. If it assists the project, it therefore assists in providing jobs, including for example, jobs at Filton and Hatfield.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment but, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I am sorry to say, I propose to raise it under Standing Order No. 9.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to set a precedent so that everyone will be rising to give me notice of applications under Standing Order No. 9. However, I understand the message which has been conveyed.
    Following is the agreement:
    This note records the basis of agreement at tripartite meeting on 14 February between representatives of the CSEU, Lucas Aerospace management and the Minister of State, Department of Industry the right hon. Gerald Kaufman MP.

    1. Lucas Aerospace will proceed immediately with the construction of new factories at Huyton and Bradford on the understanding that the closure of the existing factories at Victor and Bradford will go ahead on the Company's timetable.

    2. The new factory at Huyton will employ 800 instead of 500 originally proposed.

    3. Lucas Aerospace undertake that there will be no compulsory redundancies at Bradford as a result of the re-organisation, and no compulsory redundancies at Liverpool in the next 2 years.

    4. A Group will be set up as follows:—

    (a) Management of Lucas Industries will provide a Chairman, and financial and marketing expertise;

    (b) Lucas industries will provide services of an independent management consultant;

    (c) Lucas will second 2 shop stewards from their workforce to be nominated by CSEU;

    (d) a representative of DoI to be available as required.

    5. The Group will consider a limited number of alternative products, some to be nominated by the CSEU and some to be nominated by Lucas management.

    6. The Group will report in a timescale to be agreed.

    7. If there emerge from the work of the Group commercially viable products, Lucas Industries will use their best endeavours to manufacture these on Merseyside so as to create or preserve jobs there.

    8. The Department of Industry will consider what maximum additional assistance can be provided both for the additional employment now planned for Huyton and for any new facilities required for new products to be produced as a result of the work of the Group.

    9. Copies of the report of the Group will be sent to the Right Hon. Gerald Kaufman, MP, in a personal capacity in the event of disagreement.

    10. Negotiation on the detailed implementation of this agreement will take place at local level.

    11. In the event of disagreement at local level a further meeting will be held between Lucas Aerospace management and CSEU national officials.

    British Council of Productivity Associations
    Mr. Richard Pageasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the British Council of Productivity Associations.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the British Council of Productivity Associations from time to time, but he has no plans for a further meeting in the near future. My right hon. Friend will, however, be speaking at a British Council of Productivity Associations conference on the industrial strategy and efficiency in production at Leeds Castle in April.
    Mr. Page: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will he remind him of this country's very low industrial production compared with other industrial countries—some 1 per cent. total improvement over the next five years—and will he ask him whether there is any correlation between that and the fact that we have the highest personal taxation of the majority of industrial nations?
    Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman is confusing production and productivity. As regards production, there were only three European countries last year which had a faster rate of growth of output. As regards productivity—I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures and I ask him to note them carefully—the increase in output per person employed in industrial production between 1975 and the second quarter of 1978 was 13 per cent., and between the fourth quarter of 1977 and the second quarter of 1978 the increase was 4·5 per cent. That is an increase in productivity of which we should be proud.
    Mrs. Wise: In any case, will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page) that his basic premise is wrong because we do not have the highest level of personal taxation? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not know what he means when he refers to personal taxation, but would my hon. Friend agree with him if he is advocating that there should be a greater amount of taxation borne by large companies?
    Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend poses a very interesting question.
    Mr. Tebbit: Answer it.
    Mr. Huckfield: I am about to answer it if I am only given time. If taxation incentives of the kind for which the hon. Gentleman was asking were put into practice, I can only cite what happened on the last occasion, that is,
    24
    between 1971 and 1974, when they did not give the sort of investment and output effort which the hon. Gentleman imagines. In fact, it went into office blocks and property speculation.
    Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister aware that at the meeting at Leeds Castle to which he has referred the other speakers will include the director-general of the NEDO, the president of the CBI and—believe it or not—myself? Will the Minister draw to the Secretary of State's attention the opportunity of speaking to the chairman of the BCPA then regarding the valuable work which the council does in promoting productivity throughout all sections of industry, and on both sides of the shop floor, and will he seek to persuade his right hon. Friend that perhaps some grant from the Government could again be extended to this very valuable body?
    Mr. Huckfield: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not change his mind when he hears that the hon. Gentleman is speaking. My right hon. Friend spoke at the BCPA annual conference last year and that is evidence that we regard the association and its work as important. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

  PICKETING
  Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General if, in the light of his recent statement, he will define legal intimidation.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): Intimidation may be legal at common law or by statute.
  At common law, as Lord Reid said in Rookes v. Barnard,
  " to intimidate by threatening what you have a legal right to do is to intimidate by lawful means."
  By statute, intimidation which in Rookes v. Barnard was held to be unlawful at common law is made lawful if in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute under section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, 1974.
  Mr. Adley: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that full answer. Is he not aware that his first use of the phrase in the House made those with ears and eyes feel that he and the Government

  25
  were totally out of touch with what was going on during the recent lorry drivers' strike when intimidation took place in the normal meaning of the word? As a result of the marvellous new concordat, is there any likelihood of anything being done to ensure that ordinary people have the right to go about their work in peace without fear of intimidation?
  The Attorney-General: I do not agree that my use of the term in that context was any more disturbing or likely to frighten people than the use by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) of the term "peaceable intimidation", which he used twice in the course of his question to me.
  I have no doubt that the agreement reached between the Government and the Trades Union Congress will go a long way to solve many of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Mr. Litterick: The House is grateful, as always, for the characteristic lucidity of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer. For the benefit of Opposition Members, will he tell the House whether the recent threat by the management of British Leyland to close certain factories and cause thousands of redundancies if the workers of British Leyland did not accept their conditions was lawful or unlawful intimidation?
  The Attorney-General: Without knowing all the details, I am not able to inform Opposition Members or my hon. Friend. However, it seems highly likely that the action was lawful, whether it was intimidation or not.
  Mr. Lawrence: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the concordat makes no attempt to discourage pickets from threatening other workers with the loss of their jobs if they cross picket lines? Does he agree that such threats are a form of blackmail and but for the Employment Protection Act 1975 might even be indictable as such?
  The Attorney-General: The concordat does not seek to repeat in every particular the existing law. When matters are unlawful under the existing law, they may be dealt with under the existing law.

  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  Mr. Canavanasked the Attorney-General when he expects next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): Well within the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. and learned Friend ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to study the Peachey report with a view to possible prosecutions? The report refers to some confusion concerning what happened to certain filing cabinets. There may have been some confusion in certain people's minds after the bottle party at Downing Street.
  Mr. Davidson: The Peachey report contains a variety of matters, many of which are fairly sleazy and unseemly. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Director has already considered the report and has decided that no further inquiries are called for.
  Mr. Lee: When my hon. and learned Friend meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he consider the question of electoral expenses under regulation 68 of the European election regulations? If, as I understand it, the campaign may be deemed to have started by virtue of the fact that the election date is fixed, any expenditure undertaken by way of promotion must be accounted for in the election expenses of the candidates. If the candidates exceed their expenditure, they are liable to be unseated if elected.
  Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting matter. If he will send me details, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider it in detail.
  Mr. Christopher Price: When my hon. and learned Friend's right hon. and learned Friend next meets the DPP, will he discuss with him his policy for bringing prosecutions for contempt of court? Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that his right hon. and learned Friend has decided to bring no prosecution for contempt against the authors of the paperback book on the Thorpe committal, Peter Chippindale and David Leigh, so

  27
  that W. H. Smith and Son Limited, which is as present banning the book and censoring it in all its retail outlets, may lift the ban?
  Mr. Davidson: That matter is still under consideration by the DPP. My right hon. and learned Friend, who is also my hon. Friend's right hon. and learned Friend, is responsible for bringing contempt proceedings and not the DPP. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will discuss with the Director everything that my hon. Friend has raised.

  PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS
  Mr, Newensasked the Attorney-General how many times public documents and records released for public inspection and study after the prescribed 30 year period have subsequently been withdrawn over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the use of the power conferred by section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, as amended by the 1967 Act, to prescribe a period of closure exceeding 30 years. In the past five years public records over 30 years old opened to public inspection in the Public Record Office have subsequently been made the subject of such a prescription on six occasions. The documents belong to 11 separate classes.
  Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that certain Metropolitan Police reports on the hunger marches, including accounts that were compiled by police informers of meetings in the House of Commons attended by important Members of Parliament, were, as the result of a police review, withdrawn from the Public Record Office in the summer of 1976 after having previously been placed there after the prescribed 30 years? Is that not an extremely dangerous precedent? Does it not mean that the police or other authorities could withdraw from public scrutiny and study important documents that should be available for public investigation and research? Will he make it clear that the whole business will be reviewed with a view to stopping any recurrences?
  The Attorney-General: The documents were not withdrawn. They were made subject to the additional period of prescription to which I referred in my answer. Since then, the matter has been reviewed. Three of the four documents in question have been re-opened to the public. My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in an answer to my hon. Friend in December, explained why the period of prescription is increased. Those are reasons that may apply to a document even after it happens to have become open to inspection It may be found that one of the reasons applies. These are difficult matters and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is giving his fullest consideration to the whole subject.

  WEATHER CONDITIONS
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
  The House will be aware that the extremely severe weather conditions of last week brought widespread interruptions with communications and very considerable difficulties for hundreds of communities throughout the country.
  The Government thought it necessary to use the regional emergency centres and to contact immediately each local authority with responsibility for highways. The local authorities were immediately made aware of the circumstances in which Government assistance would be made available to them. The first were the normal arrangements when the Services give support to authorities overwhelmed by natural hazards—military aid to the civil community. I can inform the House that under this contingency many calls were responded to, chiefly in the form of helicopter assistance to provide fodder and to sustain livestock.
  The second were the special measures to help with salting and gritting problems arising from the current industrial dispute. On this, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, whose responsibility this is, said in a reply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on 29 January, the Government are ready to use troops

  29
  so long as certain conditions are met. These include confirmation by the chief constable for the area that a serious threat to public safety exists involving risks to life and limb if the roads are not salted or gritted. No such action has been requested.
  Throughout this snow emergency the Ministry of Agriculture has been ready to respond with supplies of food and fodder in urgent cases and the Ministry of Defence has been available to deliver it.
  I should like to pay tribute to the magnificent effort of the work force throughout the country, who struggled with considerable success to keep British Rail main line trains operating, to London Transport, and, most importantly, to the labour force responsible for clearing and gritting our motorways, all of which are now passable. They had to work in appalling conditions. The police force and Service men responded in like manner, and I am sure that the House will wish to register its appreciation.
  Over the weekend, I have visited three of the worst affected areas of the country—South Yorkshire, Suffolk and Norfolk. Two matters of importance were raised with me. The first of these concerned the critically low supplies of salt. I have been able to make special arrangements with the suppliers to meet these difficulties and they were put in hand at once. The second area of concern was on the question of cost.
  It is clear that considerable additional expense has been incurred by local authorities in order to maintain the essential services and communications and there will also be an aftermath from additional road maintenance problems arising from the prolonged period of bad weather. I therefore informed those authorities that the Government would again make additional financial assistance available to them on the same basis as that which we provided during the storms and blizzards of last year. We shall pay 75 per cent. of all relevant additional expenditure over and above the sum raised by a penny rate in their respective areas where we are satisfied that it arises from this emergency.
  Mr. Alison: Is the Minister of State aware that with the best will in the world there is nothing that he or any hon. Mem-
  30
  ber can do about the weather? However, he can take urgent steps to deal with the real emergency by jumping on a bicycle, if necessary, and going to see the TUC, to ask for something to be done immediately about the industrial dispute aspect of the failure of the relevant workers to come out, grit the roads and put sand down when the weather is bad.
  Is the Minister aware that the relevant section in the latest concordat statement makes it clear that the TUC believes that in the industrial action it is vitally necessary that special steps should be taken to provide essential services and to avoid a situation where the health or safety of the community is put at risk? Will the Minister of State tell us what he will do to bring into play an appeal by the principal union leaders concerned, on the lines of that proposed in the ambulance dispute, to get the men responsible for gritting back at work straight away?
  Secondly, will the Minister tell us, in respect of the sums that have been mentioned, whether he is aware that in the last snow emergency—when he flew to the West Country in a helicopter to inspect the snow damage—the formula of a product of a penny rate was such that no West Country authority at that time succeeded in getting the special 75 per cent. grant? Will he now make it clear that the 75 per cent. level of support will be available for the gritting needs arising from the special emergency and that it will be possible to aggregate expenditure for this emergency with the flooding hazard that may arise subsequently and the exceptional cost of road repairs which will certainly arise with the thaw? It must be the responsibility of the Government to help local authorities up to and over £1 million worth of expenditure by this kind of grant aid.
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. First, he said that I had no responsibility or control over the weather. That is another Conservative Party view which, I am glad to say, does not seem to be shared by the rest of the country.
  The matter of the TUC is more important. I take note of the agreement that we reached last week. Wherever, in the last three or four days, within the spirit of that agreement, I made an appeal to the work force who were not gritting

  31
  the motorways and highways for which the Government have responsibility, I had a considerable response. Indeed, I am able to give the House up-to-date news about the one 22-mile stretch of the Ml which was not being gritted until just before I came into the House. I am glad to report that the unions affected have met. I understand that they have agreed to recommend an immediate recommencement of gritting in those circumstances. I am grateful, therefore, that the concordat is producing the response for which the Government and the House hoped.
  As to the penny rate, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he did not receive a copy of my statement in time, with the usual courtesy. I am sorry about that. If he looks at it again he will notice that I specifically included the aftermath, including maintenance and floods. I appreciate the point that he made. When I was in Norfolk yesterday it was estimated by the local authority leaders that the cost of all this to them would be about £ 2½ million. Under this formula, about half of that cost will be met by additional expenditure from the Government.
  Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that in counties such as Northumberland large numbers of council workers have turned out in appalling conditions and done a tremendous job, not simply in gritting but in opening up roads on to which most people would be frightened to go? This puts a very heavy financial burden on the county. Will the Minister explain how his proposed financial help will work out? When did the emergency start? Is the whole of the recent period of snow, which goes back to beyond Christmas, eligible for the assistance that the Minister has mentioned?
  Mr. Howell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising that tremendous work has been carried out during these weeks, and especially last week, under terrible and deplorable conditions, in which few of us would wish to work. That applies to Northumberland as well as to other parts of the country. Undoubtedly we should express our appreciation.
  Concerning the matter of aggregation—I am now adding to the answer just given to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash
  32
  (Mr. Alison)—there have now been two such crises in this financial year, that is to say, the Christmas and January crisis, and the recurring one. In Norfolk and Suffolk, over the weekend, I undertook to consider the request put to me that the costs arising from both emergencies should be aggregated under the formula that I have announced to the House. Probably the answer is that it will be related to the additional expenditure on emergencies during the course of one current financial year. That would allow us to do it. But I do not want to give an absolutely specific assurance until I have had some time to consider it.
  Mr. ArthurLewis: I thank the Minister for the speed with which he and the Government have acted and pay tribute to him for paying some well-deserved compliments to the lower-paid workers who have done so well. I hope that their efforts will be borne in mind when their salaries are discussed.
  With reference to the Minister's remarks about the dangers that will arise from floods, will he tell the House why action cannot be taken now, before the floods arrive? The authorities know the danger areas. Is it not possible for the Minister to make an appeal now, so that prompt and early action may be taken to obviate at least some of the more serious aspects of the floods, as and when they come?
  Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to our thanks to the workers concerned, He is quite right in saying that there are known trouble spots at which flooding usually occurs. In this emergency I am in touch with the water authorities chiefly responsible, for the purpose of ensuring that they will do everything possible to assist the local population in advance of any flooding which is likely to occur.
  Mr. du Cann: On the financial aspect of the emergency, will the Minister be good enough to give early attention to correspondence that I sent to him this morning as soon as I received it? In relation to past events, there is an indication that there has been a substantial hold-up in payment. The correspondence is from the Somerset council and the Taunton council. It would be a great pity if the good will engendered by the Minister's visits to the West County in the past, and

  33
  lately to East Anglia, were dissipated because of some difficulty over payments. Early attention to the matter would be much appreciated.
  Mr. Howell: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not think that these authorities have written to me directly, although I know the problems to which he referred. If he has written to me today, I shall look into the matter immediately.
  Mr. Madden: I accept our general debt to many public service workers, but has the Minister received any reports about the number of occasions during this winter on which the M62, linking Yorkshire and Lancashire, has been closed? Can he say which body is responsible for deciding to close this and other motorways? Is he aware of the general criticism of local authorities in my district about the snow clearance arrangements of the West Yorkshire county council, and will he look into this matter, upon which he has received correspondence?
  Mr. Howell: I shall look into anything that my hon. Friend puts to me. Speaking from memory, I think that the M62 has been closed this year on two occasions, not just two days. As I made clear in my statement, it is closed upon the judgment of the chief constable in each of the areas affected. The Government act on the chief constable's professional judgment.
  Sir Timothy Kitson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the blizzard started eight weeks ago it is probable that North Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland have been hit harder than most areas? In North Yorkshire alone, 150 miles of road are still blocked with snow. Since the emergency started, £2 million has been spent on gritting, salting and snow clearance. That is double the estimated cost to the county council for this year. It is anticipated that about £750,000 worth of damage will have been done to the roads by frost, and that the Government's bill will be 75 per cent. of £1,500,000. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will meet that 75 per cent. grant in full?
  Mr. John Ellis: What about the cuts in public expenditure?
  Mr. Howell: Notwithstanding the demands of Conservative Members to reduce public expenditure, I can give the assurance—which I thought I had already given here—that that formula will apply in that position.
  Mr. Fell: Does the Minister recall that some of the local authorities on the East Coast had a very heavy burden to bear because of the "Eleni V"—that was not all through the fault of the Government—but the authorities have not yet received one penny in reimbursement for all this trouble? Will he ensure that when the payments are due to be made they will be made quickly in respect of the local authorities that are able to claim the financial assistance of which he has spoken this afternoon? Is he satisfied that the financial assistance will be anything like enough to meet the enormous burden on these local authorities?
  Mr. Howell: I think that in a national emergency affecting its own area it is reasonable to expect a local authority to meet the cost of the first penny rate. It is probably a generous formula for the Government to accept 75 per cent. after that, certainly in regard to the fact that no such formula previously existed.
  On the first part of the hon. Member's question, we had a little talk about this when I was in Norfolk over the weekend. It was not put to me that there was any dissatisfaction with the formula reached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment over the oil pollution problem. If there is a difficulty about the speed in paying out upon the certification of expense, I shall look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising and hoping to catch my eye.
  Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend note that while he may not be able to prevent the occurrence of the bad weather, timely warning and the forecasting of its arrival are a necessity for all those who have to take decisions? I do not wish to be unduly critical of the Meteorological Office, but will the Minister try to find out whether the advice that it is giving is in the right form? It

  35
  is one thing to give a forecast of impending snow or gales, but is special attention being drawn to these conditions by, for example, the use of flash warnings on radio and television? This is particularly important where there is some local differentiation in the extremely severe conditions, which arise only about once every seven years. Does the Minister agree that it is very important for everybody to be adequately warned about what is expected to happen in these one-off conditions that we are now experiencing?
  Mr. Howell: Following the problems that arose in January, I instituted an immediate inquiry with all the local authorities. As a result of that, I have just received—and will make available to hon. Members if they want to see it—a report that tells me the time at which the appropriate warnings were received by the local authorities and the time at which they responded to them In almost every case the response was about 12 hours after the receipt of information. I understand that the authorities have to get their men out and get their arrangements working, but there seems to have been a time lag of about 12 hours between the receipt of the warning and the commencement of operations. That seemed to be adequate.
  The second point raised by my hon. Friend is a very interesting ore. He asks whether, when there are national warnings to be given, something special ought to be done about giving warning flashes on radio and television. I shall look into my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the Minister comment on the complete failure of the local government and public services responsible for gritting, salting and snow clearance last week? Should not the Government have taken action earlier in South Yorkshire and Sheffield? I tried to press this matter on Wednesday. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that when volunteers went out this weekend those in the public works department responsible for gritting and salting withdrew even emergency services and condemned that very action? The citizens of Sheffield were desperate. Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss this on the occasion of his visit there on
  36
  Friday? Is he aware that the cost to industry already is about £2 million?
  Mr. Howell: I went to Sheffield first because reports which I studied overnight on Thursday and early on Friday morning showed me that it had the most urgent problems. During that visit I had several conversations with the leaders of the authority with their professional advisers not least the chief constable and his staff. Those discussions have continued every day, including today, so I am well aware of the situation.
  As I explained to the House, no request was received by the Government, certainly not from South Yorkshire, to provide the assistance which we would have provided in an emergency.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Why not?
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must ask his authority that. I am answerable in this House for the Government, not for the South Yorkshire local authority or the police authority. No request was received. I think it is true to say that the authority preferred to continue negotiations with the unions. That process has taken longer than any of us would have liked. But, as I have just reported to the House, it has today brought, I hope, a satisfactory conclusion at long last.
  Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the appreciation of the House of the way in which my constituents at the Royal Air Force station, Wittering, opened their doors to many hundreds of travellers on the A1 last Thursday and gave them shelter for the night, food and, I believe, a very enjoyable time? Will he also note that I think that those travellers included at least two hon. Members?
  Mr. Howell: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, together with the public acknowledgment that if one must be stranded anywhere it should be in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Costain: Will the Minister take the opportunity, when he has cleared up the snow, to have a special report on how the roads have deteriorated because of

  37
  lack of maintenance last year? Will he draw to the attention of the Minister responsible that it was false economy? The county councils tried to point that out to him, but that advice was never accepted.
  Mr. Howell: I shall not ask for reports of that detail, but I note that the hon. Gentleman is yet another Opposition Member who wishes considerably to increase public expenditure.
  Mr. Woodall: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House if you have difficulty in hearing what I have to say. I rise to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward), as I was one of those two hon. Members who were stuck last Thursday outside RAF Wittering. Will my right hon. Friend pass the deepest appreciation of the House to Group Captain Bridges and all ranks of RAF Wittering for their wonderful hospitality and the wonderful job they did last Thursday?
  May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)? The only message we received on car radios last Thursday was to the effect that the Ml was closed in places. The result was that most of the heavy traffic switched to the A1(M), which was in fact much worse that the Ml. That caused all the confusion and the stoppage on the A1(M).
  But my principal point is to ask my right hon. Friend please to pass congratulations to all concerned at RAF Wittering. They did a marvellous job.
  Mr. Howell: I shall certainly do that. I was due to be entertained by my hon. Friend on Friday night in his constituency. What he has said no doubt explains why my invitation was cancelled at the last minute.
  In South Yorkshire, Suffolk and Norfolk the police chief made a special point of asking me to express appreciation to the local radio service, which did a wonderful job in informing people locally about the immediate difficulties. As I saw for myself, the local radio station at Sheffield had a man moved into police headquarters, and he could give the information immediately.
  I have already picked up the national point made by my hon. Friend, and I shall follow it up.
  Mr. Moate: In order to allow the House to judge whether the compensation formula is helpful in practice as well as in theory, can the right hon. Gentleman say how much compensation—if any—has yet been paid out for the emergency conditions of last year, when the formula was first introduced? In order to make it more helpful, will he reconsider the answer he gave me some time ago after devastating floods in my constituency, particularly in the town of Sheerness, and say that the local authority should be able to aggregate all the losses arising from any freak weather conditions occurring during any one financial year, so that no local authority should pay out more than a total of a 1p rate product?
  Mr. Howell: I have already said that I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's last point. I shall soon be meeting a deputation from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or nearby, on that specific matter.
  On the question of the practice and the theory, as an old local government man I can say with great satisfaction and without fear of contradiction that the 1p rate is a 1p rate. That is the basis on which all local government expenditure is already calculated. If one tells people "You should be able to meet the cost of a first 1p rate locally and then the Government will pay for three-quarters thereafter", that provides for large and small authorities alike.
  Mrs. Knight: When the Minister has finished dealing with the present crisis, will he consider the representations made by those who feel that there should be some long-term planning in this matter? Does he agree that it should not be a question of bafflement and astonishment that bad weather, snow and ice may come in January and February, and that some projects should be started to try to deal with the problems before they even arise? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a great reservoir of volunteers who would be willing to help in this regard?
  Mr. Howell: Of course, volunteers do work in national emergencies. I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by long-term planning. The planning for the contingency arrangements which are in hand in my Department, the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry

  39
  of Defence and so on was of the greatest possible assistance to me. I was able to bring the arrangements into operation within a matter of hours of taking up my responsibility.

  BANABA
  Mr. Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received no request from the Government for them to make a statement in view of the serious disturbances that have occurred in a Crown colony—Ocean Island or Banaba? I ask this bearing in mind that the Government still have a residual responsibility for law and order there and that there has been a serious riot for the first time in the long and protracted history of that unfortunate territory, which is the subject of a great deal of injustice. I ask bearing in mind also that, ironically, the Bill for the independence of the Gilbert Islands—a controversial measure, as the House will discover—is being introduced this day, I think in constitutional impropriety, in another place rather than this. That Bill bears upon the future of the territory to which I am referring.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Disturbances are taking place in a territory for which Her Majesty's Government are still responsible, and all the news indicates that the situation may deteriorate. This is happening at a time when legislation bearing on the underlying grievances is already before Parliament. Is it not almost a contempt of this House that the Goverment have not sought to make a statement?
  My request to you, Mr. Speaker, today, which is the earliest opportunity, is simply this: if the Government relent, realising the gravity of the situation and the importance of the matter to hon. Members of all parties, and if they ask to make such a statement tomorrow, will you agree to its being made?
  Mr. Speaker: I have never yet said "No" to a Government application to make a statement. With regard to the point of order of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), I have received no request for a statement today.

  AMBULANCE SERVICES (HERTFORDSHIRE)
  Mr. Dodsworth: 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 withdrawal of ambulance services in Hertfordshire."
  The matter is specific in that an instruction has been issued to members of COHSE and NUPE in Hertfordshire to cease operations of all emergency and essential services from midnight, Tuesday 20 February. This instruction follows a meeting of shop stewards held in Birmingham last week who have called for a national strike of ambulance men commencing at Tuesday midnight.
  The latest information I have from the headquarters of the ambulance service in Hertfordshire is that this strike is likely to be effective. This action will affect a number of road links with Greater London, carrying the heaviest traffic loads in the county, all passing through the county of Hertfordshire—the Ml, M10, AIM, A6 and A5. All these roads require urgent casualty services.
  The number of journeys per day in the county of Hertfordshire is over 2½ million. The number of accidents in the 48 hours from midnight Friday to midnight Sunday was 16. Over the last weekend there have been 119 other emergency calls on the 999 system, giving a total of 135 emergency ambulance calls in that 48-hour period. The matter is, therefore, both national and specific.
  It is important in that 600,000 citizens will be deprived of ambulance services, adding to the difficulties which have already flowed from some of the disruptive action taken over the past few weeks. The needs of maternity cases and intensive care emergencies will be prejudiced in those circumstances.
  The behaviour of members of COHSE and NUPE in Hertfordshire has in many respects exceeded any voluntary code of conduct and action, but I think that this proposed action would prejudice their excellent behaviour. Their conduct until now has been admirable. This proposed action would violate all the agreements and, in particular, vitiates the guidance in

  41
  paragraph 6 of the code of conduct, which refers to the health and safety of members of the community. The 24-hour withdrawal of emergency ambulance services breaks psychological barriers.
  In those circumstances, it is an important matter and the union members are extremely concerned that the Government's attitude has been one of complacency which has not taken proper account of their case and their needs. Although arrangements may well be discussed today, and indeed tomorrow for alternative services through volunteers and others, that does not alter the fact that this proposed action will cause danger to people on the roads and in their homes.
  I think that this is an urgent matter because the strike is to be called at midnight tomorrow. From that time there will be no ambulance services at all. It is uncertain what will follow after then. It will not be possible to call off the strike in those circumstances. The urgent attention of the Government and Ministers is required to prevent what I believe is merciless action.
  The leaders of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees have all said that this action can only be detrimental to the interests of their members. It may be detrimental to their interests, but, more urgently, the situation will be desperate for the sick and injured of our nation on that day.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) 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 withdrawal of ambulance services in Hertfordshire."
  As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
  I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within
  42
  the provisions of the Standing Order and therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

  HARRIER AIRCRAFT (CHINA)
  Mr. Frank Allaun: 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 supply of the Harrier jet planes to China in the light of the invasion of Vietnam by China this weekend."
  I shall be brief and careful not to transgress the rules which concern applications under Standing Order No. 9.
  The matter is specific since the Secretary of State for Industry is due to leave for Peking with such a proposal in his pocket. It is important since there could be nothing more vital to the British people than to avoid a war between the West and Russia and since this proposal—this deal—is bound to worsen relations.
  Clearly Britain will have little power as a mediator for peace in future if we arm a Government who are becoming as bellicose as most Conservative Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, the matter has become more important due to the worsening of the military situation this weekend, with 120,000 Chinese troops crossing the frontier with Vietnam.
  Many of us profoundly hope that the Secretary of State, and the whole Cabinet, will reconsider the scope of negotiations before they start, and will confine them, as America and Germany have successfully done, to non-military goods. Pressure will undoubtedly grow, so it would be a good thing to debate the issue now.
  The matter is urgent because, unless the Chinese divisions withdraw quickly, it may lead the Soviet Union into taking reprisals which, in turn, could possibly lead to a third world war.
  Finally, the matter is urgent because Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is today urging restraint and President Carter, hardly an agent of the Kremlin—a concept which certain Opposition Members have suggested lies behind this motion—is supporting him. Unanimous opposition now might induce the Chinese generals to halt before it is too late.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has asked 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 supply of the Harrier jet planes to China in the light of the invasion of Vietnam by China this weekend."
  This application arises out of a question and answer given earlier this afternoon. I listened carefully to the exchanges. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
  I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

  BILL PRESENTED
    HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
    Mr. Kenneth Lomas presented a Bill to abolish the right of hereditary peers to vote; to provide for the eventual extinction of the hereditary peerage; to make other provision with respect to the functions of hereditary peers; to make provision with respect to the composition of the House of Lords and to the powers of the House of Lords with respect to legislation and its other functions; to provide for the payment of salaries to certain members of the House of Lords; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 April and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that, if the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House is not disposed of by Ten o'clock it shall not lapse at that hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Mr. Bryan Daries.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY
SUPPLY
[8th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE)
[FIRST DAY'S DEBATE]
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1977–78 (House of Commons Paper No. 588); "First to Eighth Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure (Sessional) in Session 1976–77.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan Davies.]
4.10 p.m.
Sir David Renton: The Select Committee on Procedure produced its first and, indeed, main report in July. It is House of Commons Paper No. 588. It followed more than two years' work. Our chairman was the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), who is now overseas as chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Therefore, the other members of the Committee have asked me to present the report to the House on this occasion.
Our terms of reference were to
" consider the practice and procedure of the House in relation to public business and to make recommendations for "
—I underline these words—
" the more effective performance of its functions ".
It was the most far-reaching and thorough inquiry of its kind for over 30 years, certainly since 1946. Although the membership of the Committee comprised almost every shade of opinion in the House, its recommendations were unanimous with regard to the main proposals. I am sure that every member of the Committee believes that if the main recommendations are implemented it will enable Parliament to serve the nation more effectively.
On various details, some of which were minor ones, we disagreed. There were 44 Divisions. But we all agreed on the fundamental principles which guided our approach. They are set out on page viii of the report. I do not propose to read them in full, because they can be read in paragraphs 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7. However, I should like to stress two things. First,

45
we agreed that the relationship between the Executive and the legislature is a crucial feature of our institutions of government and, secondly, we say that the balance of advantage in the working of our constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government—I do not make a party point, because it relates to a Government of whatever complexion—to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety.
That occurs under our present system. Our proposals are aimed at enabling the House above all
" to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern State for which they are answerable, and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsive to the wishes of the electorate ".
In other words, I think that there is sometimes a general feeling among those outside Parliament that we become remote from the opinions, feelings and needs of the people and, therefore, that we in Parliament should organise our affairs in such a way as to bring us all closer together.
With those thoughts in mind, the Committee has striven to find ways, first, of improving the content and drafting of Acts of Parliament; secondly, of improving our control over delegated legislation; thirdly, of increasing the influence of the House over European legislation the importance of which is growing all the time, whether we like it or not; fourthly, of reorganising the Select Committee structure, which was the central theme of the report; and, fifthly, of improving financial control, but on this matter we say that a further, deeper inquiry is necessary, although meanwhile we have made some quite substantial proposals about it and commend them to the House.
We also considered possible changes in our sessional arrangements and hours of sitting, but we do not recommend any major changes with regard to these matters. We propose two minor changes affecting the times of sitting, and I hope that it will not offend my colleagues on the Committee if I say that those recommendations—Nos. (71) and (74)—may not be as generally acceptable as we hope our main recommendations are.
Our recommendations regarding the structure and powers of Select Commit-
46
tees were so much the central theme of our report that I propose to outline them before I go any further. Our aim here is to provide the House with the means of scrutinising the activities of the public service on a continuing and systematic basis. That must surely be the key to the matter. We received evidence from various sources, including hon. Members, the Clerk of the House, and so on—to whom we are grateful—as well as evidence from outside. That evidence confirmed the view that Parliament has lost control of Government expenditure, and is at present not well enough organised to act as a watchdog over the activities of Ministers and their Departments.
Let us consider what happens at present. I take the Floor of the House first. I know that the Leader of the House, whom I am pleased to see listening to the debate, attaches enormous importance to what happens on the Floor of the House. I fear that we touch only the tip of the iceberg of Government responsibility on the Floor of the House. If we leave aside the ritual dancing, such as Prime Minister's Question Time and some other important occasions, we see that the debates on the Floor of the House vary very much in importance, interest, quality and, indeed, effect.
Question Time serves an important purpose, but it is a very limited one. We understand its limited character when we remind ourselves that in the normal course of rotation, some important Cabinet Ministers come to the Dispatch Box about once every five or six weeks to answer oral questions. They are questioned for anything from 40 minutes to 55 minutes. That is important as far as it goes, but it is limited.
Let us face it, the Floor to the House is not suitable for examining accounts or for examining those specialised or detailed matters which are the day-to-day realities of modern government. What I am about to say is so obvious that it hardly needs stating, but I shall do so in order to build up the picture: that that is why we must have Committees—in order to scrutinise policies in detail, as well as the way in which they are carried out.
The Select Committee on Procedure first considered the present Select Committee structure for doing that work. We found that it was not adequate. Our

47
domestic Committees do not give rise to any problems, because they are working well. I refer to the Services Committee, the Privileges Committee and the Sessional Procedure Committee. I am glad to see present the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving)—where I was born—who is the distinguished Chairman of that Committee. No fewer than eight of that Committee's reports in the 1976–77 Session are now before us, as well as the report that I am introducing. Those reports deal with detailed points of procedure, which the House will no doubt wish to consider. The unanimous view of our Committee was that we should leave the domestic Committees as they are.
Then there are three important Committees which each perform a technical function for us. Those are the Statutory Instruments Committee, which deals with delegated legislation; the Joint Consolidation Committee, which is very technical; and the European Legislation Committee, about which I shall say more later. We recommend that these three Committees should continue.
Then there is the Public Accounts Committee, under the efficient chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). That is in a class by itself. It does not fit into any category with other Committees, as I shall explain. The main function of the PAC is to make sure that money voted by Parliament has been applied to the purposes which Parliament has prescribed. It also has to consider matters brought to the notice of Parliament in the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The PAC's work is a work of audit, principally, and it is surely a separate function from that of examining Estimates, approving expenditure and probing the financial efficiency of administration, which is now done by the Expenditure Committee or, more particularly, its Sub-Committees. The House will recollect that the Expenditure Committee is under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who gave evidence to our Committee.
We recommend that the work of the Expenditure Committee and its Sub-Committees should in future be done by departmentally related main Committees,
48
but we say that, for the reasons I have given, the PAC should be retained. We also recommend that its powers and the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be strengthened. We say, above all, that he and his staff should be appointed by and become the servants of the House. Then their impartiality will be beyond question.
I come now to the other Committees. I realise that I am entering into not a realm of controversy—I hope—but a realm in which exceedingly good judgment is required. They are the Committees which are at present responsible for the oversight of government and they have power to scrutinise policy, expenditure and administration. There are five of them. They are the Expenditure Committee, the Nationalised Industries Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, the Overseas Development Committee, and the Race Relations Committee—what one might call a good mixed bag.
Within the limits imposed on them, those Committees have, as we all know, done some most valuable work. I myself will always be grateful to the Science and Technology Committee for the bold stand that it took on the population problem as long ago as 1968–70. It produced a most valuable report, which broke new ground entirely in thinking in public affairs.
The reports of all these Committees bear the mark of quality, and we should all be grateful for the valuable work on which they have been based, but there is too great an element of chance about the way in which their responsibilities are engaged. Also, we find that when totalled up, the responsibilities of these Committees are incomplete.
I hope to make my speech without too many quotations from the report, because everyone can read it, but I feel obliged at this stage to make a couple of quotations from two very important paragraphs—5.14 and 5.15. Paragraph 5.14 says:
" Despite the considerable growth of the select committee system since 1964 and the changes which have taken place in their powers, the facilities available to them and their methods of work, the development of the system has been piecemeal and has resulted in a decidedly patchy coverage of the activities of government departments and agencies, and of the major areas of public policy and administration."

49
—" a decidedly patchy coverage ".
Paragraph 5.15 says:
" The House should no longer rest content with an incomplete and unsystematic scrutiny of the activities of the Executive merely as a result of historical accident or sporadic pressures, and it is equally desirable for the different branches of the public service to be subject to an even and regular incidence of select committee investigation into their activities and to have a clear understanding of the division of responsibilities between the committees which conduct it."
There is not that clear understanding at present. Sometimes we find that there is overlapping—that several Committees are at least eligible to chase the same hare and sometimes have been found to do so. Then there are gaps in their responsibilities, as I indicated earlier.
Assuming that the case has been made for restructuring, on what principle should it be done?
Mr. Eric S. Heffer(Liverpool, Walton): Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the conclusions reached by the Select Committee are almost identical with the conclusions reached by the Labour Party, quite independently of the Select Committee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Yes. That may turn hon. Members off, but, independently, the conclusions of the Labour Party's committee on the machinery of government were precisely the Select Committee's conclusions. It seems to me that this underlines the importance of the Select Committee's conclusions, and that there is a real feeling on the Labour Benches as well as on Opposition Benches that there must be a fundamental change in the whole relationship of Select Committees to the Government.
Sir D. Renfon: I must make clear to my hon. Friends that our proposals are in no way weakened by the fact that they commend themselves to our opponents. This is a matter on which we must try to bridge the gulf between the parties, in the public interest. The public get very fed up with us sometimes, merely for the way in which we disagree with each other. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is so good as to make the point that he has just made, we should welcome it with open arms. I hope that he will be equally open-minded about proposals coming from the Opposition Benches. From time to time we may commend them to him.
50
If the structure is to be reorganised, on what principle should that be done? What type of demarcation—if that is not a dirty word—should one allow to operate? In our Select Committee we discussed two real alternative ways in which one could organise a complete structure of Select Committees. One was called the functional method and the other the departmental method. I suppose that one could say, for example, that the Nationalised Industries Committee is based on the functional method. One could also say that the Overseas Development Committee is based on the departmental method. I give those just as two illustrations drawn from the present structure.
We decided that it should be the departmental concept. For good, commonsense reasons, which I hope that there is not much need to elaborate, but if anyone wants to see our reasons he will find them set out in paragraph 5.18. We called them "Departmental Committees". If that is too big a mouthful we could call them "DR Committees" and ignore the coincidence.
We do not want a large number of Committees. We say that there should be about one dozen. We grouped several Departments together, naturally. The results are set out in paragraph 5.24. We suggest that the Committee should be established as follows: agriculture; defence; education, science and arts; energy; environment; foreign affairs; home affairs—which includes the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department—industry and employment; social services—which includes the Lord Chancellors' Department of Health and Social Security—trade and consumer affairs; transport; and the Treasury.
We suggest that the Treasury Committee should be responsible for examining the affairs not only of the Treasury but of the Civil Service Department and the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
The membership of each Committee should average about 10. That would mean that there would be about 120 members in all. That compares with the 105 members of the present Committees. This includes not only the live Committees that I have mentioned but the small Committee under the chairmanship of my hon.

51
and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), which examines the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I have no doubt that that Committee has been of great help to the Commissioner and to the House.
We thought that since we were restructuring, the PCA Committee should be stood down and its general work done by the Treasury Committee, although individual cases would be dealt with by the departmentally related Committees. I confess that I do not feel strongly about this, but I know how strongly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester feels. I invite the House and my hon. and learned Friend to study paragraphs 5.33 and 5.34.
I am not surprised to learn that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who has been an active and helpful Chairman of the Nationalised Industries Committee, will be defending his wicket. I have enjoyed playing cricket with him in the past for the Lords and Commons. He and his Committee, with him as captain, have scored many runs. But I hope that on reflection the hon. Member and the members of his Committee might feel that the time has come to draw stumps and enjoy playing in a new series.
Apart from some of the members of the existing Select Committees who will want to defend their wickets, the only other people who may want assurance about the proposed new structure are past, present and future Ministers and their officials. We can assure them. These new Committees will have a dual purpose. First they will help the House by finding out what Departments are doing and why and how they are doing it, and examining their expenditure. Secondly, they will be of help to Ministers by trying to understand their problems, becoming well informed about their Departments' work and perhaps sometimes warning them about the dark clouds ahead.
Any Minister or future Minister who is worth his salt should welcome the chance to co-operate with a small group of hon. Members who are taking a critical but constructive interest in the work of his Department.
52
In chapter 6 we recommend the strengthening of the powers of the Select Committees, ensuring that they have the staff that they require. We are anxious that once the structure is set up the work of the Select Committees comes, as required, to the Floor of the House. Not each report can be debated. We are short of time for debates on Select Committees at present. In recommendation No. (44) we suggest that there should, in Government time, on eight Mondays each Session, be debates on the reports of Select Committees on substantive motions proposed by the Committees.
That would not preclude either the Government or the Opposition from providing other days for debating reports on Select Committees.
Many hon. Members feel that there are not enough debates on Select Committee reports at present and that those that take place are mainly on "take-note" motions. That does not get us anywhere.
I turn to EEC legislation and the Scrutiny Committee.
Sir Paul Bryan: The proposed Committees will comprise either more or fewer members than the present Committees. They will be so well armed and so well researched that they will talk more. What effect will that have upon the attendance in the House?
Sir D. Renton: It is good to see so many hon. Members from both sides present in the Chamber today. But I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) would claim that the attendance in the House is as good as it might be. The House is empty on many occasions. Because it will be an improvement in the way in which we do our work and because of the arrangements that we have proposed for debating our reports, I should have thought that the attendance should be increased.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am sure that that is right. Why would anybody think that the House would be worse attended for a well-informed debate than for a less well-informed debate?
Sir D. Renton: I am grateful for the intervention, and I make no comment.

53
Our influence over EEC legislation is most important. On our Select Committee we did not see much need for change, but it is essential for the European Scrutiny Committee, as it has come to be known, to have a link with department-ally related Committees. The depart-mentally related Committees should be free to consider the merits of EEC documents that concern their interests. At present the Scrutiny Committee is not empowered to consider merits, but merits must be considered. The departmentally related Committees should do that, and in doing so they should have the briefing material on any European instrument that has been prepared for the Scrutiny Committee and any report made by the Scrutiny Committee.
We are not satisfied with the present arrangements for debating EEC documents and we make various proposals for improving them. They were mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is a member of our Committee, in a debate 18 months ago. The Lord President will not be allowed to lose sight of the need to get EEC instruments debated on the Floor of the House when the Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention to them.
There is a vital need to improve our procedure for making our own laws. The quality of Acts of Parliament depends on careful scrutiny of their substance and of their drafting. For the scrutiny of their substance, our principal recommendation is that there should be a new procedure at the start of the Committee stage, which would not interfere with our long-established detailed consideration of Bills in Standing Committees but would precede it, improve it and sometimes shorten it. Before the detailed consideration of Bills, as in Standing Committee, the Committee should be able to examine the factual and technical background to a Bill. First, there should be a business meeting of the Committee to decide what evidence should be called and how much time should be devoted to it. There should then be up to three meetings of the full Committee, but in Select Committee form, to enable Ministers and witnesses to be examined in public about the background of the Bill.
We suggest that the Committee should be called a Public Bill Committee to indicate a change in the style and consti-
54
tution. If that Committee finds that three meetings of 2½ hours each in the mornings are not enough, it may ask the House to allow more meetings, and a motion can be tabled for consideration of the House. That would be a valuable experiment which would enable a better understanding of the purpose of Bills tabled, especially by the Government, and of the method of achieving the purpose. In order to ensure a strong link between the departmentally related Committee interested in the Bill and the Public Bill Committee, the latter should always include some members of the former.
On improving the scrutiny of drafting, I am grateful to my colleagues on the Select Committee for endorsing almost entirely the recommendations of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, of which I was Chairman. It reported as long ago as May 1975. Since then the Government have refused to accept the principal recommendations of that Committee. They have contented themselves with saying that the recommendations are a valuable summary of the best drafting practice and are taken into account when drafting Government Bills. Drafting has been improving in the last year or two. Textual amendment has become the general rule, which has helped those who have to understand the legislation and follow it in various spheres throughout the country. It has also been of great help in the administration of law. But there is a feeling on our Select Committee that there are still a number of major recommendations that the Government have not accepted which would further improve the quality of drafting and the structure of our legislation.
Members of the Select Committee went into considerable detail in prescribing minimal intervals between various stages of legislation. In paragraph 2.28 we suggest that there should be a Standing Order in the terms set out to prescribe the minimal intervals. There are occasions when, owing to emergency, one cannot follow those intervals as a counsel of perfection. But it should be a general rule that they are followed, and that has not been so in the past three or four years.
In recommendations (10) to (14) of our Select Committee's report, further support is given to proposals made by my Committee, especially the most important

55
one that the Statute Law Committee should undertake a continuous review of the structure and language of statutes and of the implementation of our recommendations.
The ostensible excuse given for the Government sticking their toes in over this was that it was not worth the modest cost. We must all be cost conscious. Much of what I have been saying will lead to greater cost consciousness. But to spend a trifling part of our vast budget to ensure that our laws are well drafted and that there is a simple monitoring process for so doing would be money well spent. Badly drafted laws are a disservice to democracy and bring the law into contempt.
For many years Governments of both main parties have enjoyed dominion over the House of Commons. That is not merely because they have had a majority, large or tenuous, but more because of their power, which has grown over the last 100 years or so, of controlling business, including controlling, in effect, the amendment of Standing Orders. The recommendations in the report would help to restore the balance between the Government and the rest of the House in ways that would be advantageous to both. They would also be advantageous to the people who sent us here.
Therefore, I earnestly hope that as soon as possible after the two days of this debate the Leader of the House will give the House of Commons a chance to reach decisions on our proposals. An early-day motion has been tabled, supported by all the members of our Select Committee, and other hon. Members may support it as well. It reads:
" That this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session of Parliament; believes that during this Parliament this House should decide on the principal recommendations made by that Committee; rejects the practice of tabling Motions to approve only those Select Committee recommendations which the Government favours; and accordingly urges the Leader of the House to provide an early opportunity for a further debate and invites him at the time of that debate to table all the recommendations of the Committee, grouped as appropriate, for consideration by this House."
I know that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that I hope that that will be done.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Irving: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the Committee on their Trojan effort. There can be few Committees which have worked as hard, met as many times and produced as many recommendations as this one. I believe that many of its 76 recommendations will be widely accepted on both sides of the House and will contribute to the more effective handling of our business.
I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member if time forces me to concentrate upon those few matters about which I have some anxieties.
I ought to remind the House of what happened four years ago when a new Parliament assembled and there were great stirrings among many new hon. Members about our procedure. This hinged substantially on the very long and inconvenient hours that we worked. Indeed, we were told by one hon. Member that as a result we were sex-starved.
As a result of that pressure, the Leader of the House then Mr. Edward Short, now Lord Glenamara, referred to the Sessional Committee on Procedure, of which I was then Chairman, the possibility of Report stages being taken upstairs because he believed that they were the most time-consuming of all the items of business on the Floor of the House. I think that he was very disappointed when the Committee could not accept his advice that they should be taken upstairs.
It is not without interest, therefore, that the present Committee dealt hardly at all with the length of sittings or the inconvenient hours. Indeed, the consequences of its recommendations may well be that we shall work harder than we have done to date.
Some of us insisted then that in looking at reform we should start by asking ourselves what we wanted Parliament to do rather than how much time we wanted to devote to it or how long the hours should be. Although the Committee did not deal with sittings and hours in any great detail, I suggest that these matters are still important, and I hope that the Committee will come back to them on another occasion.
The Committee dealt with what Parliament ought to be about, and it made a

57
number of quite important statements. It said that Parliament had four tasks—to legislate, to scrutinise the activity of the Executive, to control finance and to secure the remedy of grievances. Then it said, in paragraph 1.6:
" a new balance must be struck, not by changes of a fundamental or revolutionary character…but by changes of an evolutionary kind, following naturally from the present practices."
Then it made a statement of equal importance about the
" need to retain the Chamber as the focus of the political and legislative work of Parliament, and…must…take realistic account of the size of the pool of Members available and willing to serve."
Despite these statements, the Committee's major recommendation for Departmental Committees, if accepted would be the biggest jump that this Parliament has made in modern times. It is not the principle of this matter which disturbs me but the big and sudden jump from the present system to an almost totally departmentalised system.
In recommending these new-style Committees, the Select Committee opts for a degree of specialisation which so far has been largely foreign to Parliament and which, over the years, many hon. Members have resisted. In taking the recommendations as they stand, I wonder first whether right hon. and hon. Members are ready for that degree of specialisation.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the Expenditure Committee we already have a system of specialisation?
Mr. William Hamilton: In theory.
Mr. Irving: That is correct, but it is of a limited kind, established for a small number of right hon. and hon. Members, and it does not involve, as these recommendations will, a very large body of the Back Bench strength on both sides of the House.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even on the Floor of the House most right hon. and hon. Members try to concentrate their minds and energies on certain specific topics? Although some may like to range over almost every subject, it is more customary for individual hon.
58
Members to apply their minds to a limited number.
Mr. Irving: If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument, he will find that I shall come to that.
I believe that there would need to be a willingness on the part of hon. Members not just to specialise but to devote a great deal of time to doing it, otherwise Committees across the whole spectrum would not succeed. It would also mean the end of the role of the Back Bencher as an all-rounder, which has been typical of the British Parliament. That is not to say that there has been no specialisation, but it has not been as common as it is in the United States Congress, where a member going into Congress expects from the outset to specialise in a very fundamental way. The capacity to develop all-round talent has made the British Member of Parliament competent and self-confident, and it has given him a hearty scepticism both of authority and of the expert. These are valuable qualities for any Parliament.
The difficulty about the new system is that it will work only if hon. Members are willing to give their time and to specialise. This is bound to be at the expense of other activities.
There are dangers in this system which are present in other Parliaments. If the Departmental Committee were successful, and if it were given both the money and the staff to develop, it could develop a bureaucracy which, because of the volume of work that the Committee would be given almost automatically—and it would grow as time went by—hon. Members, not having enough time, would very soon be rubber-stamping the reports of the bureaucracy rather than the work of hon. Members in Committee. I do not say that this will happen automatically, but it is a danger that we ought to take into account.
Mr. Michael English: My right hon. Friend will recollect that, with one exception, throughout the IPU the number of staff per head of members of legislatures is approximately the same. The exception is Congress, but everywhere else it is the same, although they have departmentally related committees. Bearing that in mind, my right hon. Friend will realise that his fear is not very realistic.
Mr. Irving: My hon. Friend discards the one most powerful example.
Mr. English: With a presidential system.
Mr. Irving: The point remains intact that it is a specialised system, unlike our own. We are moving to a very different system, and we ought to be quite clear about where we are going.
There is a risk of some of these Committees—not all of them; there are certain hon. Members who are never likely to fall to this risk—becoming so intimately involved with their Departments that their power to attack, where necessary, would be blunted. I should not wish to see that happen.
Particularly in the case of defence, there may be situations where the knowledge that a closely-knit Departmental Committee would learn would separate that Committee from its colleagues in the House. The members of that Committee would be inhibited from making the contribution that every hon. Member should be able to make if so disposed.
There is a risk that an hon. Member could become a second-class Member in some respects because he would not have specialised and therefore would not have access to the information. It would be a courageous Member who involved himself in a fundamental way on the Floor of the House in a debate on a subject on which a Committee had spent a long time in dealing with a Department and its problems. The attendance in the Chamber for debates on Select Committee reports does not seem to indicate the enthusiasm and action that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire seemed to suggest exists in this respect.
Mr. John Roper: I am glad that my right hon. Friend referred to the defence Committee, which I believe to be a specialist example. I have served on the Sub-Committee on Defence and External Affairs for four years. That Committee has access to classified information in a way that few other Committees have. I believe that the special case of a defence Committee would not necessarily apply to other Departmental Committees. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a special rather than a general case?
Mr. Irving: I accept part of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). However, I imagine that the point applies to other cases—for example, to the Home Office and foreign affairs in some respects. An hon. Member would have to specialise in one area of activity which would preclude him from many others.
In 1964 there were 240 Committee sittings. By 1977 this figure had risen to 820. Therefore, because of Committee work, the burden upon Members has grown considerably over the last 10 or 15 years. If the new system was to be installed throughout the Departments of Government it would add considerably to that burden.
The report refers quite rightly to the need for a full-time House of Commons. Unhappily, I am afraid that we are still a long way from achieving that. That would mean that the burden would fall upon full-time Members, as it has done in the past, and those Members would be involved in increasing amounts of work. In that way, they would be more unfairly treated than they have been in the past.
Mr. English: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I always do. I wish that hon. Members would remember that in making that kind of interruption they are addressing the Chair, and I do not like it.
Mr. Irving: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will make his own speech. He and I have been involved in many Committees in the past and have carried a considerable burden—as have many other hon. Members. It is only fair to reiterate the point that full-time Members and some part-timers, who flog themselves very hard, have carried an unnecessary burden over the years.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: My right hon. Friend has made an important point. However, is he not saying that there are too few hon. Members who are prepared to do the work, not that there is too much work?
Mr. Irving: My hon. Friend is conceding the point, but it has not yet been demonstrated that there are enough willing Members who are prepared to

61
specialise and devote the time to an across-the-board experiment of this kind.
Mr. Timothy Raison: There is a queue of hon. Members who would like to be on the Expenditure Committee. There is no evidence that under the present system there is any shortage of willing Members.
Mr. Irving: I still believe that if the whole system were redesigned with 12 new Committees with a heavier work load than at present, the pattern would be different. Many Committees now find great difficulty in getting a big enough attendance to keep going satisfactorily.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman Says that the work load of the future is likely to be greater than the work load of the past. In recommending 12 Committees and a membership of 10 Members on each Committee—or 12 on some of the larger Committees—between 120 and 140 Members would be involved in the new procedure. That is roughly the same number of hon. Members as are now involved in the existing Select Committee procedure. Therefore, it is unlikely that a greater work load would flow from that change alone.
Mr. Irving: The hon. Gentleman places me in difficulty. I feel that 10 Members are wholly inadequate to deal with a great Department. I cannot see how adequate attendance would ever be achieved if there are to be only 10 members. On a number of occasions I suspect that Committees will find it difficult to proceed because they do not have quorums.
The report suggests that the Committee, and particularly the Chairman, will grow in importance. I do not believe that to be self-evident. It is true that the Congress Committee in the United States is important, but that is because it controls legislation. That control will not be conceded to the new Departmental Committees. Therefore, I do not accept that this is sufficient incentive to induce hon. Members to make such a great change. It is a myth that a detailed tag can be kept on the activities of every Department. It is only by carefully selected investigations, backed by the necessary expert advice and staff, that Parliament can hope to deal effectively with the Executive.
62
Those investigations require money. Those of us who have served under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) know that the allocation of funds has always been inadequate. Until recently, the question of staff and accommodation has also been in the hands of the Executive. If the Committees are set up, I do not believe that either the money or staff will be available to make them the success that they can only be if sufficient money, staff and accommodation are available.
There is no doubt that the declassification that may come about as a result of the Bill now in Standing Committee will greatly assist Departmental Committees. However, there is a sense in which the Committees could become a threat to the Chamber itself. As the subject becomes more specialised, the more will the real debate take place in Committee. The House will be even less likely than it is at present to be the forum of the nation. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, increasingly the big debates have been attended by fewer and fewer hon. Members. If the Departmental Committee recommendations are carried out to the extent recommended in the report, I believe that they would further contribute to that decline. If the experiment were tried, I believe that such a total departure from present practice would be unwise.
I began my speech by saying that I do not dissent from the principle. I do not dissent from the view of the Committee in the earner paragraphs of the report that there should be an evolutionary move from our present practices. Therefore, when the Leader of the House considers the early-day motion of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire I hope that he will allow an experiment, not right across the board but with three or four Departmental Committees. In that way, we can demonstrate in practice whether the anxieties that I feel are real or imaginary.
The Committee recommends a new Public Bill Committee. This seems to be a compromise between those who want a whole Select Committee procedure for dealing with legislation and those who want to retain the present Standing Committees. The difficulty I see in this is that in some cases the idea of taking evidence will be unnecessary, but if it is

63
necessary three sittings will be wholly inadequate for dealing with it. The difficulty there is that to take evidence at three sittings alone may mislead the Committee. It may expose areas where there ought to be further inquiry and investigation but not provide the opportunity for doing it, or it may be that when the first selection is made of the evidence to come before the Committee, the choice will turn out to be the wrong choice in the end. Although I certainly would not want to oppose this procedure, I see weaknesses in it, and I do not doubt that the Leader of the House will deal with those.
Mr. Peter Emery: I have great respect for the position of the right hon. Member in this House. He has been the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I serve under him on the Sessional Procedure Committee.
He has posed arguments against the recommendation. However, does he not accept the general criticism that this House has lost its power to the Executive? If he wishes us, therefore, to accept his criticisms, ought he not to advance alternative means by which we can check the power of the Executive? I fear that if he is to sustain his argument he should tell us how he would see the House being able to challenge the power of the Executive if it is not to use the method suggested.
Mr. Irving: My inclination is to go for a separate set of Select Committees which are independent of Departments but which have adequate money, staff and accommodation to provide the information they need to enable themselves to speak directly and on equal terms with the Executive. I believe that in the end that will be the only way in which the challenge can be made. I accept that the power of the Executive has been growing. It ought to be challenged. This House should find every way it can to ensure that the challenge is made more and more effective.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman expand a little on the important response that he has just thrown out? Many of us would think that if a range of Select Committees were established they would find them-
64
selves obliged, in order to do the work that he indicated, to allocate themselves among groups of Departments. The right hon. Gentleman might well find that he was led, as the Committee was, to approximately the same conclusion as is to be found in the report.
Mr. Irving: I have not in any sense said that there is not a place for an experiment in Departmental Committees. In view of the work that has been put in by the members of the Committee, it would be most unfair of anyone to condemn out of hand the proposals that have been made. I believe that we should move in an evolutionary way and not abandon everything that we have done over the past few years to an entirely new system. We should take a few selected cases and work in the next four or five years to demonstrate whether they provide the most effective way in which the House should move. That has been the principle upon which this Parliament has worked for many years.
The Committee recommends that the circumstances in which the Government should give their approval to EEC legislation should be embodied in a declaratory resolution. The report sees the balance of advantage lying in a firm commitment that the Government should not give its approval to EEC legislation prior to debate where the Select Committee on European Legislation has suggested that a debate should take place.
On the face of it, that seems entirely reasonable. It is correct that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave an undertaking as far back as July that he would examine this proposal. In answer to a question in December from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) he said that he was still looking into the matter, and I think that he was having very great difficulty. It is a difficulty that worries me. The essence of the whole Community system is the package deal. If Ministers are to be virtually forced to seek the approval of the House for everything they do, the process of negotiation will be hamstrung at Brussels and we may get less out of it than we ought to.
I concede at once that Ministers ought, where there is time, to get the approval of the House. My right hon. Friend the

65
Leader of the House in July, I think during the debate on the Summer Adjournment motion, said that there were only three occasions in the period under review when Ministers had not done that. Two of them concerned agriculture, and one fisheries. The Minister in question had come back post haste after making that decision to report his reasons to the House.
My only difficulty is that there are Members in the House who would push the House into perhaps the Danish system, where Ministers are mandated before they go to Brussels. Control is exercised by the Folketing market committee. That would be unsatisfactory for us. First, that does not represent control by Parliament, because the market committee is made up of senior Members of Parliament, and much of the communication and approval go on over the telephone between the chairman of the committee, his colleagues and the Minister in Brussels. The power is delegated to the market committee and, therefore, is not in any sense a real control by Back Benchers or Parliament as a whole—
Mr. English: But they have a PR system.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me remind the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that it is his privilege, from time to time, to try to keep in order Committees of this House. He should set a good example.
Mr. Irving: I hope that the fact that the Committee has included this recommendation in its report will not lend support to those who would shackle the processes of government in their dealings with the Community. I want Ministers to keep this House informed, but I do not want an essential departure from the procedure that has been adopted in domestic affairs where the Minister has some latitude and is subsequently called to account. I would not like to think that the Committee's report lent support to people who had other motives related to dealings with Brussels based on some kind of hostility to our membership of the EEC.
I come now to the question of voting. One of the recommendations of the Committee is that Questions should be put
66
forthwith at 3.30 p.m. That would be a retrograde step. It is not many years since we quite deliberately abandoned Divisions at 3.30 p.m. On many occasions those were formal Divisions, which required Members to abandon Committee work and other work in various parts of London and the rest of the country to come to a formal Division at 3.30 p.m. I hope, therefore, that that proposition will not be accepted.
The other proposal is that we should require 200 Members to vote for the suspension at 10 p.m. There are many occasions when the suspension is purely formal and where there is no great controversy. There may be a maverick Division, or no Division. To require 200 Members to be present at 10 p.m. would not reduce the amount of attendance that Members put in because, whipping being what it is, Members would be required to be present to support the proposition at that time, however important or unimportant it might be. Therefore, I hope that as we want to do more work while trying to avoid some of the strain, that proposal will not be added to the burden of hon. Members.
I am sorry that I have had to devote my remarks exclusively to critical comments. There is much in the report to be welcomed, and I hope that the House will take it very seriously.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Edward du Cann: As I so greatly respect the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving), as the whole House does, I find it a particular pleasure to speak immediately after him and to make common cause with him at once in paying a strong tribute to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams) and all the other Members who served on the Committee and produced a most valuable report. A Trojan effort, the right hon. Gentleman called it. Indeed, I hope that this volume is a Trojan horse to enable us Back Benchers to recapture some of our freedom and authority, which, in the interests of democracy, we so badly need again to practise and to fulfil.
I wish also, as the first to speak after him on these Benches, to pay an extremely warm tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), whose

67
speech was a model of clarity and conciseness. Knowing how often he has had to be in the chair of the Committee, I am sure that the whole House, in paying tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Warrington, will wish to pay its tribute also to my right hon. and learned Friend.
I am delighted that we are having this debate. It is a significant occasion. Before coming into the Chamber, I was asked by a commentator "Is this to be just another Members' grumble?" I replied—I hope that the House will think it right—that the message from the debate will be not that but something far different and very positive. We know exactly what must be done, and we intend to see that it is done. My answer to the right hon. Member for Dartford, when he asks where the facilities are, is that the House of Commons must see that the facilities are provided to do the job.
I have said many times inside the House—I have had the good fortune myself to initiate one debate—and outside it in writings, in broadcasting and in other ways that we Members of Parliament are now failing effectively to exercise our traditional and constitutional duty. My right hon. and learned Friend made that point very clearly, and the theme was echoed by the right hon. Member for Dartford. As one of our Clerks, Mr. Ryle, says in the latest publication of the Study of Parliament Group, it is a central tenet of our constitutional description that Ministers are—or, I would say, should be—subject to full parliamentary control. This place, this Parliament, is the forum where the exercise of government is publicly displayed and is open to scrutiny and criticism, as in a democracy it requires continuously and fully to be.
Since we have in the United Kingdom virtually unicameral government, single-chamber government, this House of Commons has especial responsibility. The report does not deal in detail with the first requirement for that, namely, that there needs to be, for all the disparate elements in the House—the official Opposition, the unofficial Opposition, the unofficial unofficial opposition, the minorities, Back Benchers, and so on—an opportunity to bring before the House matters which they regard as significant.
68
Perhaps there are adequate opportunities—or perhaps there are not, as my right hon. and learned Friend hinted, because of the way in which we use or, rather, misuse, abuse or do not use Supply days, because of the way in which, for all its length, Question Time is largely now a farce, and because we fail to control expenditure. I have said previously that we no more control expenditure in the House than Canute controlled the tide—and it will be recalled that he did not, in fact, set out to achieve that unworthy and absurd aim.
I do not for a moment accept the view of a previous Leader of the House, quoted at the very beginning of the report in paragraph 1.4, that the Government
" must be able to secure from Parliament any necessary extension of their executive powers."
The truth and the tragedy is that they have secured far too much already in the extension of their executive powers. Indeed, it has provoked me in the past, as it has my noble Friend Lord Hailsham in his admirable Dimbleby lecture of a year or two ago, to say that such was the extension now of Government power that we have in our nation, in effect, no longer a democratic Government but an elected dictatorship. There is too much truth in that observation for comfort.
Nor do I accept the second point made by a previous Leader of the House, quoted in paragraph 1.5, when, dealing with criticisms of the relationship between the Executive and the legislature now, he suggested that the House should get through the work demanded of it by the Government more expeditiously and then we Back Benchers might be found a "worthwhile role" after that, as though we were a group of children who must be kept amused. What damned impertinence such an observation is.
The second requirement is to give Back Benchers the opportunity to get at the facts. Of course, that will be a burden, as the right hon. Member for Dartford said, but it must be done. If there is to be effective scrutiny of the Government and public airing of issues of significance in order to encourage the electorate, the people of the nation, more to participate and to involve themselves in the processes of democracy, parliamentary techniques must help Members of Parliament to obtain all the information which they need.

69
What is the context of this debate? It is one of enormous growth in legislation. Right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar with the figures, now added to by all the paraphernalia from the EEC. I shall not particularise. We are all aware of the hugeness of it. There is the growth of legislation. There is the growth in the activity and influence of the Government. There are today 7,386,000 people employed in the public sector—nearly 30 per cent. of the whole working population. That is one measure of the growth of Government activity. Right hon. and hon. Members can, no doubt, think of many other examples for themselves.
I say only that that is the reality. That is what has happened. It may be right or it may be wrong—I am not arguing that—but that is the situation which exists and with which we have to grapple.
Then there are other factors—for example, the growth of the tendency to bypass Parliament, for Ministers to have discussions outside Parliament. There is the growth in the power of the parties, the presidential status of the Prime Minister, and, by no means least, the use of the patronage system.
There are so many areas now in which Parliament is not involved but should be. Moreover, where it is involved, as we all know and as the world outside knows, the truth is that we are not doing our work properly and we are not adequately scrutinising the activities of the Government.
What do we do? We have this report with its recommendations. For my part, with some reservations, I agree with the central recommendation on Select Committees, that all existing Select Committees except the Public Accounts Committee and the internal House Committees be replaced by a number of independent departmentally related Committees. I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend and others that I regret that the decision has not been to keep the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Perhaps that is something that we can discuss further, since it seems to me that that Committee has a special experience.
I could not understand the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Dartford that if we were members of Committees we should become, in effect, second-class Members of Parliament. I have never felt
70
myself to be a second-class Member of Parliament as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, or of the Expenditure Committee before that—when I became its first Chairman—or of the Estimates Committee or any other Select Committee. I may be a second-class Member of Parliament, but all I can say is that I have never felt myself to be one.
There are present in the Chamber two members of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson). As they know, the Public Accounts Committee has not yet fully considered this report of the Procedure Committee. We are to take evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General, and we shall visit the Exchequer and Audit Department in March. I was the first Chairman ever to visit the Department. It was the first time in the history of the House that the Public Accounts Committee visited that Department.
We did not have any representatives—I use "representatives" advisedly rather than "delegates"—on the Procedure Committee. As none of our members was part of the machinery of the report, it may be that we shall wish to report formally to the House in due course. I hope that the House will welcome any advice that we may be able to offer. In the meantime, following informal discussions of the PAC, I am able to describe a view to the House and give certain opinions of my own.
First, under the head of the PAC, I must say how much my colleagues and I appreciate that which appeared in the report about the Committee and its work. Paragraph 8.3 states:
" We have no doubt that the existence of the PAC has contributed significantly to the maintenance of high standards in the handling of public money in the Civil Service."
Paragraph 5.28 states that the PAC's role is
" one of the few reasonably effective procedures for exercising control, albeit of a post hoc nature, over the bureaucracy."
There is a lesson to be drawn from that. I propose to attempt to draw it. Before I do so, I must tell the House how glad the Committee has been to note that the Procedure Committee has recommended that the PAC should continue

71
in its present form. That recognition of the specialised and particular nature of its investigations and work is most warmly welcomed.
The decisions are right for various reasons. I say that not merely because I have the honour, for the time being, to be the Chairman of the PAC. All the experience that I have had in the past and as a member of the Committee convinces me, first, that the PAC is effective and worth while. Its work has led—I have seen this—to substantial improvements to accounting procedures and control mechanisms in government. I have seen that its partnership with the Treasury—its natural ally—and with other Departments has been wholly constructive. An alert PAC is a help to good government. I hope that from time to time we get better value for money in government expenditures than we might otherwise get as a result of its work.
The report refers to the scope of the work of the PAC. I am not sure that I fully understand what is intended. Our experience has been—I am sure that my PAC colleagues will confirm what I say—that we are able to examine matters in such depth as we think necessary. Let the House witness some examples. The PAC has turned its attention to North Sea oil, cash limits, housing corporations, public service pensions and comfort letters. There was a great area in which control of expenditure by Government was nothing like as exact as it might have been. Happily that expenditure has been brought under proper control. We do not need any new authorities to give us an opportunity to examine matters in greater depth.
Mr. John Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the Procedure Committee referred to the scope of the audit carried out by the PAC it probably had in mind that the Comptroller and Auditor General considers only half the total expenditure and in general he investigates waste and extravagance rather than whether money has been well spent or whether expenditure was effective?
Mr. dn Cann: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on these matters. He has much knowledge and always has something constructive to say. He has referred
72
to two matters that I had intended to cover. First, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the Exchequer and Audit Department should move into what in commercial terms is called management audit. He knows that that work is already beginning on a somewhat experimental basis. If my colleagues agree, I hope that we may be able to continue with that work. We need no extra powers for that.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman comments on whether we have all the access that we require. I regard it as a severe drawback that we do not have full access. It is surely ludicrous for the House to vote thousands of millions of pounds to bodies such as the British National Oil Corporation and the National Enterprise Board and to deny to an organ of the House the right to have a proper examination of how that money is being spent. Those matters require attention. Those are matters that the Procedure Committee had in mind. I totally agree with its report on that score.
Sir David Renton: Hear, Hear.
Mr. du Cann: I am glad to know that my remarks are confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend.
I turn to comments on the way in which the PAC does its work. Certain specific recommendations have been made. There is, for example, the recommendation that the reports of the PAC should be formally transmitted to other Select Committees before debates take place. My colleagues and I agree absolutely about that.
It has been suggested that members of other Select Committees be invited to our sittings and that perhaps we should have joint sittings. On the whole, the view of my colleagues is against that. It is thought that that procedure would slow the work of the Committee and might take away its specialised nature. It is possible to complain that the PAC is not an ad hoc body but a—
Mr. Powell: Post hoc Committee.
Mr. du Cann: I am glad that there are still some classicists among us—notably, the right hon. Gentleman.
Many have complained that the PAC is merely a post hoc body, an inquest, so to speak. Perhaps it should undertake more of a contemporary examination, as

73
the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) suggested. However, once we get away from dealing with figures and with the business of audit we shall change the nature of the PAC completely. I should not be prepared personally to agree to that.
I turn to the role and status of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It has been suggested that the Exchequer and Audit Department should be merged with the district audit. I see nothing against that. I do not have a particular view about that. However, I hope that that suggestion is considered during the announced review of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
There is an important passage that bears on the intervention of the hon. Member for Norwich, South and deals with the accounts that should be examined. That is recommendaetion (67). That requires a little more thought, and again it should be discussed at the time of the general examination.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Procedure Committee when it states that the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be maintained and, if anything, enhanced. It is not necessary for the Comptroller to be a servant of the House for that to be achieved. The Comptroller is totally independent at present. If that has to be more clearly demonstrated, so be it. What will be needed and what will be proper is for his duties to be clearly defined by statute. That should take place when the examination is complete and when the 1866–1922 Acts are replaced by something more modern.
I am sure that the House will agree at once when I say that we should be proud of the high standards that are set by the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department. There is no doubt that new entrants should be graduates. I am sure that the House endorses that members of the Department should take the full professional accounting qualifications of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Whatever the qualifications may be, it is clear that the tasks performed by the Department are discharged at a high standard. The men and women in the Department are loyal, devoted and competent. The House may like to note that some of the senior staff
74
have been appointed to the European Court of Auditors. Recently the Comptroller and Auditor General has been asked to take on the audits of the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Office. That speaks well for the health of the Department.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised the point about the staff of the Department. I accept what he says, but, if it is so excellent, does he think that the Comptroller and Auditor General should sometimes be selected from among its number?
Mr. du Cann: I see no objection to that. I recently returned from Canada, where I attended the centenary of the Public Accounts Committee, which was celebrated in the House of Commons in Ottawa. The hon. Gentleman, who is a student of these affairs, will know that the Comptroller and Auditor General comes from outside the ranks of Government service. The criterion is to appoint the best man for the job. We have been fortunate in that the appointees to the post of Comptroller and Auditor General over a long period have been of outstanding merit.
Mr. English: In Canada there is a Comptroller General and an Auditor General, as there used to be here before 1866. One of them came from industry; he was president of the Ford subsidiary in Canada. The other is an ex-Treasury civil servant.
Mr. da Cann: The Procedure Committee took evidence from the Canadians. We have a good deal to learn from them. The hon. Gentleman is right. We cannot compare the offices exactly, because they are split in the way that he described.
To return to the general, it is proposed that the Select Committee structure be reorganised to provide the House with a means of scrutinising the public service on a continuing and systematic basis. It is the words "continuing and systematic "that are so important. I agree totally with that.
I now come to the reservations. There are two needs. The document suggests the heads. There are no bodies. There are no eyes. There are no arms, it seems to me. What is the reinforcement suggested for these Committees? It is to be

75
one Clerk, one executive, one secretary and perhaps a specialist adviser or two. I regard that as wholly inadequate to enable the Committees to do the work they are required to perform.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire mentioned the United States. We all know that the systems are different. I shall not labour the point. However, the comparison between what happens in the United States and what happens here is astonishing. There are 400-plus members of the House of Representatives, 11,000 professional and clerical staff, 100 senators and 6,500 members of staff. I am not arguing for that. We must consider that, besides that personal staff, there is the Congressional research office and the general accounting office. That is a brilliant organisation. In addition, there are the office of technology assessment and the Congressional budgeting office.
Mr. Powell: A pork barrel.
Mr. du Cann: A pork barrel. That is exactly what we do not have. I am not arguing for that.
What does any of us have here? Each of us has a secretary, or perhaps half a secretary and a bit of a research assistant. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and as Chairman of the Liaison Committee in the House, I have one secretary. That is all. I have neither research assistant nor funds with which to Obtain help to do the work that must be done. The resources of the Library are excellent. However, this is the point. We have so little now that it is absurd. We shall not obtain the best results on the cheap. Money spent to buttress the democratic system in the United Kingdom is well spent. In the end it may well lead to substantial savings and to a much more efficient performance by the Government. Without staff, these Committees will not live up to the high hopes of the authors of the report, whose aims I so strongly support.
One proposal is that the Exchequer and Audit Department should be called upon increasingly on a part-time basis on secondment. That is not a wise proposal. Audit is a wholly specialised function. Its integrity is precious and must be preserved. The idea that the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department
76
should be pursuing—putting the matter at its worst—hares started by sundry Members of Parliament is injudicious, to say the least.
This document talks about evolution. I do not believe in evolution. Matters have slipped too far. I should sooner preach revolution—although not quite the brand espoused by the cricketer, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who is sitting below the Gangway.
The report was generous enough to say that the Public Accounts Committee was effective because the Exchequer and Audit Department put a loaded revolver in its hands. What we need to agree to do, to back up the practical ideas in this report, is to establish a number of groups of researchers and experts, to be generally available to Select Committees and the House. I suggest that there should be four—a budgetary and economic group, a social services group, a technological group, and, by no means least, a commercial group. These people should be employed by the House of Commons and should be on our staff and be supervised and controlled by the Commission. They would be researchers only. The question "What of the Clerk's Department?" immediately comes to mind. These researchers would be wholly independent of that Department. The Clerks would be the only body of people responsible, as it were, inside the House of Commons. I am arguing that the establishment of the Committees is not enough. They must be given teeth and strength. The way to do it is to give them research facilities.
There are two other requirements. One matter was touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend, who said how the work that we had done in the past had been piecemeal and patchy. Those sentiments are contained in paragraphs 5, 14 and 15 of the report. I made some proposals in a pamphlet some time ago. The Procedure Committee was kind enough to cross-question me about them. It did not agree with me on my proposals, but at least we were arguing in the same direction. The Committee made a brilliant suggestion. It said that the Chairmen's Liaison Committee should be developed and that we should make that responsible, to some extent, for the overall direction and command of this scene. We had the opportunity of discussing that informally in the Chairmen's Liaison Committee,

77
which agreed that if these ideas met with the approval of the House it should be turned into a formal Select Committee with specific duties. I shall spell them out.
It was suggested in the report that the Committee should advise on the choice of debates, the monitoring and timing of Government replies to reports, on staffing and facilities and on Sub-Committees, and should consider all matters relating to Select Committees. That is understood. It is believed that the Liaison Committee could perfectly well play that role. That is an important comment on the points made by the right hon. Member for Dart-ford, who is a member of that group. He was not able to be present when we discussed this matter in the group.
We think that the Select Committees should appoint their Chairmen and that the Chairmen should be members of the Chairmen's Liaison Committee. Most of us do not think that additional members of that Committee are needed. It is through this opportunity for direction, leadership and co-ordination that the ideas of the Select Committee on Procedure can be made to have merit.
Thirdly, there must be proper time for debates on Select Committee reports. What is proposed in the report is perhaps a little on the modest side. Even so, I am sure that the Leader of the House will find this difficult to accept.
So what is to come? If I may end as I began, I want to make it clear that those of us who believe in reform will not be denied it. We are determined upon it. We know that if, as a House, we are not working as efficiently as we should be, the fault is ours and nobody else's. It is not the Government's fault or the Opposition's fault. It is our fault. We are determined to remedy the position.
Any fool can talk. Many fools do, and many fools do no more than that. This is now the time for action. The general election, as we all know, is imminent. But the view that I am professing—and which my right hon. and learned Friend and others profess, and no doubt others will profess—cuts across the party divide. I sense, and have done for a year or two, that there is in this House a strong resolve and a unity of purpose. We ask the Leader of the House and the Shadow Leader of the House for a commitment to be given in this matter, just as I have
78
asked for a commitment from the leadership on each side that the remuneration of Members of Parliament should be properly dealt with immediately after the general election in the context of the forthcoming Boyle report.
Why cannot we get these matters out of the way and agree between us what needs to be done? We want a clear and untrammelled undertaking that what is proposed here—and, I hope what I have added to it—will be implemented, and promptly implemented, in a new Parliament. The time will not wait. If anything, we have delayed far too long, and we should be highly critical of ourselves in that regard.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Russell Kerr: It is a pleasure for me to be following the right hon. Member for Taun-ton (Mr. du Cann), not because he is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and certainly not because he is Chairman also, I understand, of the 1922 Committee, but more particularly because he is the Chairman of our Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen. In that respect I can speak with a considerable amount of authority, because we have had our steps guided by him now for a number of years—five years in my case—and I have always found him to be very fair-minded and assiduous in the way that he approaches the task. By way of a postscript provided more or less by the right hon. Member himself, I should like to welcome him this evening to the revolutionary ranks—for the first time, I believe.
I start by referring to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his kindly but seductive references to our joint endeavours on the cricket field. I am sorry to have to tell him that recent events in Australia—and the fateful collusion between the England pace attack and Mr. Kerry Packer—have made me more or less unseducible.
More seriously, I speak as Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—a Committee which will be, so to speak, sentenced to death if we are unwise enough to adopt the principles suggested in the report. It will come, therefore, as no surprise to the House that I intend to devote most of my speech to

79
explaining why this particular recommendation is, in my view and in my Committee's view, totally misconceived. Although, inevitably, I shall be critical of the Procedure Committee, I should not want the House to think that I regard the whole of the report as bad. It is a curate's egg, if ever there was one.
The section dealing with the powers of Select Committees to send for persons, papers and records—and, in particular, the enforcement of such powers—will, I think, be generally welcomed by all those who are concerned to strengthen the powers of the legislature vis-à-vis the Executive. It was, as the report acknowledges, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which brought this issue to the fore a year ago, as Sir Charles Villiers would be the first to testify.
I welcome also the recommendation for the provision of "Select Committee days" on which substantive motions could be moved. Too often in the past valuable Select Committee reports have been allowed to moulder on the shelves, and there is much too much good in our reports for that to happen to them.
I am much less convinced by the recommendations about the staffing of Committees. Although rather obscurely phrased, the report seems to be advocating a move towards a battery of Congressional-style experts. The Clerk of the House is quoted as stating that it was doubtful whether the value of reports.
" would be enhanced if they become reports of specialists which had received the formal endorsement of a Committee."
The report goes on to state that
" This view was supported by a number of witnesses. We disagree with them."
One of the witnesses quoted was myself, and perhaps I could remind the House of what I said on that occasion. I quoted my Professor of Public Administration at Sydney University—a ripe old Tory, incidentally—who had a saying that experts should be on tap, and not on top. I concluded:
" I am not sure that I would not argue loud and long for our amateur system (if I can call it that) as opposed to the ' top pro' system that you and I are well aware exists in Congress ".
I stand by that view.
There are improvements to be made, no doubt, but I am sure that the present
80
system is about right. It allows for ad hoc, specialist advice to be provided where necessary—and very valuable it has been in most cases for our Committee. It leaves the basic responsibilities where they should be—that is to say, with elected Members who are chosen by the House to report back to their colleagues on the position as they see it, backed up primarily by Clerks of the House who, as full-time servants of the House, have no other loyalty than to the House, and whose experience makes them particularly qualified to interpret the will of Members.
I now turn to my main theme, which is the need to maintain a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, whatever other changes are made in the Select Committee structure. I start from the presumption that there must be some form of accountability of the nationalised industries to Parliament. They account for more than one-tenth of the national product and for nearly one-fifth of the total fixed investment of the country. Nor is there much dispute that accountability should principally be exercised by means of a Select Committee. This was the view taken by the House in the 1950s and it is not at all challenged by the Procedure Committee. It believes, however, that the tasks at present undertaken by my Committee could be subdivided and reallocated to the proposed "shadow" Departmental Committees.
There are four reasons why my experience over 13 years tells me that this is wrong, and I am overwhelmingly supported by those whose experience is even greater. The first is purely practical. I do not believe for one moment that the six or seven relevant Committees would begin to get near the amount of time and coverage that my Committee devotes to the nationalised industries, given the limited size proposed for them and given the breadth of their other responsibilities.
I remind the House that there are at present no fewer than 46 industries within my Committee's terms of reference. That includes, of course, a number of gas and electricity area councils. In total, our brief covers 46 so described nationalised industries.
Sir David Renton: Corporations.
Mr. Kerr: Yes. When we gave evidence in November 1977, the Clerk to

81
our Committee gave some figures for the amount of time devoted by my Select Committee to the affairs of the nationalised industries. The reference is at question 815 in volume II of the report.
Perhaps I can bring that up to date. In our last Session my Committee held a total of 112 meetings. So far this Session 28 meetings have been held. In addition, written evidence has been received from all the industries, and oral evidence has already been taken from many industries. I do not believe that, for example, the proposed Environment Committee would be capable of devoting three days to the affairs of the British Waterways Board, as we have just done. If any hon. Member thinks that this matter is unimportant, I invite him to Sub-Committee A's hearing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment tomorrow.
Incidentally, a number of hon. Members, led by the hon. Member for Maid-stone (Mr. Wells), have tabled an early-day motion which suggests that the nationalised industries should be more accountable to Parliament. I look forward especially to their support in resisting this proposal, as inevitably there will be less proper accountability in the proposed new system.
Secondly, the Procedure Committee recommendations will effectively prevent any across-the-board inquiries into matters affecting all the nationalised industries. At this very moment my Committee is carrying out two such investigations. One Sub-Committee is doing what is, in effect, a pre-legislative hearing of the proposals affecting consumers and the nationalised industries. It is our intention to have a report and a mass of supporting evidence available for hon. Members when they consider the Bill to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in a few weeks' time.
Another Sub-Committee is looking at the whole question of the relationship of Ministers, Parliament and the nationalised industries. On Wednesday of this week spokesmen for the nationalised industries' chairmen's group, five of the most senior chairmen, will be appearing before us to discuss matters such as board salaries, the way in which Ministers appoint boards, whether Ministers should
82
be empowered to give specific directions to an industry, how far board chairmen are accountable to Parliament, and so on. Those are all matters of great and legitimate interest not only to the House but to the country. One feels bound to ask in all modesty which of the Procedure Committee's proposed Committees could carry out such a task.
Thirdly, and linked to the previous argument, the proposals will inevitably mean that different nationalised industries will be treated differently by different Select Committees. Most of us know how each Select Committee develops its own philosophy and approach, depending on such factors as its composition, the temperament of the Chairman, and so on. Over 22-plus years, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has adopted a common approach to such matters as the need to distinguish between commercial and social objectives. It has also been able to apply lessons learnt in one industry to another.
That approach is valued by the industries, which begin to see what Parliament wants and intends. All this could be lost if we were to end up with perhaps an Industry and Employment Committee chaired by, say, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), recommending the Post Office to abolish all parcel activities because they were uneconomic, or a Transport Committee chaired by one of my hon. Friends recommending British Rail to carry parcels free of charge for pensioners because it was a social duty.
The fourth objection is perhaps the most fundamental of all. The whole balance of the Procedure Committee's report is tilted towards more effective control of the Executive by the legislature, and many of the recommendations are designed to keep a better watch on the activities of Ministers and their Departments. That is fine. Where the report goes wrong, in my view, is in its totally unwarranted assumption that nationalised industries are merely an extension of Government Departments and are therefore best lumped in with them in an omnibus system of control.
That was not what Parliament intended when it passed the relevant nationalised industry statutes. I am very sorry that the Procedure Committee does not appear to have grasped that essential difference.

83
It was not for want of being told. It was spelt out quite clearly by Sir Leo Pliatzky, representing the Treatury, at question 594, and it was reiterated by the Clerk to the Committee at the end of our evidence, when he said:
" There is the argument also that Departments are different from nationalised industries…. It was brought out throughout the inquiry when the Committee was being set up; and it was confirmed to you by Sir Leo Pliatzky from the Treasury when he said, When you are talking about the nationalised industries, you are moving on to a quite different animal.' If a Departmental Committee has nationalised industries tagged on, there might be a danger of it trying to look at them in the same way. I think that what Mr. Kerr has been saying is that they cannot be looked at in the same way "—
by Parliament, at any rate.
" That is why they were set up in the way they were under the legislation that set them up."
In short, Parliament intended the nationalised industries to operate more like commercial enterprises, free as far as possible of day-to-day Government control. Of course, there must be accountability. That is what the inquiry I have already referred to is all about. It is perhaps worth pointing out to members of the Procedure Committee that one former nationalised industry chairman has already told Sub-Committee E of my Committee that in his view the industries should no longer be accountable at all to Ministers or civil servants but only to the Select Committee. This may possibly be an extreme view, but it epitomises the essential point that the Procedure Committee, dominated as it was by members of the Expenditure Committee, has, in our view, missed.
Mr. English: There were only three of us on it.
Mr. Kerr: They still may be dominating.
Sir David Renton: The total membership of the Procedure Committee was 16, and out of that number there were only three members of the Expenditure Committee.
Mr. Kerr: I was being obliquely flattering to members of the Expenditure Committee, feeling that they pack a punch at least five times as powerful as that of
84
their fellow members. If they decline to accept my compliment, I must continue.
It is not Parliament's function to shadow the industries as it is proposed to shadow Departments. It is more the function of Parliament to protect the industries from undue interference by Ministers and civil servants—and long may it continue to be so.
On all those grounds there seems to me to be an unanswerable case for the continuation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. It will be argued that I am prejudiced, and no doubt that is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am pleased to have agreement. But the case for the Committee does not rest on my words alone, nor on those of my parliamentary colleagues in the Committee. There is ample external evidence of support for the work that we are doing. In the memorandum submitted to the Procedure Committee, I stated the views of NEDO and the National Consumer Council. In the debate last year on the British Steel Corporation I quoted the views of two distinguished national industry chairmen, Sir Frank Price and Sir Daniel Pettit. Let me now briefly add the views of three more people.
The first is an academic who has made a close study of these matters, Professor John Heath of the London Graduate School of Business Studies. He has said:
" There is a case for having a Select Committee which is specialist on matters concerned with nationalised industries. I think that the experience and wisdom which can be accumulated over a period of time is and must be enormously valuable to Parliament."
Secondly, in a memorandum to us, a major nationalised industry, the British Gas Corporation, had this to say:
" The Corporation has noted the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, and in particular the recommendation that the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries should be undertaken by departmentally-related committes…While resepcting any proposal that safeguards the role of Parliament, the Corporation would be disappointed if the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, with which a continuing good working relationship has been established, were abolished."
[HON. MEMBERS: "A little cosy."] A little cosy, yes. But we come to something else in a moment.
Finally, I shall quote the views of a man uniquely qualified to speak on these matters—a former Chairman of one of

85
our Select Committees, a former Conservative Minister and a former chairman of a nationalised industry—Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He made this comment:
" I think it is a good system as at present to have one Select Committee with overall responsibility for the nationalised sector; because, after all, there are so many problems in common emerging perhaps at different times in different industries…. The members of the Committee acquire experience of them. If you are too departmentalised, perhaps you come on to one of these problems for the first time and without the background information which is—as I know from my Public Accounts days—so useful in questioning witnesses as well as in drafting the report."
Mr. English: My hon. Friend and I agree on many parts of the report, but we disagree here. I think he may possibly agree that he is being a little heavy-handed. The Select Committee suggested that to cope with matters related to all nationalised industries in common there should be
" a joint sub-committee representing the departmentally-related committees most directly concerned with the nationalised industries."
That is in paragraph 5.39 of the report.
The argument, therefore, centres around whether there should be a Joint Sub-Committee or whether it should be a separate Select Committee. I think that that puts the matter on a rather lower plane than saying that we suggested the complete abolition of anything relating to nationalised industries in common. As my hon. Friend knows, I chair a Sub-Committee of the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden). Other hon. Members chair its other Sub-Committees. We do not feel deprived because we are a Sub-Committee, as my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Kerr: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend's arrangements are working so well, but in my experience of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, with the enormous amount of work that we find it necessary to get through in order to discharge our responsibility, this simply would not work. That is my opinion, and it is also the opinion of my fellow Committee members.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view—which is perfectly valid, though not necessarily supported by everyone—how does he deal with the other main issue that comes out of the Procedure Com-
86
mittee's report? Why, with the breadth of nationalised industries, spread over industry and employment generally, is it not possible for the experience that he argues people need in dealing with a particular nationalised industry to come from those who are looking at the Department within whose responsibility the nationalised industry falls? With 46 nationalised industries, there is obviously something to be gained from dealing with all of them across the board, but there is an equally valid argument for dealing with them through the Department.
Mr. Kerr: This is very difficult, because it is a question of degree as regards both sides of the argument. I am persuaded that a departmental recruitment along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) would be too specialised and not sufficiently broad in its appreciation. Therefore, the experience that one gets in dealing with what, after all, is a different animal—that is, a nationalised industry as opposed to a Government Department—may perhaps be more difficult to acquire, but none the less more valuable in terms of the effective scrutiny of such bodies by the House. That is my belief. It is perhaps not easy to prove, but it is certainly based on my experience of 13 years.
Mr. David Stoddart: Does my hon. Friend feel that if the nationalised industries were dealt with through these Departmental Committees the whole examination would be too diffuse and would lack the sharpness that Parliament should insist upon when examining nationalised industries? They are, after all, separate from any Department and are, indeed, very important to the economy.
Mr. Kerr: My hon. Friend has put his finger right on the spot far more eloquently than I could hope to match. He makes a good point with which I totally agree.
Mr. John Garrett: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kerr: No. I am sorry, but I have had three interruptions on the trot, including one by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West. I am not taking a holiday. I intend to finish my speech and let the debate continue.

87
I have no personal vested interest in the continuance of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. After all, the proposal to pay Chairmen has not yet been agreed. I speak, however, from 12 years' experience of the Committee and from the experience of the last five years as Chairman of the aforementioned Select Committee. It is my strong conviction that we have a clear job of work to do. Whether we are doing it right is, of course, a matter for debate. I am prepared to let our record speak for itself.
I have tried to show that it would be folly to throw away the achievements of 22 years for the sake of some new scheme which may sound administratively convenient but which would only harm the proper relationship between Parliament and the nationalised industries. Such a relationship is vital to the well-being of the country. It is for this reason that I confidently trust that all hon. Members will join with me in overwhelmingly rejecting this part of the Procedure Committee's proposals.
I hope that the tone of this debate will be enough to persuade the Government to withdraw that proposal. However, if they do not, I give them notice that I shall fight it at all stages by whatever means available. I do not believe that I shall stand alone in this endeavour. In the words of the bard in Henry V, on our Select Committee we fully intend, as a united and determined group, to
" Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage."
I warn the House that we are pretty hard to stop when we put our heads down and our backsides up.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) put forward a determined special plea on behalf of his Committee. We look forward to the contest that lies before us. I think, however, there are some issues he should keep in mind.
First, the Procedure Committee, of which I was a member, had no intention of speaking ill of, or misjudging the record of, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Far from it. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was a proving ground for the very
88
method of investigation which we are advocating.
From the earliest years, when Parliament was feeling its way with great uncertainty over the whole institution of a public corporation and how it should be held to account, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries played an important part in demonstrating that a kind of analysis can take place in which all hon. Members can agree on observations critical of the way something is carried out and bring them to bear in public debate. That has been a very notable service.
I worried a little when the hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that the purpose of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was to protect the industries from Ministers and civil servants. Although the Select Committee occasionally has to fulfil that role, I hope it is entirely secondary to its responsibility for holding industries to account to the extent that the House feels they should.
I ask the hon. Member to bear this in mind in his considerations. What should be the focus of Parliament's interest in nationalised industries? Should it be the structure which they happen to have in common? Should it be the fact that they are all in public ownership—that one fact which draws together the National Coal Board, the Ordnance Survey, the Bank of England and the British Railways Board? Should a similar institutional framework be the focus of our interest, or the functions of a particular industry and the relationship of those functions to other matters in the same area, such as the oil industry and energy, the railways and transport as a whole, the Ordnance Survey, and other bodies which make use of this service?
In any industry that one cares to look at, I think it can be more strongly argued—I hope the hon. Gentleman will admit that it can be at least as strongly argued—that the scrutiny of a nationalised industry may have to be in conjunction with other bodies—some of them public and some of them entirely private enterprise—engaged in the same activity and that Committees will want to look at those activities rather than the common thread of public ownership and the various institutional matters which the industries have in common. That was the basis of our belief that the Committee on

89
Nationalised Industries was no longer the most appropriate way to examine nationalised industires. The more that the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston stresses the enormous breadth of industries with which he now deals—over 40 nationalised industries—the stronger we are in that conviction.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is very close indeed to what we do at the present time? For example, although the BNOC is a new member of our stable, we have had before us the BP organisation, which is not a member of the stable because technically it is not a nationalised industry. However, we have never felt inhibited from obtaining all that it had to tell us on oath.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman puts a good case that the Committee has made the best of the present system, but I stick to my convictions that as a House our interest in the nationalised industries ought not to be mainly in the fact that they are all nationalised but rather in the role they play in any given area which at a certain time is ripe for examination.
There are a host of recommendations in the report. Indeed, in listening to some hon. Members I am tempted to conclude that so long as we cross off the ones which they specifically referred to as being against—I have the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) partly in mind—we can take as read their support for the remaining 60 or 70 recommendations. Let us hope that that is true. Many of the recommendations will not feature in the debate because they are quite small matters. However, they are important, and at some stage the House must be given an opportunity to decide upon them.
I simply want to refer to certain main areas, the first of which is the Public Bill Committee proposal. That is a proposal that there should be a means by which, before we set out on the detailed examination of Bills, and a determination clause by clause of what the law should be, we should be given the opportunity to examine witnesses. This was looked at in great detail. There are differences of view about how far we should go along this road at one step, and to what extent such a procedure might be abused as a means of delaying the Committee
90
proceedings. The Committee arrived at a compromise view, which it presses strongly on the House.
I think that most hon. Members have had experience of the very unsatisfactory nature of our present procedures, especially when dealing with some technical Bills. I believe that people outside, including many bodies that gave evidence, feel strongly that they have not been heard and that the Committee has gone on to argue in detail points about which Committee members knew far less than did people outside the House.
I ask hon. Members to think of the common situation that arises on Finance Bills or other technical Bills, where an hon. Member puts forward an argument having been advised by a group of people on how it will affect them. The Minister then reads a carefully prepared reply, stating that such a proposal is quite impossible and that it will affect this, that or the other. The Committee member then has to decide on the spur of the moment whether he has a sound case or whether the Minister's argument is inadequate. If he is lucky, he may be able to consult someone sitting in the public seats. There will be an exchange of notes, and he will come back and produce an even more obtuse argument, which he probably does not understand because it is entirely second-hand. The Minister will obtain a similar note from a civil servant, and the two will then engage upon a further discussion about which neither has any real understanding. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that such a situation arises.
That is the sort of thing which the Committee felt ought to be dealt with by examination of witnesses. In that situation, the most obvious thing that should happen is for the man sitting behind the Minister to consult the man sitting in the public seats. After all, they are the two people who understand the matter under discussion, and they might be able to arrive at a compromise. We should get such people before the Committee as witnesses. As it is, they are silenced and the whole argument takes place second-hand.
The Public Bill Committee would give us a limited opportunity to question witnesses on the impact of the detailed parts of legislation—a matter which our present procedure does not sufficiently allow for.
Mr. Mikardo: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely in what he is saying. There is another bad feature of the present system, which is that only some members of the Committee are briefed by some organisations. If bodies such as the Law Society have something to say about a Bill, surely the information—doubtless very valuable—ought to be made accessible to all members of the Committee.
Mr. Beith: I agree. That is a matter for the organisations concerned. At present I am serving on the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, and that does not seem to be short of people who are prepared to circulate large amounts of advice to all Committee members.
Again, using the channel of one particular party, or one particular Committee member, is not necessarily the best way of hearing the views of an organisation outside. It might be much better if we allowed such people to speak for themselves rather than suppose that they could channel their views only through a particular political viewpoint on the Committee.
I turn to the procedure in Committees on Statutory Instruments. This is another example where our present procedures are a nonsense, and are regarded as a nonsense by anyone who observes them. The fact that we are unable to come to any conclusion at all on what may be an important change in the law and the fact that we can only decide not to report to the House—and then we are obliged to do so because our procedures make it inevitable that that fact is reported to the House—justifiably make people outside very cynical about the way in which we conduct our procedures.
The weakness of the procedure on statutory instruments has become more evident as "framework legislation" has proliferated. The more legislation is passed, the implementation of which depends upon statutory instruments, the more important it becomes to have an effective procedure dealing with those statutory instruments. At present it is "take it or leave it", and the Committee cannot even deliver an opinion on the matter. It has no means of saying that it is dissatisfied with some parts of an instrument. It has no means of throwing the matter back to the Government. The
92
whole procedure is farcical and is an insult to the time and effort which hon. Members devote to Statutory Instruments Committees.
The Procedure Committee has recommended modest reforms that would at least enable substantive motions to be taken in Committees dealing with this delegated legislation, and which in some circumstances would enable us to bring these matters back to the Floor of the House for further discussion. I believe that to be an essential reform, and I press it strongly.
The Committee spent some time considering the sittings of the House and the need so to organise them that they make the proceedings as effective as possible and the lives of hon. Members as reasonable and tolerable as possible. There was considerable difficulty in reaching agreement. I believe that arises out of a number of things. One is the suspicion that if we vote for wholesale morning sittings we shall be no better off at the end of the day and that the proceedings of the House will continue to be extended far into the night. The lack of enthusiasm with which hon. Members greeted our proposal to make it difficult for the Government to break the 10 o'clock rule illustrates the problem. Any procedure that one devises runs the risk that it will be so heavily used by the Government that large numbers of hon. Members will be kept behind to carry it out. Therefore, whichever way we turn we are in some difficulty in making it more difficult for the Government to keep the House going to unreasonable hours night after night.
Another point of difference with regard to hours affects those of us who do not live in London, who do not seek to make our home in London and whose constituencies are far from London. We have a very different view about how the business of the House should be organised from those hon. Members who are London-based. To us, it would be very much better if the proceedings of the House were highly concentrated. We do not mind late nights so long as they are on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. But, for those of us whose constituencies are very far flung, it would be difficult if proceedings started early on a Monday or went on later at the end of the week. If we are to do an effective job in our constituencies and have some family life, clearly

93
the arrangements of the business of the House must reflect the problem of travelling 300, 400 or 500 miles to Westminster.
As the Committee indicated on a matter on which it divided, I believe that full-time membership of the House of Commons is needed and is becoming ever more so. At present, many hon. Members are far more than full-time. In order to discharge a wide range of responsibilities in the House, one has to work far longer than would be contemplated in almost any other job. That burden is the greater if a substantial number of hon. Members do not participate fully in the responsibilities of the House. At least the Committee is prepared to go so far as to say that full-time membership of the House of Commons ought to be the assumption upon which its proceedings are organised.
I stand by that view. Of course, I do not think that the House of Commons can take any stricter a view than any other body as to whether people should be entitled to moonlight and to undertake other occupations. After all, the practice is widespread in many fields. On the other hand; I think that the organisation of our business should be based upon the assumption that membership is expected to be full-time. If there are those who would be prepared to work still more unreasonable hours—I am sure that there will be some—doing another job at the same time, that must be a matter for them.
The last of the areas to which I want to refer is the Select Committee proposal, which has been the main subject of debate tonight. We want to see more of them, so that their work is continuous and systematic in its scrutiny of the Executive. We wish to strengthen them. We wish them, in certain circumstances, to be able to get debate on a motion through the filter of the Chairmen's Liaison Committee, so that their proceedings are brought to the notice of the House of Commons.
We accepted in the Procedure Committee that there will be many Select Committee reports which do not merit debate on the Floor of the House. That was a general view. However, there are some which do merit it. If it is a criticism of debates on reports of Select Committees that they do not attract interest and are not well attended—which cannot be said of this debate—it is at least partly a criticism of the fact that we are never able
94
to decide anything. Time and again, hon. Members are invited to come to this place to take part in a debate arising out of a report of a Select Committee, without having any opportunity to express their views at the end of the debate by a vote on the proposals put forward by the Select Committee. Frankly, why should hon. Members who do not wish to make a speech on the subject trouble to attend these proceedings? I am not at all surprised that some of them do not do so.
There are people who oppose the Committee's recommendations on Select Committees; there are, indeed, people who should oppose them and whose philosophy means that they must oppose them. There are those, for example, who take a carte blanche approach to Government, saying that it is the job of this place to install a Government and let them get on with the job for five years, and at the end of that period they go back to the electorate to see whether the electorate wants the same Government or a different Government. In the meantime, the job of Parliament is to keep the battle going, to remind the electorate of what the differences of view between the two major parties are, and those between the other parties represented in the House, but to leave it at that and simply to say "If we were in charge, we would be doing things differently".
But there are now decreasing numbers of Members of Parliament who are prepared to accept that view. Certainly outside the House, our constituents rightly expect us to take a far more continuous interest in what the Government are doing and to scrutinise them from day to day.
However, with the assumption on the part of some people that Parliament should simply install Governments and let them get on with the job, there goes another view. That is the fear of consensus. It is most effectively expressed by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am sorry that he is not with us today, because he would have a contribution to make to this debate. I think that he and others like him believe that there is a terrible danger that agreement will break out all over the place and that fearful consequences will result, with Members of other parties upstairs in Committee rooms finding against their better judgment that they agree with each other that the Government are wrong in

95
a particular respect or that policy should move in some direction or other.
The hon. Member for Bolsover ought to be opposed to this reform, if that remains his view and the view of others like him. It is not the view of those who believe that the bredth of government is now such that there will be many matters on which any objective assessment will lead to a common conclusion amongst any reasonable group of people that something is going wrong and that something needs to be done about it. That has been the experience of Select Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and others over many years.
It is a proven experience. It ought to be resisted as a model only by those who think that the preservation of party differences is more important than the effective scrutiny of the work of the Executive. Clearly, I come into the latter category and I am firmly opposed to the two approaches that I have outlined. Parliament must be able to scrutinise, monitor and, at times, perhaps frighten the Executive. Not to do so, in any case, is to ignore the fact that Ministers are not really in control of every aspect of government. It is too big for them to be in control. Therefore, the work of Select Committees is that much more important.
The right hon. Member for Dartford took the view—it is a quite widespread view—that specialisation would bring many dangers with it and that Members would not any longer engage in a wide range of activities and would not be the good all-round chaps that he obviously thinks we are. The proposals that the Committee has put forward would not do away with other parliamentary institutions—Question Time, for example, and the whole range of legislation. I have no great inclination to be highly specialised, but if I had my constituents would soon stop it. They write to me on every subject under the sun and they expect me to take an interest in an enormous range of subjects. Consequently, I do so. There are some things to which I devote extra time, and there are some things in which I am particularly interested, but I can never become completely specialised. One of the attractions of the job, in any case,
96
is that one is concerned with such a wide range of matters.
I am conscious, however, of the fact that this lack of specialisation means that we are constantly being brought into fields where technical knowledge goes extremely deep and our knowledge is very shallow indeed. We in this House would be lost if some hon. Members did not devote some of their time to specialisation. I cite the example of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). This House would be very much poorer if he had not devoted considerable time and attention to our financial procedures and to the need to reform them. He was a very stimulating witness to the Committee on that point. The fact that he has built up this experience is extremely valuable.
The right hon. Member for Dartford came very near to saying, when he suggested that members of Committees would know a lot about things and have access to information and that others would not, that it would be better if we were all ignorant rather than allowing some Members to acquire considerable knowledge. We cannot afford to do that in a legislature which must be concerned with a great many important and complicated subjects.
Mr. Sydney Irving: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the point that if these are to work, the degree of specialisation will be greater than ever before? That automatically precludes Members from doing many of the things that they have been doing up to now.
Mr. Beith: I do not believe that it can or will preclude Members from taking part in debates and questioning on a wide range of other matters. Some of those Members most known for their specialised interests at the present time are still to be found taking part in other debates. It depends very much on the attitude of the individual Member, but I see nothing in experience so far to support that view.
I do not accept the view of those who say that one can combine the Select Committee and the Standing Committee role in a full-blown system in which the same Committees deal with legislation and scrutinise the Executive—at least, I do not think that we can do so at this stage, even though there might come a time when it would be worth considering.

97
We would destroy the character of the Committees which carry out scrutiny, because the natural emphasis of Governments on their desire to get through their legislation would import into our Select Committees the procedures, habits, loyalties and, indeed, the personnel in the form of the Whips upon which the legislative programme of the Government is maintained. That would be to the detriment of the very different kind of work which the Select Committees are being asked to do.
There are many other things to which the Committee gave some attention but to which it might like to give more, such as the financial procedures of the House. There are the implications for this House of our European membership and the procedures that we need to follow in that direction—on which we have started, but there is much more to be considered. There may be yet other matters such as the implications of devolution, but we can afford to wait until after 1 March before embarking on such a venture. However, the Committee as a whole would see little point in going very far in any of these matters unless there is some hope of getting something done on the very large range of questions with which it has already dealt.
Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House when the House will be able to decide on these matters. I surmise that the Leader of the House is not very keen on many of these proposals. They do not sit well with some of his cherished convictions, and he may not be a million miles from the hon. Member for Bolsover in some of the views that I attributed to him.
The Leader of the House has a responsibility to the House to enable us to make decisions. That is why he must table motions. We do not expect him necessarily to vote for all our proposals. That would be beyond the wildest dreams of optimism. But it is his responsibility to allow the House to come to decisions on these matters. Therefore, he has a responsibility to table motions which will enable it to do so. If he does not do that, I believe that opinion, not so much inside the House but certainly outside it, will give way to a great deal of cynicism. People will ask whether this place will ever change its ways while it consists in large part of members of Governments,
98
Members who would like to be in Government and Members who wish to form the next Government and do not want to see any of the apparatus of Executive power removed or damaged in any way before they get there.
Mr. John Garrett: And Liberals.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Member is kind enough to refer to the Liberal Party. He knows where I stand on these matters. We have worked together effectively in the Committee. He has a good Liberal streak in him. I hope that it will come out more strongly over the years.
Failure of this House to reform itself will lead people further to write off Parliament and its willingness to come to terms with the problems that face us. That tendency already exists. The Leader of the House should do nothing to encourage it. He should not allow it to continue. If he fails to give the House the opportunity to decide these matters so that Members can be counted on the views that they hold, the cynicism about Parliament and its ability to attend to the affairs of the nation and to exercise its responsibility will increase.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. James Boyden: I can go a long way with what has just been said. I remember vividly taking building regulations through the House and having to deal with building legislation in Committee. The forum for those matters was better when it involved outsiders than it was with civil servants. I suspect that many millions of pounds have been lost in building activity because building regulations are rather academic, master-minded by civil servants and not based on the needs of the builders. That is true of much legislation.
On the general principle, I agree that Parliament's powers in relation to public policy and public expenditure need to be strengthened. The report suggests many ways in which that can be done. To some extent I should be flattered by the finding of the Procedure Committee that the work of the Expenditure Committee should continue and develop. But I find it a little hard that that continuation and development should be achieved by abolishing the Expenditure Committee.
The dilemma which faces both sides of the House and the Procedure Committee is in paragraph 5.15, in which the

99
Clerk of the Committees draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that the way in which the Select Committees cover the activities of the Government is uneven. I do not know whether the Clerk of Committees was asked what his view was about the House as a whole.
I feel that the activities of the House are uneven in a variety of ways. There is not much logic about its activities. I commend the Procedure Committee for trying to introduce more logic, but I think that its logic has been too Descartian and that it will not achieve the results that it wishes to achieve.
I turn to the proposal to set up 12 Departmental Committees and to abolish the Nationalised Industries Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. So that I cannot be accused entirely of being soaked in Expenditure Committee matters, I picked up the annual report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee and read what Lord Shackleton said about the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He said:
" When the Select Committee on Science and Technology was set up in 1967, very largely on the initiative of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, it seemed likely that our unofficial committee would have a somewhat diminished role. Contrary to expectation, however, its activities have developed."
I wish to stress the importance of building on that foundation. I was once a delegate from the Council of Europe to a parliamentary and scientific conference in Lausanne. One of my functions was to explain relations between Parliament and science to members of the Council of Europe. I was astonished at how superior our arrangements were for Parliament and scientists as compared with those of most European countries. If we throw away this tradition and development of scientific and parliamentary committees, we shall regret it.
It is not enough to say that the matter will be dealt with by a Departmental Committee. That Committee is to cover education, science and the arts. That represents as much of a rag-bag as do the Expenditure Committees. It would be damaging to cut off the science and technology Committees, their development and expertise, purely on the grounds of false logic. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr)
100
made the same case for the Nationalised industries Committee. He said that there would be a loss of continuity and a destruction of the value developed over the years. The dilemma is that there cannot be a pure system of Departmental Committees.
There are bound to be loose ends and overlapping. Overlapping in our present Committees has been solved. There is little overlapping today. No improvement will be created by a structure of 12 Committees which is artificially operated.
I turn to the question of the 12 Committees. Is 12 a number which has been plucked from the air? Why was not 10 or 11 chosen?
Sir David Renton: We did not think of a number and decide how the subjects would be split. We considered the Departments and how each of them could relate best to a separate Committee.
Mr. Boyden: In my judgment we must have at least six additional Commitees. For example, Committees dealing with overseas development and race relations should operate parallel to a Committee on foreign and Commonwealth affairs.
There is bound to be transdepartmental activity. Loose ends cannot be avoided. Why should the Department of Industry and the Department of Employment be lumped together? There is a strong argument for saying that there should be a Committee for each of those Departments. There is an equally strong argument for saying that there should be separate Committees for health and for social security.
I believe that 12 was chosen to reduce the number of Committee members. I believe that there should be 16 or 18 Committees, which would involve about 180 members. It is difficult enough to man the Select Committees. It will be even more difficult if relatively large numbers are involved. Pressures will develop within the Committees to split and to increase the number of Committees.
It is well known that when a Department throws up a new idea, a new Department is suggested. That was true in the case of the Department of Education and Science and the Minister with responsibility for the arts. It is the nature of bureaucracy and administration. Along with this almost certain proliferation of Committees there will be the

101
pressure to proliferate parliamentary bureaucracy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) has mentioned.
It is true that we shall be much more economically minded than Congress. I was reminded, when I was in Washington a few days ago, that the traffic jams there are caused by the staff of Congress. There are 18,000 of them. I trust that the same situation will never develop in London. If it does, I imagine that I shall gain support for one of my pet themes, namely, the removal of Parliament to Marston Moor.
The paying of Chairmen will have much the same effect in increasing bureaucracy. At the moment, hon. Members are perfectly willing to act in a voluntary capacity as Chairmen. There is considerable competition, certainly for the chairs of the Sub-Committees of the Expenditure Committee. A number of matters will arise within a year or two and fossilise this structure every bit as much as the Procedure Committee is saying that the structure is currently uneven and lacking sufficient capacity to cover a wide area.
One difficulty, certainly for the Expenditure Committee, is that members are not content with fairly modest progress. They are not content with consensus. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that a large number of hon. Members were not in the mood for the sort of developments which this proposed structure will produce. I have a simple solution to the Committee problem.
Some time ago the Procedure Committee recommended an enlarged Expenditure Committee. If the Expenditure Committee were enlarged to 80 members, plus the Chairman, all of the subjects listed at paragraph 5.24 could be accommodated in the same way as they are today. Extra staff would be needed. I am not against extra staff, because these Committees need them. Obtaining experts to staff these Committees is a much more serious and difficult matter than the Procedure Committee seems to be aware of. It would be difficult to get experts in certain areas to join a Committee on a permanent basis. There would be no career prospects for them. The present system is cost-effective. We get most of the experts we need, they are paid a
102
modest sum and they certainly do not dominate our proceedings. They do not produce reports which are simply endorsed by a Committee. There would be a tendency, if experts were appointed in large numbers and formed a body of opinion, for that to happen.
I do not wish to be destructive. Even if the recommended Committee structure is approved, I believe that some effort will be made to gather the threads of previous Committees. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for further debate in the House and for a much swifter response on the part of the Government to the reports of Committees. There are a variety of administrative matters to be dealt with, covering such issues as travelling and the widening of the Committees' power. Such issues could make for more effective parliamentary control. While I endorse the general principles of the Procedure Committee's recommendations, I hope that the House will be prepared to accept my simple solution, which is to maintain the Committees to which I have referred and to build up a number of additional ad hoc Committees.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Antony Buck: When I became Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy I was puzzled by the use of the alphabet to produce certain codes. One such example was FOMAS, which was a joke by the admirals and which meant "Flag Officers Mutual Admiration Society". The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) is Chairman of a Select Committee, as I am. I do not intend to support him in toto in his plea for the preservation of his Committee. I hope, however, that by the time I have completed my speech he will be wholeheartedly in support of the preservation of the Select Committee of which I am the Chairman. This Committee deals with the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman, as he has come to be known.
Before making my special plea, I must stress that the subject we are debating tonight is of the most profound importance. In the last century there were massive changes in the structure of our democracy. There was the total restructuring of our local government set-up to

103
make it democratic. There was an expansion of the franchise to make this place truly democratic. In this century, since the enfranchisement of women, there have not been any major structural changes. There have, however, been some less major developments. One of the new moves has been the bringing into play of the Ombudsman.
It is important that we adapt our procedures to make them more efficient. I had the interesting experience of meeting Mr. Kanellopoulos, who was Prime Minister at the time of the colonels' coup in Greece. From talks which I had with him and others who know the political scene there, it seemed clear that democracy failed for a while in Greece not so much because of corruption or the basic hot-headedness of the Greeks but because of the sheer inefficiency of the democratic system. It was sheer inefficiency which brought the Government down in the end. We are, therefore, debating a most important subject. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is an absurd system until we look at the alternatives. We must always strive to ensure that our democracy works as efficiently and smoothly as possible.
The House will be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his Committee for the enormous amount of hard work which they have done in compiling these reports and for the way in which he has presented the case to the House.
Sir David Renton: I must point out that I was not Chairman of this Committee. The Chairman was the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams).
Mr. Buck: The position of my right hon. and learned Friend is ingrained in my mind because he was in the chair when I had the privilege of giving evidence before the Committee. We are grateful to him and the entire Committee for the work that has been done. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we are here considering the more effective and powerful use of the functions of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) put it in another way. He emphasised that the
104
central theme of the debate is the greater efficiency of the working of democracy.
I am attracted to the idea of dividing the House into subject Select Committees. My only doubt is how far this will further take away the attention of the country from this place, and how far it will defuse and take away the significance of what happens on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member referred to dividing the House into 12 Committees. He will be aware that not more than one-fifth of the House would be required to man the Committees, on the recommendations of the Committee.
Mr. Buck: Yes, I am aware that the House will be divided into microcosms, which will become Select Committees. It was in that sense that I meant divide the House, not in any more technical way. I shall be interested to hear the views of the Leader of the House on this basic recommendation. I find it attractive, but I have some reservations about its taking away the focus of attention from the Floor of the House.
Mr. David Crouch: It is not so much taking the focus away from this House as taking hon. Members away from the House. As a member of a Select Committee for many years, I am strained and stretched between a decision whether to continue in that Committee in the afternoon or to attend an important debate here. There was a dictum that the Chamber came first, but sometimes that is difficult to follow.
Mr. Buck: My hon. Friend is bearing up well under the great burden. The point that I make is the same but expressed differently. If hon. Members are not here, the focus goes away from the Floor of the House.
In the considerable time that I have been in the House there has been a decline in the significance of what happens on the Floor of the House. The debates that we have had in past weeks have been poorly attended. When right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench have been making speeches, there has been a small attendance. That illustrates my reservation about the recommendations in this able report. The Leader of the House has deplored in the

105
past that the focal attention has been turned away from the Floor of the House.
Turning to the recommendation affecting the Committee of which I am Chairman, there is the bald recommendation that the reports of individual cases from the Ombudsman should be scrutinised by the appropriate departmentally related Committee. It suggests that the Treasury Committee should consider matters relating to the powers and functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and also the Health Service Commissioner. The Committee of which I am Chairman has considered this recommendation, and as a Committee we are against it.
Let me say why by taking an example. We recently had a case brought to our attention in which the Ombudsman had found there to be maladministration in the Treasury. It had taken the Treasury three years to deal with a man's tax affairs. There was a recommendation that an ex gratia payment be made to that man and his wife because over the three years he had paid a few hundred pounds additional taxation.
After the finding of maladministration, the case was considered by the Committee of which I am Chairman. We called before us the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. We cross-examined him courteously but firmly. Within a week of his giving evidence we had a reply from him that the Treasury had changed its mind, and had admitted the maladministration and was prepared to pay the money. That was a case of a citizen whose grievance was redressed and compensation given. How would that work with the recommendations put forward in the report?
The case would come under the scrutiny of a specialist Committee dealing with Inland Revenue matters and the Treasury. But would it even get a place on the agenda? It would have a low priority. That Committee would be dealing with the massive flow of our balance of payments and broad Treasury policy. It would be fortunate for the man if his case were given attention by the Select Committee of the Treasury at all.
Although this matter was not pressed to a Division when it was considered by the Procedure Committee, an amendment was tabled. I am authoritatively told
106
that it was not pushed to a Division because of considerations of time. But the Committee was not at one on this recommendation. In discussions with individual Members one finds that there is a weakening in attitude on this recommendation, partly perhaps because of the strength of academic opinion on the need for the retention of this Select Committee and the attitudes of the successive Parliamentary Commissioners themselves. In his last report the Parliamentary Commissioner strongly emphasised the need for and the value of the back-up provided by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
I shall not detain the House as I have dealt with these matters before, but I am glad that the Leader of the House is paying close attention. There have not been great structural changes in this century. But a new institution has come forward that has proved itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) was recently partly responsible for a conference under the auspices of the Hansard Society and others. Academics attended from all over the world. There were indeed Ombudsmen from as far away as Hawaii and Fiji. Although it is tempting to visit those two places, I am not suggesting that my Select Committee does so. Those academics who attended regarded our record over the past 10 years as a success story. We have shown an ability to take institutions from abroad and adapt them to our needs.
A review of our Select Committee over the past 10 years indicates that the system of having an Ombudsman, as adapted for our use, is working. It provides this House with a valuable additional weapon. A letter to a Government Department or a Minister may easily solve an ordinary case. But when something has gone badly wrong, as Members of Parliament we cannot look at the books. The Ombudsman can. He can cause the wrongs to our constituents to be put right in a significant and useful way. The case has not been made out for a change.
It is a vital sphere, for nothing becomes more frustrating to the electorate and more undermining of democracy than if it is seen to be working unfairly or inefficiently. Those of us who are concerned with the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner, and the Ombudsman himself, are in business to see

107
that the public generally get fair and efficient administration. The system is working well at the moment. It seems to me that no good case has been made for a change in the structure operating in the House at present.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am very happy to begin by joining those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed the gratitude of the House to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Williams), Chairman of the Select Committee, to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who stood in for a time when the Chairman was unfortunately ill, and to all the members of the Select Committee for what is a monumental job of work. When I look at the mass of paper through which they waded, when I consider the hours of oral evidence to which they listened, when I see their persistence in questioning their witnesses and when I observe how many times they met and for how long they deliberated, I am led to the conclusion that this is a very special piece of work. We have had good reports from many Select Committees, but this is one that puts us in the special debt of all those who contributed to it.
Three of the last four speeches to which we have listened were made by Chairmen of various Select Committees, each of whom said, in his own words, "I agree with all that is proposed in the report except for the abolition of my Committee". I have never heard special pleading so arrant and so naked in my life. The House will be relieved to hear that I am not the Chairman of any Select Committee and that I do not propose to make any special pleading. If, later on, I make a special comment about one Select Committee, it is one that I ceased to be a member of nine years ago and am not likely to be a member of again. Therefore, I have no interest in it to declare. The only Select Committee of which I am a member is the Privileges Committee. If this report had proposed the abolition of that Committee, far from my taking up a lance to engage in special fighting on its behalf, I would have warmly supported the abolition proposal. I dare say I should not have been alone in that.
108
Over the years, a number of myths and misconceptions have grown up about the work of the House and about what improvements in the Select Committee system might do to that work and how we might most effectively carry out the obligations laid upon us. I have been hearing these myths again and again, and I want to say a word or two about some of them.
The first is the myth that I first heard propagated many years ago—I am not sure that it was not by my right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the House, though he was far from that in those days—and that I last heard enunciated a few moments ago by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), namely, that an effective system of depart-mentally related Select Committees would destroy the effectiveness of the House.
The reason why that proposition is a misconception is that it is based on the assumption that the House is effective. It is impossible to destroy an effectiveness that is not there. It is manifestly clear—it was stated so well today, not for the first time, by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann); I heard him state it very well recently on the radio—that in respect of the major responsibility of the House, which is to exercise control over the Executive in matters of Supply, policy and administration, we have become less and less effective with every year that has passed. That is not because we have become less active, less conscientious, or less able with every year that has passed. It has come about simply because the rapid escalation in the volume and the rapid intensification in the complexity of the work of Government in legislation, in delegated legislation and in administration—that enormous blowing up of Government that is instanced by the increase in the size of the service which the Government have at their disposal—has widened tremendously the gap between the knowledge that is available to Ministers and the knowledge that is available to Back Bench Members.
In considering the relative powers of the Front Bench and the Back Benches, the basic fact is that knowledge is power. My right hon. Friend the Lord President is not more powerful than I am because he is better than I am—I reckon that

109
we are a good 50–50 if it comes to a race. He is much more powerful than I am because he knows a lot more than I do, and the reason is that he has a lot of people to tell him what is going on, and I have not. The reason why he knows a lot more than I do is that he has access to the books, and I have not. It is this which has made the ability of Parliament to exercise control over the Executive grow dimmer and dimmer with every year that has passed.
In paragraph 1.5 of the report, the Select Committee sets out clearly its understanding of its terms of reference. It refers to the fact that
" the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary domo-cracy."
One would have to range far and wide within this House and outside it before finding any substantial body of opinion that dissented from that judgment. It is a very weightly judgment, and it is a very serious matter for us all.
I was a little surprised to read that the Select Committee quoted support for this unchallengeable proposition from the last but one Leader of the House. I hope that in the course of time my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who throughout his political career has been the greatest defender of parliamentary democracy that I have known, will see the importance of this.
Another myth that has been referred to in the course of the debate and that has deluded some of my hon. Friends is that Select Committee work creates consensus politics. One answer to that lies in the proceedings by which this Select Committee reached its conclusions. It does not seem much of a consensus to me when there are 44 Divisions on the Chairman's draft report. Many of the Divisions were broadly on party lines. There were only five in which there was a clear vote with one party on one side and the other party on the other, but a large proportion of the others had a broad party division with one party dissentient going over to the enemy.
That provides a complete refutation to the thesis that when hon. Members get into a Select Committee that all start
110
to think alike. It even answers the opposite argument that I have also heard—and the two are mutually exclusive—that when hon. Members get into a Select Committee they do not think for themselves; they follow the party whip. Manifestly on the evidence of the proceedings that are carefully set out in the report, neither of those two extreme propositions holds good.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) referred to the difficulty of manning up the Committees. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) reminded us that the proposals would cover only one-fifth of hon. Members. The House is full of willing Members. There are over 630 willing hon. Members; some are willing to work and the rest are willing to let them. It is the same of any group that I have come across anywhere in the world. There is always a core of those willing to take on chores and there are others who prefer to let them do so. It does not seem to me that that permanent characteristic of our society—including the section of society that is housed in this building—will be changed one way or another by an alteration in the structure of Select Committees. That seems to be a pure red herring.
Will there be a lower attendance in the House if there is a more effective system of Select Committees? I have a job for a research student who is studying for his thesis or is making research in order to get some credit at his educational establishment. That is—if he could bear it—to sit in the Gallery of this Chamber for a period of time to tot up the attendances of those who are members of Select Committees and those who are not. Without knowing the answer, as a betting man I will put money on the proposition that the percentage of members of Select Committees who attend the Chamber is higher than the percentage of those who are not members of Select Committees.
Everybody knows that it is always busy people who do things. It is always the busy chap to whom we go when we want a job done, because he is the only chap with the time to do it. I do not agree with the fancy idea that, somehow, specialisation is destructive. The suggestion is that an hon. Member who is appointed to the Select Committee on defence will be able to think of nothing but defence, and that

111
his poor constituents who come to him for help about their pensions will get a dusty answer It is suggested that he will say "I do not know anything about pensions. I spend all my time on defence." No hon. Member would see that as anything but an absolute burlesque of the attitudes of hon. Members and the way in which they behave, and it is insulting to think of hon. Members in that way.
I disagree with one part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. He was optimistic that he could sell—I do not use the word in any pejorative sense—the pro-positions of the Select Committee to hon. Members. In that optimism I am sure that he is justified. However, he was also optimistic that he could sell them to Ministers and would-be Ministers. I am less optimistic of that, because there is no sharper vested interest than that of Ministers and civil servants to keep what they know to themselves and away from Back Bench Members who are liable to criticise it. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire said that there was no party line about this. I agree with him. It goes for both sorts of Government—those made up of my right hon. and hon. Friends and those of the Opposition—and their supporting civil servants.
A few years ago an experiment was started with departmentally related Select Committees. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford suggested that there should be experiments in three or four Departments only. We held such experiments. The first one was a depart-mentally related Select Committee on agriculture, fisheries and food. The Committee met to consider its programme of work. It decided that since so much of the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as we have had cause to see lately, is tied up with the decisions of the European Commission, the Committee should go to Brussels to talk to the relevant people in the Commission. But the Government said "You cannot do that." When the Committee replied that it would go to Brussels, the Government proceeded forthwith to abolish that Select Committee.
I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire that unless
112
there has been a blinding light on the road to Damascus since then, and unless some of my right hon. Friends have suffered a miraculous conversion, we shall not find it easy to get the Government to accept the propositions in the report.
I am a great supporter of the concept of the departmentally related Committee. I hope that no one will think me immodest if I make the point that I first defended those Committees more than 20 years ago when the concept was not as popular as it is now. I believe that they are the only way in which we can narrow the gap between, on the one hand, what Ministers and their civil servants know and, on the other hand, what hon. Members know. I should be happy to think that there were 10 hon. Members who knew a great deal more about for example, education than almost any of us in this House apart from Ministers. I would be happy to know that they had an adequate back-up staff.
I do not agree that the proposals in the report for back-up staff are inadequate. I am not thinking in terms of the American system, which is hideously and ridiculously inflated. I would want to be made available to each of the Committees an expert in industrial relations, an expert in cost accounting, and specialists in various other subjects, just as they are available to the Government.
Even allowing for deaths, loss of interest by hon. Members and general elections, a certain amount of continuity could be secured. This would provide 10 chaps who knew a great deal about a subject and were thus able to ask the right questions. That is the important factor. I discovered that when I was Chairman of a Select Committee. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) nodding in agreement. He was a most valuable member of the Committee. The greatest problem was figuring out the best questions to ask of which witnesses. A group of hon. Members with that degree of expertise and continuity would exercise Parliament's right to know—that is the key, because we have a right to know—much more, for example, about Supply and how it is spent. With such backing we might even have known about the gynaecological tests that were being conducted, unknown to most people. Goodness knows what

113
other matters would be exposed by that sort of inquiry.
We would have a group of knowledgeable hon. Members in each subject, who would put their knowledge at the disposal of the House when such matters were debated. Earlier, one hon. Member referred to low attendances in the House. Why should fewer hon. Members be willing to attend a well-informed debate on the basis of a good Select Committee report when contributions were made by hon. Members who could meet Ministers on equal terms? Surely more hon. Members would attend a well-informed debate, especially if it was a debate which would reach some conclusion. Nobody gets excited these days about debates on the reports of Select Committees, because they are only "take note" debates. No man of spirit ever gets worked up about words that never issue in action or decision. That would do us a lot of good.
I refer now to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Although I am dearly devoted to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), I fear that he was arguing absolutely the wrong case. He came to the right conclusion for completely the wrong reasons. He was saying that a depart-mentally related Committee—for example, on energy or transport—would not be able to investigate the nationalised industries sponsored by the Departments of Energy and Transport in the way that his Committee does. My worry is that it would but that it would do nothing else.
I am worried that, instead of investigating with the Secretary of State for Energy the broad strategic problems of energy policy, the Committee would be digging down into the report and accounts of the National Coal Board. Instead of investigating with the Minister of Transport the broad strategic problems of co-ordinated transport, it would be digging into the reports of British Railways. Let me quote a passage from the report in order to make my point. It covers paragraphs 5.37 and 5.38. In the first, the Select Committee was good enough to quote from a memorandum that I had submitted. It referred to my suggestion
" that the involvement of departmental select committees in the investigation of the operations and management of the industries would contribute further to the ' blurring of the boundary between the policy-making duty of
114
the Minister and the commercial responsibilities of the Corporations' and could thereby ' have disadvantageous effects on relations between the Corporations, their sponsoring Ministers and Parliament '."
The Select Committee was kind enough to say:
" These arguments cannot be dismissed lightly "
and then it went on to make its big error. It said
" but the alternatives need to be considered equally seriously. If the Nationalised Industries Committee continued to be charged with responsibility for the examination of the work of so many major industries, the work of some of the departmentally-related committees would be severely limited in consequence. This would be particularly true of the Transport and Energy Committee ".
In other words, it said that if one took away from the Committees related to Departments that sponsored nationalised industries investigation of the nationalised industries, there would be nothing left for them to examine.
That is where the Committee went wrong. It went wrong in the way that so many people, all the way back to Herbert Morrison, have gone wrong. The whole concept of the autonomous public corporation was that it was a device to secure that whereas Ministers made global sectoral policy—for example, the Secretary of State for Energy would make global policy for energy and the Minister for Transport would do the same in his sphere, and they would co-ordinate all the different elements of their respective policies—they would not interfere in the day-to-day workings of the relevant corporations.
In practice, precisely the reverse has happened. Ever since nationalisation, Ministers have not made global policy. They have interfered deep down into the minutiae of the day-to-day workings of the corporations. If any hon. Member wants evidence of that, it is developed in great detail in the first report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for the Session 1967–68.
That is the great trouble. It is easy for a Minister to say to the chairman of a corporation "Why did you appoint that chap?" It is easy for him to say "Why are you proposing this price increase?" It is easy for him to say "Why are you proposing to expand that factory?" It is far more difficult, and requires much more

115
thought, to make sectoral policy and to act as a co-ordinator. That is why Ministers have never done it. That is why today gas and electricity behave as though they were in separate ownerships as well as under separate managements, spending millions of pounds, pinching customers from one another, and having two blokes to go and read two meters in the same cupboard. They will not even talk to each other. This is what the Secretary of State for Energy should be thinking about, not going into the details of the accounts of the Gas Corporation.
I remember the time—I was the Member for Reading—when British Rail, with fiendish ingenuity, arranged for the trains from London to arrive at Reading station two minutes after all the connecting buses to the villages round about had left. There was absolutely no co-ordination, but, of course, the Minister did not think about that; he was too busy fiddling with the details of the industry's operations.
Here is another example. British European Airways, as it then was, learnt, by reading about it in the newspaper, of British Rail's decision to electrify the line to Manchester and Liverpool, which had an enormous effect on the economy of the air corporation's London-Ringway service. The Minister concerned did not even think it necessary to tell British European Airways. There was not even that much co-ordination or cross-fertilisation.
We shall not be able to get that even through the Select Committees because, I remind the House, one Ministry deals with road transport and rail transport, a different Ministry deals with shipping and air transport, and yet another deals with inland water transport. So this apparatus of departmentally related Committees will not be able to take a co-ordinated view—an across-the-board view, in the jargon of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Would my hon. Friend care to go on to remind the House that all the industries that he has just mentioned are in fact covered by our Sub-Committee A, which handles transport industries?
Mr. Mikardo: Exactly—that is the point I am making. It is possible, as
116
someone said earlier, to have Sub-Committees, Joint Sub-Committees and so on, but, in the first place, I do not think that that will happen, and, in the second place, I come back to my main worry that these departmentally related Committees will not be investigating the departmental and sectoral broad strategic policy-making, because they will be too tempted to go into the minutiae of the working of the sponsored public corporations. That, I believe, is the justification for the retention, really as a special case, of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
That apart, I repeat my tribute to the Select Committee and my thanks for a magnificent report.
7.44 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: I find myself in complete agreement with virtually everything said by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He is one of my constituents, and but rarely is it given to us, and on very few days of the year, to find ourselves in such complete and ideal agreement with our constituents.
The time of special pleading is virtually over. We have had a lot of special pleading. Some hon. Members have suggested that if we were to have a regime of Select Committees the potential would be diverted from the Chamber and the place would empty. Those who have made that comment have apparently tried to make the prophecy come true with withdrawing their own presence from this debate at an early stage.
I wish to take up the central point dwelt on by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. It goes back to the early meetings of our Select Committee when it was set up nearly three years ago. We started by asking ourselves what was wrong and why we had been set up. What was wrong with Parliament? There was a series of interesting and fascinating meetings, covering the better part of nine months, when we discussed among ourselves what we thought was wrong.
The conclusion to which we all came has already been quoted by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow—that as each Parliament goes by there is a growing imbalance between the executive arm of our constitution and the legislature, that the power of the executive

117
branch of the Government grows steadily greater, and the power of the legislature to act as some check upon that power, either by examining or by actually checking it, grows less and less.
It is as though the House of Commons and the Government were playing a game of chess on a tilted chess board and every time the Commons made a move the pieces gently slid off into the Government's lap. Our recommendations go some way to redeem that imbalance and to set the chess board on an even table. That is why we have recommended the setting up of the 12 departmentally related Select Committees and the other changes as well, including the changes in Standing Committee procedure.
Above all, we believe that there must be a change in our procedures, and, in order that we may obtain that change, the position of the Lord President and Leader of the House is vital, since we cannot make any of these changes until he and the Government of the day, the opponents in the game of tilted chess as it were, decide what we are allowed to decide upon. That seems to me to be fundamentally unsound in relation to our own procedures.
I have no quarrel with the customs or, indeed, the essential practice of the House that it is the Executive of the day which controls the Order Paper, since it is in the control of the Order Paper that much of the power of the Government lies, but within our own procedures something else is needed, and that is why I have tried to promote the idea that the findings of all Procedure Committees, together with the Sessional Procedure Committees, should be tabled by the Government of the day so that the House of Commons could itself decide which changes it wanted to make. Otherwise, the Government of the day will pick them over like a little child picking over a currant bun, taking out the bits that they want, and that, in my view, is not an appropriate relationship between the House of Commons and the Government of the day.
The attitude of the Lord President himself is vital here. Remembering when he came to give evidence to us, I recall a few words of the Duke of Wellington, when Prime Minister and resisting reform. I think that they sum up the attitude of
118
the Leader of the House. The Duke of Wellington said:
" Not only do I think parliamentary reform is unnecessary, but it would be so injurious that society could not exist under the system which must be its consequence."
In essence, that is the view of the Leader of the House. So what is the right hon. Gentleman's case? The first point is that the Select Committees will subvert the Chamber and drain attention away from the House. Several hon. Members have made that point. I do not agree. I believe that they will complement our work, not replace it. The House of Commons has long ceased to examine expenditure in detail. We have the power to deny Supply, but it has been done—certainly in the 10 years that I have been a Member—on very rare occasions, and it is very much a blunderbuss type of control.
The only bodies in the House which can exercise proper detailed control over expenditure are Select Committees. They can call before them permanent secretaries, senior civil servants, chairmen of nationalised industries and other members of that great coterie of unanswer-ables. They can pin them down. We cannot do that at the Bar of the House. No one is pretending that we can possibly do that.
The second part of the argument is that the proposed Select Committee system would draw attention away from the Chamber. The Procedure Committee recognised that argument. We recommended that there should be eight Select Committee Mondays so that reports of the Select Committees would return to the Chamber to be debated on the Floor of the House on positive motions in the names of the Chairmen.
The second argument of the Leader of the House and of those who support him is that if we set up 12 Select Committees there will be created two classes of Member, the expert and the generalise It is an important argument. Many of our colleagues have a vision that if there is a Select Committee on housing, for example, those who are members of it will become so expert on housing that other hon. Members will be reluctant ever to intervene on housing matters.
I ask the House to consider whether the Chamber has not always been so

119
constituted. There have always been specialists in the House, as there have always been those who have been interested in more general matters. There have always been those who have preferred the foothills and those who have preferred the alps. The absence of detailed scrutiny has never prevented generalists from making a considerable impact. If I may say so, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who ranges over the major issues in British politics, will come into the Chamber to speak on relatively trivial matters that require specific and detailed knowledge. That has always been a characteristic of certain Members of this place.
If we go back to the 1930s, we find that another great generalist, Winston Churchill, busied himself with considerable diligence with the details of the administrative reform of Indian government. He did so for the better part of the 1930s.
By setting up the Select Committees, I do not believe that we shall divide the House into specialists and generalists. There is in each hon. Member an element that is generalist on some issues and specialist on others. It is a false distinction. It is a false premise that experts are some inferior breed beyond the law.
It is said, of course, that government has become so complex that there are some areas of it—for example social security—where, without detailed knowledge, the expert is the only person who can thread his way through.
The third argument of the Lord President is that if we set up the Select Committees we shall destroy the essential adversary nature of British politics and in so doing we shall introduce a shade of grey into matters that should be seen in the blackest of black or the whitest of white.
Surely that is a mistaken "view of how politics work in Britain and how we should conduct ourselves in the House. Let us remember that two-thirds of our work in the House is not concerned with the fundamental differences between capitalism and Socialism or between Tory doctrine and Labour doctrine. The evidence that I adduce to support that proposition is based on what happened
120
last week. Over half the time of the House was taken up with the Banking Bill, the Credit Unions Bill and the Vaccine Damage Payments Bill. Those measures do not provide the raw red meat of party controversy. However, they took up the time of the House for nearly two-thirds of last week.
The really important event that happened last week passed in an hour. I refer to the concordat with the trade unions. That was the politically important event of last week, and it was allowed only one hour.
The House is not being bypassed by Select Committees. It is much more being bypassed by deals with various power groups. The deals are perfunctorily reported and not actually approved by the House.
These are the three arguments that have been adduced by the Lord President to support his opposition to the proposals of the Procedure Committee. I hope that he will change his view. He is a great parliamentarian and very much a House of Commons man. His attendance in the House is one of the most remarkable features of the Treasury Front Bench.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would find some difficulty in answering my proposition that the House of Commons should make its own decisions on procedural matters. His answer now is to let the next Parliament decide upon these important matters. He is suggesting, as it were, that decisions should be put off until tomorrow. His approach is that we should let the country decide other important matters and therefore provide for a fresh, new Parliament to consider these procedural matters.
The country is able to decide upon the broad issues of party politics. It can decide upon taxation policies, housing policies and all the matters that divide us, but none of us pretends that the Procedure Committee's recommendations will feature strongly in the next general election. They will not. These are hardly matters to be decided by a general election.
These matters can be decided uniquely by the House, and especially by the present Parliament. There are many hon. Members with great experience who will be leaving the House at the end of this

121
Parliament. They have experienced how Select Committees and Standing Committees work. They have breathed the atmosphere of this place and have the feel of it in their bones. Surely it is much better for them to decide upon these important matters than for a new Parliament, with many young hon. Members who may be experienced politicians but who may know only vaguely the difference between a Select Committee and a Standing Committee, to make the decision. If the present Parliament lasts, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to make our own decision.
Earlier I quoted from the Duke of Wellington. I quote him again, and from the peroration of his last speech as Prime Minister, made in another place. Once again, he was resisting reform. His words may be used precisely by the present Leader of the House. The Duke of Wellington said:
" I am not only prepared not to bring forward any measure of this nature but I will at once declare that I shall always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others."
To complete the analogy, the speech was made on the eve of a thundering election defeat. However, I emphasise that we are not discussing a party matter. We are discussing a topic on which we can find agreement across the Floor of the House. I hope that later in the Session, if the Parliament lasts, we shall be able to make up our minds not only upon the major recommendations of the Procedure Committee but upon the minor ones as well.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: In common with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), I recognise the problem. We all recognise it. The problem is the imbalance between the executive branch and the legislative assembly. The question what to do about that imbalance has been exercising the minds of hon. Members ever since I came to this place. I doubt very much whether the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, as now before us, will carry us very much further forward.
When I first came to the House of Commons we had the Public Accounts Committee in more or less the form in which it now operates. We also had the Estimates Committee. That was defined
122
in Sub-Committees by letters of the alphabet. In addition, we had another Sub-Committee dealing exclusively with Supplementary Estimates. It issued reports within a fortnight.
We moved from there to defining the Sub-Committees of the Estimates Committee by reference to managerial functions—for example, education and social services. It seemed that that was progress, but there was little change in the procedure. It continued pretty much as before.
After an interval of a few years we had the Dick Crossman proposals. The Estimates Committee was disbanded and the Expenditure Committee took its place. That Committtee had much wider terms of reference. It could sit in public. That was progress. It could cross-examine Ministers. That was a considerable step forward. However, in general it behaved very much as if it had been the Estimates Committee of the early 1950s.
I hope that I am not mistaken, but I suspect that we shall see the mixture as before. We put it in different pots and define the mixture in different ways, but the practice of Members in Committee will go on pretty much as before.
The structure of this debate emphasises the danger that we face. We are debating a large number of reports which are far too wide-ranging, too diverse, too ambitious to achieve anything real. We have all received our bundle of reports from the Vote Office. The fifth report deals with questions to the Prime Minister. I do not think that reference was made to that matter.
I was a firm supporter of broadcasting Prime Minister's Question Time. Now I have serious doubts. Questions to the Prime Minister have been made an absolute farce. That is related to some extent—if not exclusively—to the fact that Members of Parliament know that they will be heard live on radio. Questions are now put to the Prime Minister by hon. Members who would never have thought of trying to table such questions in years gone by.
It has been made easy. There are now two or three recognised, silly forms of questions to the Prime Minister. I refer to questions dealing with the Prime Minister's engagements, or his visit to Tolpuddle, or whatever. It does not

123
require thought, initiative or imagination to table such a question. It would be far better to complete the farce by giving each hon. Member a number, carry out a bingo call each day, and as the number comes up allow the Member to ask his question. That would be no more of a farce than it is now.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I have sympathy with the hon. Member's analysis, but is he not being a little unfair to the BBC and to broadcasting in blaming this process upon them? The process had begun—it is deplorable, I agree—long before the commencement of broadcasting of proceedings of the House.
Mr. Hamilton: I agree to some extent with that, but not entirely. The farce has been expedited and intensified by the knowledge "We are live on radio". The Leader of the Opposition is constantly aware that her comments are being broadcast and she behaves rather like an actress. Perhaps "actor" and "politician" are interchangeable terms. However, Members are behaving differently now from the way in which they behaved when our proceedings were not broadcast. I regret that.
I return to the reports. I mentioned questions to the Prime Minister. The sixth report deals with the operation of Standing Order No. 9. That is important, but not excessively so in the context of the big challenges that we face—the legislature versus the executive.
The seventh report deals with the eligibility of Members successful in ballots for notices of motions and Bills to take part in subsequent ballots. I am sure that the electorate in West Fife are on tenterhooks to know exactly how we shall sort out that problem. Members of Parliament must remember this: to the people outside the House our procedures are gobbledegook. A great many of them are completely irrelevant to the problems that we face.
I could go through the reports to illustrate my point. There is much trivia that concerns only Members of this monastic establishment.
I return to the theme of the main report being debated—whether we should alter
124
the way in which we structure the Select Committee procedures. The Departmental Committees proposition goes back to the Haldane report of more than 60 years ago. It was rejected at that time for reasons that seem to me as sound today as they were then. However much we try to compartmentalise these Committees, there is bound to be a considerable degree of overlap. The Select Committees will take virtually no notice of the fact that they are supposed to be restricted to the Foreign Office, defence matters, or whatever. Moreover, even assuming that, there are problems which have not been dealt with adequately in the report. Let me cite one or two examples.
The staffing problem is one in respect of which the gulf between the Executive and the legislature can never conceivably be bridged. We may lessen it minutely, but in view of the amount of expertise available to even the most minor Minister compared with the expert advice and staff available to any Select Committee of the House, the gulf is so great as to be completely unbridgeable.
Some years ago, when the Ministry of Aviation was in existence, one of our Sub-Committees was investigating a problem associated with that Department. I ascertained how many civil servants of scientific officer status were available in that Department compared with those available to the Committee, which was putting them under cross-examination. The figure was several hundreds in the Department. The Select Committee, which was presumed to be challenging that Department on an equal footing, had one part-time secretary and one part-time Clerk, who was almost straight out of university. He was an able young man. However, to try to pit such a Select Committee against a huge Government Department made nonsense.
There is nothing in this report that will reduce that gap, except marginally. I do not know what is the answer. When we raised these problems many years ago there was the eternal question, which has never yet been answered, that if we produced even 100 Clerks to service these Committees, we immediately created a problem of career structure and promotional prospects. What on earth will those people do in 20 or 30 years' time without a career structure? The only career that they have is to graduate to the

125
Table. The number who can do so is very limited.
Mr. John Garrett: Surely it is clear that a period of service as a specialist adviser to an investigatory Committee of Parliament would be a valuable time in the careeer development of a consultant, an academic, or someone who worked in industry. I should have thought that there would be a plentiful supply of people willing to come in as specialists or experts for a short period.
Mr. Hamilton: This matter was gone into in great detail many years ago. This was regarded then as an insuperable obstacle. When young men or women come to this place they want a career structure.
Mr. Garrett: As Clerks?
Mr. Hamilton: I understand the problem probably as well as my hon. Friend. I have had a good deal more experience of it in the House. It is not easy to solve this problem. Moreover, we must take account of unforeseen circumstances. For instance, Governments of all political persuasions often use the escape hatch of establishing ad hoc Select Committees. When the Government were in difficulties over the abortion question, they said, "We shall establish a Seclect Committee on abortion, to consider the reports on the problem that have been produced." That shelved the problem. It got the then Government out of a difficulty. When they were under pressure, they said "We shall have to wait for the report."
It was the same when we had pressure put on us from outside to discuss the problem of battered wives and battered children. The Government did not have a clue. They had no statistics relating to the size or nature of the problem. The then Leader of the House said "We shall set up a Select Committee on the question of battered wives." I, mug that I was, was designated Chairman of that Committee. The Clerk who was dealing with my Committee on battered wives was also dealing with abortion. He was deluged with memoranda from all over the country and all over the world concerning battered wives and abortion. It was coming in from the Roman Catholic Church and from all sorts of people. He was flooded with memoranda, and one could hardly see him for paper. He had a good degree in Greek, or something like that.
126
That was the kind of silly position into which the House got itself.
Another question is the membership of Committees. In an earlier intervention a Conservative Member said that there was a waiting list for the membership. That was news to me. A certain distinguished Member of this House, who has now left, once came to me, when the Estimates Committee—subsequently the Expenditure Committee—was in being, and sought to pressurise me and other people about getting him appointed to the Committee. We all know about Buggins's turn and the patronage with which this place is riddled. He desperately wanted to be on that Committee. He managed to get on to it, but when he saw what was involved he did not attend, and after one Session we had to get him off it. He would not attend when he saw the gruelling work that had to be done.
Let no one pretend that there is great, devoted service given to these Committees once a Member gets on them. It is not true. Very often it is necessary for the Clerk to be sent downstairs to chase up Members, so that the Committee can have a quorum of two, or three, or whatever number is required. Indeed, earlier in the debate, one of my hon. Friends leaned over to me told me that in the last Session the Public Accounts Committee, of which he was a member, was usually attended by only about a quarter of the Members.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, on and off, for 20 years. I have missed two meetings. On only two occasions can I remember it being necessary to send the Clerk down to the Chamber to find enough Members to make up a quorum, and on those occasions there were very important debates in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House.
Mr. Hamilton: I am not misleading the House. The hon. Gentleman is exceptional. I remember, however, that when he and I were on the Estimates Committee, or the Expenditure Committee, he told me that he employed a professional reader of the bumf that he received from Departments, because he could not find the time to do his own reading.
That brings me to the question of the remuneration of Members and related

127
matters. It requires considerable expertise to get through the amount of paper work that Members have to get through, and it also takes a considerable time. The number of Members prepared to do this is extremely limited. As I well know, and as hon. Members in all parts of the House know, a tremendous onus rests on the Chairmen of Committees. I do not ask hon. Members this question in any rhetorical sense, but how often do they have to rely on the fact that the Chairman has read his papers, because they have not read the papers themselves? Hon. Members sit back in Committee and wait for the lead to be given by the Chairman. Then they are able to chip in with their questions. That is largely true of most Members who sit on these Committees.
Mr. John Garrett: Most Members?
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, most Members.
I turn now to the related concept that if Members of Select Committees can be confined to a particular Department of State we shall have the development of expertise. This was the objective of Mr. Dick Crossman when the Expenditure Committee was set up, with the subdivision into subject matters. Even assuming that that were possible, I think that it is a development of doubtful value deliberately to encourage some kind of departmental expertise.
One thing that I have learnt from this place, whether in observing or listening to or debating with the so-called experts in the Treasury, the Foreign Office or anywhere else, is to beware of the experts. I have never known them to be right in almost anything. Some years ago the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I gave evidence in successive weeks to one of the Select Committees. He said then—and I am almost inclined now to agree with him—that the most effective Back Bench Member who ever comes here comes with no great expertise but with good, sound common sense. He can very often throw light on a subject that has been completely obscured by the so-called knowledge of the expert.
Let us consider some examples of how this expertise is to develop. One of the Committees to be established is in foreign affairs. Does anyone pretend that even if a Member serves on that Committee
128
for 10 or 20 years he will be an expert on the Middle East, on the Far East, on Europe, on America, on Latin America, on the USSR and on the Communist bloc? It is absolute nonsense. Indeed, we know that there is a regular turnover of the membership of the Committees of this House. Very few Members sit on them consistently over 10, 15 or 20 years.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I have been listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I may interject a word as a former member of the Foreign Service. It is largely based on the amateur. Of course, in certain posts there are specialists who can contribute expert advice. But the staff of our embassies abroad are, rightly, comprised of people who serve only two or three years in any post, and who bring to that post the judgment that they have formed by serving in other posts and by experience in Departments in London. It does not seem necessarily to follow that one has to be an expert in order to shed the light of common sense on decisions on foreign policy.
Mr. Hamilton: That is probably why our foreign policy is in such a mess. We have people who are neither expert nor amateur but something in between. The hon. Gentleman's point seems to underline my argument. If it is regarded as desirable that a man should go to an embassy abroad and serve only three years, in the knowledge that he has a first-class mind and is therefore able to master the problem at the time, surely the same argument applies to Select Committees. If that is so, there is no need to have these Departmental Committees for all time, or to presume that by setting them up we shall somehow get the development of an expertise. I do not believe that it is either possible or desirable to do that.
I was about to give another example. A social services Select Committee is proposed, presumably to deal with education, the whole range of national insurance, health, housing and the rest. Does anyone seriously believe that by virtue of serving on a Committee of that nature a Member will develop any kind of expertise other than or better than—
Mr. English Mr. English rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I shall not give way, because I do not want to take too long.

129
I want to emphasise that this kind of development of so-called expertise is neither possible nor desirable under the proposals. The theory is fine, but in practice it will not work. We should have nothing to do with encouraging the myth that we can produce experts, even if we wanted to, by this kind of proposition.
I have already touched on the vital question of the chairmanship of Committees. I have seen good Chairmen and bad Chairmen. More than anything, the effectiveness of Select Committees depends on the quality, devotion and conscientiousness of the Chairmen. I have long felt that the Chairmen work harder than most junior Ministers, and without anything like comparable staff assistance. That will not do.
Let me quote my experience in the European Parliament. I was appointed chairman of a committee that was relatively unimportant—for that Parliament—the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Petitions. Within 24 hours of that appointment I was surrounded by about a dozen members of the secretariat, speaking all kinds of languages—German, Italian, Dutch, the whole ruddy lot. That contrasted very sharply with the experience here, where they speak one language but there is only one of them. There is only one Clerk, and very often he is only part-time. Recently we have been able to hire ad hoc from outside, but we have nothing much more than that.
I would not go as far along the road as the Americans have gone in having their relations—brothers, uncles and everybody else—on the payroll, but there should be a happy medium, and we must strike it somewhere.
Criticism has been levelled at my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others for not making concrete proposals. The reason why he does not do so is that there is great difficulty in finding the middle ground. There is no consensus in the House on the reports. If all the propositions were put to a free vote, the large majority of hon. Members would not bother to attend, as we find today. With no vote at the end of this great revolutionary debate, the attendance over the hours has averaged about 20 hon. Members. This shows a kind of defeatism.
Mr. English Mr. English rose—
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has talked a great deal about these matters, and he must give me the chance to say my little bit.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House must not—I am sure that he does not—take too seriously the criticisms that have been levelled at him, because he is a representative of a Government who are extremely conservative in these matters, as are all Governments. If the Conservatives ever man the Government Benches, they will take exactly the same conservative views on these matters as have every Government that I have seen in the House over the past quarter of a century.
There is a vested interest in maintaining the enormous gulf between the Executive and the legislature. It exists in Executives of all political persuasions.
I have said that I should be very sceptical about the effectiveness of the proposals, even if they were all accepted. Now I want to put forward a proposition. I must confess that I was remiss in not putting it to the Procedure Committee when it was sitting. I put it forward now knowing full well that it has no hope of being accepted and that it will receive no support anywhere.
My proposals are linked with a desire to reduce patronage and at the same time increase the effectiveness of the legislature as an investigatory body. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that those are two worthy objectives.
I want to abolish the House of Lords in its present form. I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding assent. He wholeheartedly agrees, so I have at least one supporter. In fact, I think that on the Labour Benches there is general acceptance of that desire. After a general election I should like to see the elected House of Commons divided into two Chambers, with a degree of specialisation in each and a preference for one of them devoting its activities wholly to the investigatory process.
If one had 635 elected Members of the House of Commons, they would be divided into two Chambers, each consisting of roughly 300 Members, who would have the choice of serving in the investigatory Chamber or one such as this, which would proceed in the normal way. In

131
one fell swoop we would have got rid of a considerable element of patronage from the House of Lords, and the hereditary element. I think that would be a step in the right direction.
The investigatory Chamber could be divided into 15 or 20 Select Committees, each consisting of 20 or 15 members. Those Committees could be adequately staffed and would do nothing but examine the policies and costings of Departments of State.
That proposition has great attractions, because we would get rid of the charge, which we on the Government side like to make, that the other Chamber is not elected and is predominantly Conservative. Both Chambers would be democratically elected. Moreover, the problem of accommodation would be solved, or would be a long way towards solution.
The arguments put forward in successive Procedure Committees raise considerable problems about accommodation if these Committees are to do their jobs properly. Physically, this building is inadequate to meet modern-day needs. By getting rid of the House of Lords and turning this whole building over to 635 democratically elected Members of Parliament—there would be no Lord Chancellor's Department here; shove him out into Whitehall or Westminster, or wherever—an enormous amount of accommodation would become immediately available to us.
As I said, there is no hope of that kind of proposition being accepted by my own Government, still less by a Government of any other political persuasion. However, I put that suggestion forward to go into the melting pot because it is worthy of some examination.
I want to refer briefly to the question of EEC legislation, to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House attached a great deal of importance. This matter was alluded to only briefly by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) when he made his worthy speech at the beginning of the debate. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the main point—which, incidentally, I support—namely, the recommendation of the Committee in paragraphs 4.14 and 4.15 on page 42 of the report, which states
132
" that the Government should undertake to provide time for debate on consultative documents issued by the Commission on major policy proposals, thereby allowing the House to express an opinion on the overall policy intentions of the Commission, prior to their preparation of detailed legislative proposals."
In paragraph 4.15 the report goes on to say:
" For the most part a clear decision by the House would strengthen, rather than weaken, the Government's bargaining position."
In his reply I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a favourable response to that proposition.
The overall impression that I have gained from reading these reports is that we have been over far too much of this ground before. There are very few new ideas within the reports, because all Governments are conservative. Only Oppositions tends to be radical in this place. Be it on a question of procedure, conditions of work for Members of Parliament, questions of open government or patronage, most Governments resist any attempt at change.
I recently read the book by James Margach on the abuse of power. James Margach was well loved and respected as a Lobby correspondent. In a fair amount of detail, he spelt out how, within his knowledge, virtually all Prime Ministers and Ministers of whatever party would bend over backwards and use this House to preserve their own power and privileges. The right hon. Member for Taun-ton (Mr. du Cann) talked about this House being master of its own affairs. It should be, but Parliament does not exert its sovereignty in the way that it should. The will is simply not there to exert it. Too many hon. Members are content to accept the role of subservient, placid, wet Lobby fodder for party Whips. There are too many budding or past Ministers around, who for one reason or another are content to sit tight and let the world go by.
The malevolence of patronage in this place is far more widespread than many people believe. Some years ago the chairmanships of the Sub-Committees of the Estimates Committee worked on the principle of "Buggins's turn". When Buggins's turn happened to be the turn of Mr. Sidney Silverman, the then Government of the day—which happened to be a Labour Government—exercised all their ingenuity with great success and prevented Mr. Sidney

133
Silverman from becoming the Chairman of a Sub-Committee. That kind of skulduggery is not yet dead—not by a long way. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.
We now have a unique opportunity. Over the next several years, I believe that we shall have minority government. If we cannot exercise the sovereignty of Back Benchers in that situation, we shall never be able to do so. There have been recent examples of industrial action by certain unions—NUPE and others. Why do not Back Benchers on both sides of this House get together and take some industrial action against the Executive? For instance, if Back Benchers think that business should finish at 8 p.m. or 10 p.m., why do not they get together and say "To hell with the Executive, we are going home"? That would bring the Government so much into disrepute that they would have to take notice of the consensus across the Floor of the House.
The point that I emphasise is that we have the sovereignty if we have the will to exercise it. Over the years, we have debated reports on procedure and have made very little advance, because we do not have the will to advance. That is all that is required—the will of Back Benchers to impose their will on the Government Front Bench. Until we get that, the Government of the day will continue to get their own way.
8.34 p.m.
Mr. Fred Silvester: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has given us an illumination of his views on how to reform this place. Among his more novel suggestions was that we should enter into a major constitutional reform of the other place in order to secure more accommodation for ourselves. Other people might perhaps put a little more weight on that matter than did the hon. Gentleman.
However, a point with which I agreed was that we depend much more upon the will to make reform than on the actual content of reform. I make that point because, having listened throughout the debate, and having had a number of discussions before and since the Committee's report was published, it is clear that there is no way in which the House will
134
get universal agreement on the details of any particular procedural reform.
I had the pleasure of chairing a group of 40 Back-Bench Conservative Members who are interested in this matter. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), we also put forward our suggestions, which contained many recommendations which were common to this report. We were not unanimous on everything, and if we were to meet again we would probably find some things in the report with which we would disagree.
Nevertheless, the one thing that bound us together was that we had agreed at the beginning that, although we would have to agree to differ on some matters of procedure, the main thrust of our argument was that we would support whatever reform was most likely to get adopted to achieve certain specific ends. In this respect, this debate is different from those which have preceded it. It is no good going back to the days of Lord Haldane. The people who are here and the circumstances with which we are dealing are quite different. The will is different. It will be completely misjudged by the Leader of the House if he does not understand that.
I have no more trust in my side of the House than in the Government side. It is true always that when they are in power, people have a completely different view of this matter from when they are in Opposition. It is true also that some of my hon. Friends, tempted as they will be not only by the pleasures of office but by the legitimate desire to get through something in which they passionately believe, will be less than keen to be subject to greater scrutiny and delay.
That is all true. Nevertheless, it is also true that, over and above that, there lies a much greater determination among those who will not be Ministers in the future Conservative Government, or are not Ministers in the present Labour Government, and even among some of those who will be Ministers in the future Conservative Government, to do something about this.
There is one aspect which has most depressed me about today's debate. It seems to me that people have forgotten, in some cases, what it is about. There are notable exceptions, and I do not apply

135
this comment to everyone. But those who have been ladling criticisms of detail upon this report have forgotten what we have set out to do. Much of it has been concerned with the inconvenience of Members, with the fact that the House will no longer function in the comfortable manner to which Members have become accustomed, or that it no longer suits the manner of the Lord President and the way in which he viewed the House in former days.
We are not concerned about the convenience of the House. We are concerned about the ability of the House to do its duty properly and the manner in which it ought to do it for the public. It has the duty to control the grant of taxation and the spending of money. It has a duty to investigate the use of Executive power. It has the duty to grant legislative authority. Those three functions this House must perform.
Those who do not like the document before us also have a duty. That duty is to say today what alternative they would put in its place. No hon. Member who has addressed the House today, and no commentator who has commented on the Procedure Committee's report, has yet disputed the opening conclusion of the report, which was put forward strongly by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), that this House is failing in those three duties and is not conducting itself in a manner to exercise proper control of the Executive. There are those who say "Now is not the time. This is not the way. This will not work. We shall not find enough people. There is too much hard work. There is too much paper. There is not enough staff." All those criticisms may or may not be genuine, but those who put them forward must answer the one central point: if not this way, then how? And not only how, but when?
I do not wish to put words into the mouth of the Lord President, but it is rumoured that he does not greet this report with joy and that he will not say to us tonight that he will be following up the debate by laying further resolutions. It is rumoured that that is his position.
In view of the work that has gone into the report throughout the Session, the Leader of the House has a duty to
136
allow the House to make a decision. If the House should decide not to make a decision in favour of the report, so be it. We shall all abide by that decision. Those of us who have our own pet schemes will submerge our own thoughts into the general vote on the report. But there should be a vote on the main contents of the report.
We can no longer rely upon generalised undertakings. I do not blame Ministers, but they are fond of giving undertakings. The hon. Member for Fife, Central was at pains to explain how often we had gone round this course before. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and others have talked about the lack of staff. How many times have we been round that course before?
The reason for this situation is that the House does not control its own affairs. The recent Act which sets up a Commission will make the situation better, but the House will still not control its own finances. It will not have the power to set up a new section of research assistants, for example.
It is time that the House had control over its own expenditure and finances. The House must also ensure that the proposals in this report are enshrined properly in Standing Orders and in the activities of the Liaison Committee for Chairmen, for example, and that they are taken away from the Government, whichever Government that it. It is important that these matters are firmly and completely laid down and are not simply left to the whim of the Government—whatever that Government.
It will take a long time for this matter to gather steam again. The report has taken two years to produce. It has collected evidence at home and abroad. We are confronted with a change not only of Government but of Members of Parliament. New hon. Members will say, as I once said, that it is easy to make a change. We all say at some time that we can do here as we do in business. We have to go through the grinding mass of discussion again. But there are certain points at which one must make a decision. I hope that the Lord President will say what I do not think he will say, namely, that the House can make a decision before the general election. I hope that the Opposition spokesman will make it clear that if the

137
Lord President fails in that regard he will undertake that our party will allow the new House of Commons to make a decision in the first Session of Parliament. That is of fundamental importance.
I turn to the legislative processes mentioned in the proposals. They have been referred to as a compromise. I agree, but it is an unsatisfactory compromise. The compromise arises because the Committee did not have any great enthusiasm for the final decision about the Select Committees and their role in the House. The Committee was too influenced by the past and too worried about how the Select Committees will affect the House. I do not think that the Select Committees will affect the Chamber. The Chamber affects itself. The purposes of the Select Committees are different. They should match the Departments of State, because in that way only will they be able to cover all the activities of a Department. It is odd that they should not also take on board the legislation which comes out of a Department.
One of the reasons advanced is that it is a different process which produces a different balance between the parties, and that there is a much more relaxed inter-party atmosphere in a Select Committee as opposed to a Standing Committee. It is also true that some Bills would be quite unsuitable for prolonged Select Committee procedure. Nevertheless, it would make perfectly good sense for the Select Committees to go into these matters at an earlier stage.
When I discuss legislation with people outside the House, as well as with hon. Members, the one feature which stands out is that legislation comes before the House in too final a form. To affect legislation people have to get in early. By the time Ministers come before the House, they are very much committed. Standing Committees make worthwhile changes only occasionally. In many cases this is because the Minister is committed.
It should be possible for the House to devise for the great generality of legislation—it is not all highly controversial—what is loosely called a pre-legislative sitting. Where necessary, the Select Committee for the relevant Department could call evidence in public and have the draft Bill before it. The proper Bill could go through the normal procedure.
138
I speak for no one but myself when I say that such a move could save time. It would certainly produce better legislation. We would finish up with a better thought-out Bill and one which would have taken into account a number of snags. As a result, the procedures in Committee and on Report would be quicker. Obviously, such a procedure would not apply to the Finance Bill and highly controversial legislation, but it could be useful over a wide range of Bills.
I have many detailed criticisms of these proposals, some of which I would accept with considerable reluctance. Nevertheless, what ought to happen as a result of this debate is that the House collectively should agree on a block of proposals which together will do something to right the imbalance which currently exists between the Executive and the legislature.
8.47 p.m.
Mr. John Garrett: In my view, this report is crucial to strengthening parliamentary democracy. It has been apparent for years that in important respects the powers and procedure of the House of Commons have not developed sufficiently to allow adequate surveillance over the Executive. This century has seen an enormous growth in Government functions. The Government have greatly developed their traditional regulatory activities. They have taken on the task of providing many new services to the community. They have taken control of great industries and have come to formulate policy and objectives for the economy as a whole, for the management of markets, for capital and labour, for the redistribution of wealth and for the promotion of social change.
I welcome these developments. As a Labour Member, I hope and expect that they will continue. I recognise that an essential adjunct to the growth in power and influence of the Government must be an equal and countervailing growth in the power of scrutiny of the legislature. It is clear that this House has not developed powers of scrutiny adequate to match the extending authority and responsibility of Government. In other ways this House has proved itself to be an adaptable instrument of our democracy. It is still, as it ever was, an effective forum for the

139
redress of grievance and the remedy of injustice. It has coped remarkably well with the growing tide of legislation put before it, although reforms are needed in that area.
It has extended the rights of the British people and nurtured and strengthened democracy through years of great social change and stress. We acknowledge this achievement. But, as a Committee set up to examine the relevance of the procedures of the House to a changing environment, we unanimously agreed that substantial reforms were needed in the matter of parliamentary and public accountability.
When I say "unanimously agreed", I am aware that such a phrase causes the opponents of the reforms that we proposed—notably, I understand, the Leader of the House—to reach for their guns. To them the mere mention of agreement on a matter that crosses party lines is evidence of consensus, a word that they always prefix with "cosy" to indicate the genuine fear of weakening party conflict and the loss of ideological commitment, which they see as essential to the parliamentary battle.
I invite the Leader of the House to examine the amendment which I tabled to the Procedure Committee's report and which secured the support of all Labour members of the Committee. It was lost only on the conventionally cast vote of the Chairman. That amendment demonstrates the difference in attitude between the Labour members of the Committee and the other members. That difference is fundamental. Labour Members believe deeply in the strengthening of the powers of the House to be able to call to account Ministers and higher officials of public bodies to examine the making and implementation of policy and the management of today's powerful institutions of State. Conservatives not only support this idea but believe in strengthening the House so as to hinder Government action.
The position was clearly put by the Opposition Chief Whip in his evidence to the Committee. He expressed the view that there should be less legislation. He made proposals to slow down the passage of Bills and to reduce what he called the "fearful flow of legislation". He concluded that Parliament should not exist
140
to translate as speedily as possible into action what a government want but that
" Parliament was invented for precisely the opposite reasons ".
I construe that as being to enact the will of Government as slowly as possible. To be fair to the Opposition Chief Whip, he made his remarks in the context of calling for a better scrutiny of legislation, with which I agree. He was even-handed in saying that even when he was in Government he held those views.
But we hold different views of Parliament. Labour sees our legislature as a means of changing our society through democratic means, and is therefore concerned to legislate as much as possible. The Conservatives see Parliament as a means to protect the people from Government. Both sides change tack according to circumstances, and the principle cannot be pushed too far. But I mention it because of the risk that the Leader of the House—and I address many of my remarks to him—may think that, in going along with greater scrutiny and greater accountability, we in the Labour Party embrace the essentially Conservative idea of hostility to legislation.
But our amendment observed that, in so far as the report proposed a strengthening of opposition—and to some extent it does—the essential counter-balance should be the timetabling of all Bills. We said that timetabling would ensure that the Government could get their legislaion enacted, while having to explain their justification for legislaion more fully than in the past. It would also lead to more even consideration of major Bills.
While we are convinced of the need to strengthen the powers of this House in scrutiny and surveillance, we recognise that a Government, particularly a radical the Government could get their legislation through. One way of dealing with this would be the introduction of timetabling for all major Bills. Another way would be to organise the time available to the House to satisfy both needs.
I wish briefly to discuss two major recommendations by the Committee—the new Public Bill procedure and Select Committees—and to refer to the facilities of a Member of Parliament in present conditions. The proposed Public Bill

141
procedure allows for up to three sittings of a Standing Committee on a Bill to be taken in Select Committee form—that is, in a form that allows the taking of evidence in public. An inordinate amount of time is taken up in Standing Committees by discussion of probing amendments from both sides which aim to establish precisely what the Bill means. These discussions are often attempts to delay legislation and consideration of the Bill, or devices to allow members of the Committee to satisfy their desire to make speeches. But in many cases such amendments have to be discussed because the detailed intentions and consequences of a Bill are remarkably opaque. They are often dialogues between Back Benchers and civil servants, conducted through the medium of the Minister, quite often with some distortion on the way through.
It seems to me that a much more sensible way would be to get Committee members, Ministers and civil servants round a table for an initial sitting or two simply to discuss their definition of obscure passages in the Bill. However, the Procedure Committee decided to go for public sittings of taking evidence. I do not think that these will be the calm, objective and rational sessions of inquiry that the Committee foresees. What will happen is that on any controversial Bill the Opposition will wheel in their experts to rubbish the Bill and say with as much publicity as possible that inevitably it will lead to the end of civilisation as we know it, and the Government will wheel in their civil servants, their tame experts, and Ministers to say that the Bill is a major step on the road to Utopia. Out of all this charge and counter-charge there may come some genuine information, however, and it seems to me to be worth a try.
The proposals for a new structure and strength for Select Committees and for a radical reform of the Exchequer and Audit Department really are important. All of us on the Committee, and very many other Back Benchers besides, support this reform strongly. It is clear that it is impossible to call to account Ministers and officials, to penetrate to the roots of public policy and to examine the management of Departments on the Floor of the House.
142
The concentration of the House on this Chamber is crippling for parliamentary democracy. First, it is superficial. Secondly, too often it trivialises issues. Thirdly, it rarely gets to the facts. It also distorts our national political style. We have created arrangements which mean that our political style is long on rhetoric and short on analysis. They breed too many politicians who endeavour to behave like Pericles the orator and end up sounding like Hyberbolos the demagogue. This is not to deny the value of debate, especially on great issues of the day. It is just to say that debate is no longer enough and that it must be supplemented by rigorous and expert investigation.
We have investigatory Committees, and they have done excellent work. The Expenditure Committee has brought a lot of policy and bureaucracy out into the light. But these Committees suffer from some serious weaknesses. The first is the inadequacy of the information which they receive from Departments. The second is their lack of expert staffs.
The Procedure Committee of 1968–69 had a clear idea of what it expected the new Expenditure Committee to do. It wanted the Expenditure Committee Sub-Committees to examine the objectives and priorities of spending, to assess the success of Departments in meeting those objectives, and to examine the effectiveness of departmental management. In general, the Expenditure Committee has not carried out these tasks, partly because it has always preferred to concentrate on issues of the day and on interesting but isolated subjects, and partly because Departments, and above all the Treasury, have refused to specify their objectives, to display the results that they have achieved, and to give information on their effectiveness.
In addition, the Expenditure Committee is ludicrously short of staff. It has about 20 in all. The General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, which shadows the Treasury, the Inland Revenue, the Civil Service, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Central Office of Information and other public bodies besides, has a Clerk and two light part-time advisers. Its equivalent in the American Congress has 500 staff. Obviously we do not want an American-type army. But without a cadre of expert

143
advice, and in the absence of research assistants for Members, it is impossible for the Expenditure Committee properly to call officials to account and to investigate the effectiveness of those public bodies.
I wholly support the idea of a structure of departmentally related Select Committees, each backed by expert staff employed on their own staff budget, with power to send for persons and papers, backed by sanction, and with the right to debate reports on the Floor of the House.
Two other changes need to take place to make these Committees effective. First, as the Committee recommends, there have to be a wholesale reform in the accounts, regular reports and statistical analyses presented to the House so that Select Committees can probe into the purposes and results of policy. Secondly, as the Committee also recommends, to avoid the domination of Committees by their own staffs and for other very good reasons, every Member of Parliament should be entitled to engage research assistants paid for by the Fees Office.
I welcome particularly the recommendation for reform of our State audit arrangements that are carried out by the Exchequer and Audit Department. About 10 years ago I was first alerted to the gross faults in the system of State audit by the scholarly work of Dr. Normanton, an international authority on State audit. I was sufficiently intrigued to carry out my own study. I found with increasing amazement, that an institution which was generally held at the time to be one of the glories of our constitution—Parliament's watchdog—was by international standards a constitutional disgrace. Since then I have made several speeches on the topic, which are somewhat boring so I shall not repeat them.
Both the Expenditure Committee and the Procedure Committee are convinced that the system of State audit must be radically modernised. An undisturbed Victorian backwater is being vigorously paddled at last. Our audit system is dominated by the Executive to an unhealthy degree, it is inadequate in scope, coverage and expertise, and it must be brought directly under the control of the House. All bodies in receipt of public funds must be made auditable. The audit
144
should cover management as well as bookkeeping, and the auditors should be servants of the House.
At last the Treasury has woken up to the pressure on the matter and is proposing a review of the Exchequer and Audit Act 1866. However, I do not believe that the Treasury is capable of handing power to Parliament, and I think that it will propose no great change. I hope that the House will ensure that the recommendations of the Procedure Committee are carried out when a new Exchequer and Audit Bill is presented.
The most famous and doughty opponent of powerful investigatory Committees is said to be the Leader of the House. From his evidence to the Procedure Committee one can see what he thinks. He said that he wanted to transfer more matters from Committee to the Floor of the House. He disliked the Select Committee procedure because it was non-partisan. He said that the growth of Committees would deny Back Benchers access to the Floor of the House, thus severing the jugular vein. He said that the drain of Members to Committees would destroy the distinctive qualities of the House. He said that if Members were in Committee the Chamber would be empty. He said that the non-partisan nature of Committees would destroy party democracy and that we would drift into a one-party system by consent. He thanked God that many Members chose to be amateurs.
It saddens me to see the Leader of the House, whom I have admired all my political life as one of our greatest parliamentarians, letting himself become so far out of touch with the needs of a living Parliament. He is also, I may say, out of touch with the point of view of his own party, since the Labour Party has produced a statement by the national executive committee called "Reform of the House of Commons", which virtually endorses the whole package put forward by the Procedure Committee.
The Executive cannot be scrutinised properly without investigatory Committees. There is no need for Committees to be non-partisan. One need think only of the Wealth Tax Committee for a start. There is no need for Committees to produce agreed reports; for example, the Expenditure Committee report on the

145
Civil Service. There is no need for Committees to produce reports at all; they can just publish evidence and memoranda; for example, the report of the Expenditure Committee on the European monetary system.
The important point is that Committees are the ony way of getting at the facts and making them available for public comment and for better informed debates in the House. Investigation is the armament of party battle. Our Parliament is too amateurish. I am depressed by the number of amateurs who have spoken up so vigorously for amateurism in the House today. The curse of our country is the establishment of amateurs in all our great institutions. Therefore, shifting this institution a little towards professionalism and expertise will strengthen it, not weaken it. The position taken by the Leader of the House will strengthen not the battle but the theatre of Parliament.
Is it not clear that Parliament has become a full-time job? The report says:
" We consider that the work of a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job…We believe that the arrangement of Parliamentary sittings to enable Members to pursue outside employment conflicts with our idea of a modern and effective Parliamentary system…we do not believe that the business of the House should be arranged on the contrary assumption ".
I believe that this is the first time that a Committee of the House has expressed an opinion on the issue.
Sir David Renton: That portion of the report which the hon. Gentleman has just read was put into the report, as he well knows, during the last hour of our 68 meetings. We were sitting during that hour or two owing to a misunderstanding, and as a result the part of the report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was carried, with only six members out of 16 voting for it; and it is not a recommendation.
Mr. Garrett: I think that that is irrelevant. I know that the Tory Party whipped round like crazy to get enough members into the Committee Room to overthrow that recommendation, but the recommendation was made.
Sir David Renton: It was not a recommendation.
Mr. Garrett: Well, the observation was made.
Mr. Crouch: That is a different thing. An observation is not a recommendation.
Mr. Garrett: I can only say that I am surprised that people should get so worked up about it. All I have suggested is that being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job, but that seems to give some hon. Members an extreme attack of choler. So I shall say it again. Being a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job.
Sir David Renton Sir David Renton rose—
Mr. Garrett: May I finish the point before giving way? As I say, I think that this is the first time that a Committee of the House has expressed an opinion on this issue. The amendment to the report, which was lost only by the casting vote of the Chairman and against the support of all the other Labour members of the Committee, put the matter much more strongly:
" We consider that the work of an assiduous Member of Parliament has increased so greatly that it should now be seen as a full-time job and that the arrangement of parliamentary sittings to enable Members to pursue outside employment on the excuse that they need to ' keep in touch ' with the everyday world of the courts and the City is contradictory to our idea of a modern and effective parliamentary system. Moreover, present sitting times virtually exclude women with domestic responsibilities from becoming Members. We cannot believe it right to place obstacles in the way of a large group who would bring valuable experience to the House."
Sir David Renton: I wished only to point out that we had already sat from 2.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., a period of five hours, we had a Chairman who had had a heart attack several months before, we had only one Clerk, who had been working like nothing on earth for all that time, and there was a clear understanding that we would have a break for dinner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] That was perfectly right and proper. But some hon. Members broke that understanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—yes, broke that understanding. Two hon. Members had outside public engagements. I had a private one of great importance—it was my wedding anniversary, if the hon. Gentleman will recall—and I think it most unfortunate that he should attach any importance whatever to that passage in the report which, as I say, was carried by only six out of 16 members.
Mr. Garrett: The answer to that is that we should have started in the morning.
Mr. John Prescott: If the Committee had started in the morning, Members would not have been there, would they?
Mr. Garrett: The amendment went on to propose that the House should meet in the mornings and afternoons up to 7.30 p.m., and that seems to me—
Mr. William Hamilton: That was not carried, either.
Mr. Garrett: That was not carried, but it seems to me to be absolutely right. The change to being a full-time Member of Parliament is crucial and, frankly, is ultimately inevitable. The load of constituency case work, attendance in the Chamber, attendance at legislative and Select Committees, representational and constituency duties and the need for research and briefing in today's Parliament are so great as to demand full-time professionalism.
The argument about the need for a Member of Parliament to keep in touch with the outside world by having employment is nonsense and would be hardly ever mentioned if we were paid more and had adequate support facilities and accommodation. But we shall not get adequate support facilities and accommodation, let alone a properly evaluated pay rate, until more Members become full-time and demand better conditions.
The way to cut through this problem is to arrange the hours of the House so that Members cannot have regular outside employment. There will then be so much pressure for improved facilities—goodness knows, the requirements are small enough: an office, a secretary, up to two assistants, one of whom could be constituency-based, as the amendment which I tabled proposed—that these would very soon be conceded.
We get our Parliament on the cheap, and to be properly effective it needs to be somewhat more expensive. We need more and better-paid auditors, more and better-paid Committee staffs, and more spent on staff and facilities for Members of Parliament. These proposals are evolutionary and modest, but they are essential.
148
Our Parliament works remarkably well in many ways, but it has not developed to match the power of the Executive. Scrutiny and surveillance of the Executive cannot adequately be carried out under our present procedures. Questions of public policy are too technical, too complex and too quantitative, and the bureaucracy is too secretive.
Those who believe that we can carry on in our present fashion belong to a simpler and more romantic age when great issues could be fully evaluated in debate by oratory and persuasion. The bureaucracy would like us to continue in that way, because it hides it from rigorous scrutiny. A parliamentary democracy must change and grow or it dies. The report shows that ours, the first of them all, needs to change and grow.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. William Benyon: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said, including his point about full-time Members of Parliament. However, I find it difficult to recognise the Conservative Party as opponents of legislation in view of my experience between 1970 and 1974.
Ever since I became a Member of Parliament, nearly nine years ago, I have been told that this House would never reform itself; that it would do so only if pushed from outside. Indeed, there is a certain amount of historical support for that contention. That is why, to me, this report is like a breath of fresh air. I must tell the Leader of the House that I shall be one of those who will be greatly disillusioned if it is allowed to run into the sand. The matter should come before the House for decision before the general election, for reasons mentioned by other hon. Members. The people who have drawn it up and who have the experience are here now. Many of them will not be here after the general election.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) put his finger on the point when he said that the trouble is that so many people in this House are either Ministers or would-be Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) wisely pointed out that the solution lies in the hands of Back Benchers. It is within our power to do anything we like in this House. It is

149
therefore up to us to see that this report, which has taken so long in preparation and has been so extensively researched, is decided upon by the House.
After that introduction, it may seem churlish if I proceed to pick up two points on which the Committee has not produced the answer that I would like. They are in a sense minor points, but to me they are important. They have been considered by previous Committees. The first concerns Question Time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton described it as a farce. He was right. In paragraph 1.14 the Committee describes how the number of questions has increased over the years, but its survey covers only as far as 1970 or 1971. Since then matters have got much worse. The Committee appears to run away from the logical conclusion. We all know what has happened in Question Time and how it has changed. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) says that broadcasting has made matters worse, and I agree with him. The point is that questions are not tabled in the pursuit of information; they are used as a peg upon which to hang a political party point. Tabling a large number of questions to Ministers and to the Prime Minister has become something of an Opposition virility symbol. That leads to a matching Government response, so that the balance is kept.
In my neck of the woods an unfortunate league table is published by the local press, and I am sorry to say that one or two of my hon. Friends act as blacklegs in this respect. They table a vast number of questions, which means that I constantly have to explain how I get my information much more quickly and much more effectively by writing direct to Ministers.
I read with considerable interest the report on the Canadian Parliament. I noted that it has no set questions. A Minister is allowed to be questioned for a certain time ad hoc. That is worthy of consideration. I believe that Question Time has had its day. I should like to see only statements and private notice questions prior to debates, and Question Time replaced by the operation of Select Committees. That would provide for the questioning of Ministers and their civil servants. I should like that procedure to
150
be televised. That is the way in which I should like to see the introduction of the televising of our proceedings take place.
I am well aware that the chances of Question Time being abolished are slim. It has entered into the folklore of our parliamentary system. When I talk to schoolchildren I am often asked about Question Time. It is one of the features of our system that they have latched on to. They think that it is a powerful way of controlling the Executive. It is probably only hon. Members who know that it has no effect in controlling the Executive whatever.
If Question Time is to remain, there are one or two changes that could be made. The Table Office should not accept more than a certain number of questions. We should take advantage of modern science and computerise the information that is provided by Government Departments either in reply to questions or in the form of statements. If an hon. Member tables a question when an answer has already been given to it he can consult the Library, but in many instances he does not do that. If the system were computerised, he would be told by a member of the Table Office, who would have pressed the necessary button, that the necessary information was already available.
The other omission concerns Private Members' Bills. The House will be aware that I have had experience of trying to pilot a fairly controversial Private Member's Bill through the House. I think that all hon. Members accept now that no controversial Private Member's Bill will reach the statute book without the tacit or active connivance of the Government. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) described the position succinctly in his book. The hon. Gentleman has had more experience than most hon. Members of Private Members' Bills. Surely it is essential that one or two small changes be made to tilt the balance slightly in favour of the private Member who wants to introduce a controversial Bill. Likewise, those who introduce non-controversial Private Bills should have the procedure made much easier.
First, we should provide another Committee for Private Members' Bills when there is a log jam. I see that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)

151
is in his place. The hon. Gentleman was my log jam. He will know exactly what I am talking about. There is a case for having another Private Members' Committee.
The remaining stages of Private Members' Bills are taken on the Floor of the House. The procedure is wrong whereby if the remaining stages are not obtained on one Friday the Bill goes to the bottom of the list and has to start again. It would be much fairer if at least two days were set apart for that purpose.
The main substance of the report may be divided into two parts. The first consists of the recommendations for Select Committee reorganisation. I warmly support the proposals. I take issue only with the proposal that eight Mondays will be set aside for reports to be debated on the Floor of the House on a motion from the Chairman of a Committee. The great weakness of our present system is that reports of Select Committees are not debated on the Floor of the House. I query the proposition that only eight Mondays should be provided. If we are to have 12 Select Committees, surely at least one Select Committee's report each Session should have the privilege of being debated on the Floor of the House.
Sir David Renton: My hon. Friend will find that in practice eight Mondays would be the minimum. The fact that it is recommended that there should be eight Mondays for debating the reports of Select Committees does not prevent the Government or the Opposition offering other days for the consideration of further reports.
Mr. Benyon: I understand that, but we are not giving more power to Select Committees unless we enshrine in Standing Orders the provision that the report of a Select Committee has to be debated on a motion on the Floor of the House. I note that selection would still be made by the Government through the usual channels. I have not been a Whip for three years for nothing. I know what that means.
I now refer to the selection of members of the Select Committees. This is an important matter. The selection must be made by the House of Commons—not by any other means. That is the point we seek.
152
As a member of the Select Committee, I warmly support the recommendation on the staff provided and the amount of expertise which may be called.
The crunch issue is the control of business on the Floor of the House. I do not agree with Lord Glenamara on many subjects, but I agreed with his remark to the Committee that timetabling would eventually come. It must come. I agree with that. The main reason is that the guillotine is now completely respectable. No odium is attached to its introduction. It is a short, quick measure. It takes three hours on the Floor of the House. There is no control of the Executive. Nobody who has sat in the House through more than one Parliament could take a contrary view.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend allowing for the fact that as a result of most guillotine motions a considerable portion of most Bills goes wholly undebated?
Mr. Benyon: Yes, indeed. That is one of my points. That is why I should like to see each Bill, as proposed by the Government, submitted to a senior Committee. This matter was discussed. I cannot remember the exact nomenclature that was used. The Committee of senior Members could say "This Bill demands three days, or six days, or whatever, in Committee." It would do so taking into account the point made by my hon. Friend. Depending on its size and complexity, each Bill would require a different amount of scrutiny. That must come in return for fixed Sessions and an emergency procedure for Bills brought to the House for a special purpose.
I read carefully the report of the Sub-Committee that considered the 10 o'clock rule. This is one of the most important recommendations of the report. It would allow the exercise of a greater control on the Executive than would anything else. I suggest that two-thirds of the Members preseent must vote for the suspension of the rule. The recommendation was 200 Members. That is a great advance on the present position. These changes must go hand in hand with timetabling and fixed Sessions.
I warmly welcome the idea that the dates of the recesses should be fixed. I understand the reasons why the Committee did not recommend a fixed date

153
for the Session and for the Summer Recess, but that must come. That, taken together with a timetable motion for each Bill and control over the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule, would produce a much tighter control over the Executive.
We cannot stop a Government with a majority from getting a Bill, however controversial, through the House. I have sat on Committees dealing with some of the most controversial matters when delaying tactics were used. At the end of the day, whatever happens, the Government can get a Bill through, but we can ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised and discussed and we can avoid too much legislation coming before Parliament.
It will be an absolute tragedy if the Committee's proposals are not put before the House of Commons for decision. Obviously, we shall all have our reservations. I take to heart the comment that we should not pick holes in the report. I have been guilty of that. I strongly believe that the House of Commons must have a chance to decide, otherwise we shall never get anywhere and our disillusionment will be complete.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: I am glad that at this stage in the debate, after hearing the resistance of the Chairmen of existing Select Committees, who expressed their vested interests very clearly in the first few hours, we now seem to be moving to speeches on each side of the House by Members who are anxious to see change and who, although they see some flaws in the scheme proposed, believe it to be imperative to take action in the near future. Therefore, I very much share the views of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon).
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton), who introduced the report, and his right hon. and hon. Friends and my right hon. and hon. Friends who put in so much hard work in order to produce this document for us. It shows the power of the House of Commons to produce a valid and viable report on its own business, just as it can on the business of government. With, I fear, one exception, that is to say, the part of dealing with European matters—I am not sure whether I should speak about it in the absence of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell—
154
I totally endorse what has been said in the report.
It is essential that the growth of the Executive that has occurred in this century and particularly in the last quarter of a century—which in general I welcome and have supported—should be matched by a growth in the effectiveness of this House. The measures put forward in the report are not revolutionary in their nature. Indeed, one might in some ways say that they are relatively modest and that we need to go farther and faster. But they are an important step forward in the evolutionary process of developing tools in this House to scrutinise and to control the activities of the Executive in an effective way.
Some of the analogies with the United States that have been mentioned are totally fallacious, but I was interested to read the evidence in the report from the Sub-Committee that visited Canada. The Canadian example, where there is the same sort of basic relationship between the Executive and the legislature that we have in this country—quite different from that of the United States of America—is relevant for us. The Canadians have been experimenting in recent years with a Select Committee structure that would have considerable similarity to what is proposed in this report. They have found some snags, and we can learn from some of the experience that they have had.
I want to comment on two aspects of the detailed proposals for Select Committees and then to say something about the paragraphs in the report dealing with Europe, but first I want to say something about the problem referred to in paragraph 6.34 and thereafter, dealing with the staff of the Select Committees. There are several important and difficult problems in this area.
There seem to me to be broadly four different categories of staff who are considered in the report. First, quite clearly, there will be a continuance of the role provided for the full-time professional staff of the House—the Clerks and their supporting executive and clerical officers. The Committee recommends a modest increase in the staff of the Department of the Clerk in order that there can be more adequate provision for each of the departmental Select Committees that are proposed.

155
I hope that the Commission that will be responsible for our activities will consider in future how long a Clerk will stay with a Committee. Although I realise that there are problems for the career patterns if Clerks are stuck in one Select Committee for too long, I believe that there are also problems if they are rotated too rapidly.
I think of one Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee on which I now serve where, in the course of this Parliament, we have had three different Clerks serving us at different times. There is something to be said for looking at a slightly longer span of time for a Clerk serving a Select Committee. I realise the difficulties that this causes in terms of the career planning of the Department of the Clerk, but I hope that it can be considered in the context of the new proposals.
Secondly, there are the specialist advisers from outside, who may be either part-timers, as has been the case in the past, or full-timers, as is proposed in one of the more controversial sections of the report. There seem to be two categories of part-timers. Some Select Committees have been able to retain the assistance of a specialist adviser over a number of years. I think, for example, of Brigadier Hunt, who I believe has been adviser to the Sub-Committee on Defence and External Affairs of the Expenditure Committee for seven or eight years and therefore has a good deal of familiarity with the ways of the House and the Committee, as well as with the subjects treated.
Other Sub-Committees and other Select Committees have followed the practice of having a specialist adviser for a specific inquiry, perhaps lasting only a year, or even less. There is the problem that people coming from outside are often unaware of the ways of the House or how they can be most effective.
We need to examine the possibility of having greater continuity in the service of specialist advisers to Select Committees, if they can be found. I realise that that is difficult.
It may be difficult to see how the career pattern of the full-time specialist advisers would operate. We should have to examine that matter very carefully unless we were proposing to set up, perhaps linked to the Library in some way, a new
156
part of the career service of the House. This is a difficult matter, and I am not sure that the Committee has seen through all the implications of that proposal.
There is a fourth category of staff that is essential. I was glad that in paragraph 6.46 the Select Committee referred back to the work of an earlier Select Committee—that dealing with assistance to private Members. I believe that with the strengthening of the role of Select Committees and of their staffs it is important that individual members of the Committee have staff to work for them, as well as the Committee itself having a staff. Otherwise, there is a risk of there being a monopoly view—indeed, a risk of the advice of the specialist advisers being rubber-stamped by the Committee, as I gather one of the witnesses suggested. This is not an easy problem, but it is a matter that we need to work at if we are to have an effective Committee structure.
On points of detail I turn to chapter 7, dealing with
" The Power to Send for Persons, Papers and Records ".
The Committee and the House were well served by the fascinating memorandum on the history of that power and the problems of its exercise.
There is, and I suspect that there will be in the future, a very sensitive relationship between the new, departmentally related Select Committees and the Departments that they are examining. I have had some experience of that sort of relationship in my eight years' service on the Expenditure Committee on two different Sub-Committees—for four years on the General Sub-Committee and more recently on the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee.
I have found that although there is in general a fair degree of good will from civil servants towards Committees at a personal level, there is a resistance not merely by civil servants but, I believe, by departmental Ministers, because of their fear of Select Committees trespassing on the prerogative of ministerial decision-making if they obtain too much information at the wrong time. That will be an inevitable cause of tension between the House and the Executive.
It is natural that Ministers will want to maintain the prerogatives that they feel are theirs. It is also natural that the

157
House will want to have the information, so that there can be the fullest public debate. We shall need to consider very carefully the sort of proposals that are made on this matter in chapter 7.
I shall give four examples of the difficulties faced by the Sub-Committees on which I have served. On the General Sub-Committee, in the early 1970s, there was the difficulty of getting the medium-term forecasts from the Treasury. That has now been achieved in part, but only very recently, and some would say that it is still somewhat inadequate. There was also the problem of getting the PAR reports, which I should have thought were basic to the work of the Expenditure Committee.
More recently, after the Defence Sub-Committee had prepared a fairly extensive report on reserves and reinforcement, and the Minister of Defence had a report prepared by General Shapland on the reserve subject, the Committee was unable to obtain access to it. More recently still, the Committee has been unable to get evidence from a professor of naval history and international relations at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, because technically he is a civil servant and, therefore, it is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide whether he can appear.
These are the sorts of problems that we have had, and I believe we shall continue to have, in terms of getting witnesses and evidence for these Committees. I am glad that the Committee dealt with this matter at some length and that in paragraph 7.25 it has proposed a fairly strong power which in future will enable the House to get papers in circumstances where the Government resist.
The subject of Public Bill Committees has already been referred to this afternoon. A few years ago we had a rare occasion when a Public Bill was referred to a Select Committee. I was fortunate enough to be able to serve on that Committee. Because we no longer have an Army Act every year—the Armed Forces Bill comes only once every five years, once in every Parliament—it has been agreed that that Bill should always be referred to a Select Committee rather than to a Standing Committee. Therefore, the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill met for about five sittings and took evidence in detail, clause by clause, before
158
proceeding to behave like a normal Standing Committee. That was a satisfactory way of dealing with the Bill.
I am not sure whether it would be as easy to deal with a Bill which was a matter of major party controversy, but certainly, for a good deal of legislation, this procedure has considerable merit and I hope that we shall be able to implement it as suggested by the Select Committee.
I now turn to a part of the report where I have certain difficulties; that is in relation to paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15, dealing with the European Community. For the last seven years we have all been aware of the considerable problems that have arisen for the House in its relations with the Executive and the European Community as a result of our membership. Indeed, even at the time of the European Communities Act in 1971, a number of my hon. Friends and myself tabled amendments dealing with this matter. These problems are difficult and complicated, and I recognise in the report the energetic activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and no doubt also those of the right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell).
Certainly, much of what is said in the report in terms of the analysis is correct. Where I find some difficulty—I shall try to explain why—is in the recommendations that occur in paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. Paragraph 4.13 deals with the form of the assurance or declaration that should be given by the Government prior to debate on any Community instrument which has been recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee. In paragraph 4.13 the Procedure Committee recognises some of the difficulties of having a binding guarantee by the Government. None the less, it says that the balance of advantages lies with an absolute commitment by the Government that there will always be prior debate.
I believe that the balance of advantage probably lies in the other direction, because of the nature and the way in which the European Community works. It is rarely the case—but occasionally it is the case—that Ministers can get an agreement on a Community instrument that is in the interests of this country by quickly agreeing on something in advance of the opportunity for a debate in the House.

159
When this occurs, it is essential that the Minister should be under an obligation to come back and justify that position before the House.
I believe that it would be absolutely wrong to take the absolutist position that is built into paragraph 4.13 and make it impossible for Ministers—even on those occasions when it is in this country's interests—to come to such an agreement. That is one point of detail which must be looked at again. I am glad to see a little nod of assent from the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
Sir David Renton: I must confess that I do not think members of the Committee would disagree with me, even the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). What we were laying down was a counsel of perfection. One knows that there would be rare occasions when the Government simply could not hold things up. Indeed, we mentioned one of those occasions—for example, when the House is not sitting.
Mr. Roper: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's helpful contribution, but I gather that my hon. Friend wishes to take a different view.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: No, but I think that my hon. Friend has perhaps mistaken the intention of paragraph 4.13, although it was perhaps my fault in not seeing that it was spelt out in a clearer way. The first three lines state:
" We recommend that the circumstances in which the Government should be permitted to give their approval to Community legislation should be embodied in a declaratory Resolution, as agreed in principle by the Leader of the House."
Therefore, far from agreeing that it should be cast iron, we agree that there are circumstances in which the Government should be so permitted but that those circumstances should be embodied in a resolution. Unfortunately, we have not yet reached that happy state.
Mr. Roper: I am grateful for that explanation, although I think both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend will see that page 122 states:
160
" the balance of advantage lies with a firm commitment that the Government should not give its final approval to legislation prior to a debate, where debate has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation ".
Therefore, there is an apparent ambiguity in the way in which the report is drafted. I am glad of the helpful clarification that we have had from the two members of the Select Committee.
I turn to my second problem, which concerns the recommendation in paragraph 4.15 dealing with the form of the motion under which we should debate Community matters. The recommendation is that this should be done on a Government motion which can take one of three forms—a Government motion to approve, a Government motion to approve, with modifications or qualifications, or a Government motion to disagree. Of course, that is a change from the present situation, under which we have a Government motion to take note, which is subject to amendment by rider by either the official Opposition or by Back Benchers.
I believe that the present system has certain merits because of the rather particular status of Community legislation at the time that it is considered in the House. The point is that Community instruments do not come before the House on the responsibility of the Government. They are not like Government Bills or statutory instruments, because they are not things to which the Government are committed at the time they come before the House. They are the proposals of the Commission of the European Community to the Council of Ministers, which our Government and their eight partners are in the process of negotiating, debating and perhaps amending at the very time they are being debated in this House. Therefore, they do not come on the responsibility of the Government; they are pieces of paper about which the Government want the House to give its opinion.
At a time when, as I have understood, the purpose of such a debate is primarily for Ministers to learn the views of the House before final agreement is reached, it does not seem appropriate for the Government themselves to say that we approve or disapprove. It is by no means clear that in the midst of negotiations it

161
is right for the Government to announce their final negotiations on an instrument before the negotiations have been completed.
Of course, it is the case that by their nature the most important and, therefore, frequently the politically most controversial instruments are the ones referred for debate by the Scrutiny Committee. Often, they are instruments with regard to which the Government will not want to put down a motion to approve or disapprove, because negotiations are still going on in the Council of Ministers.
It may well be said that that is why the Select Committee puts forward the third option—to put down a motion approving the instrument with certain modifications or qualifications. Indeed, that is proposed in paragraph 4.15. But that again creates problems for a Government who are in the midst of negotiations. When a Government are in the middle of negotiations with their Community partners in Brussels, do they want, by spelling out in the modifications and clarifications which they want to have accepted by this House, to show the whole of their negotiating hand? Many problems arise because of the nature of Community business which make it inappropriate for the Government to table a motion stating those modifications and clarifications at that stage.
There is a considerable preference for following the present position, in which the Government, appropriately enough, table a neutral "take note" motion, leaving the opportunity to the House, by amendment, to modify or qualify the motion at an appropriate time. Again, this is a difficult matter. However, before we make a final decision on it, I hope that further examination can be made of the implications of this point.
I am sorry to have spoken on this point for longer than I suggested that I would, Mr. Speaker, but it is a matter of some importance.
As I said earlier, the report represents an important step forward in the working of this House and the balance—it has got sadly out of balance—between this House and the Executive.
Like many who have spoken in the debate, I hope that we shall have in this Parliament a chance not only to debate
162
these proposals but to approve the appropriate Standing Orders to bring them into effect.
9.47 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) said about the EEC and the great difficulties which face Parliament. I followed his points very clearly. I found very little difference between my views and those of the hon. Member.
First, I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his staff for producing this report. It has meant an enormous amount of work. I am sure that the House will be very grateful for that and for the reply given by the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving).
Having read the report, one finds that there is so much in it that it is almost impossible to pick out the important points in a debate of this nature. The Leader of the House put his finger on the matter. He is not in the Chamber at present. I hope that I am not misquoting him. He said that the report is really an exploratory document, giving the House two days in which views may be expressed so that the Government and both sides of the House can have some concept of the reactions to the report of hon. Members of all parties.
I shall use a simple phrase to describe what we are discussing. It is the power of Parliament to control the Executive. I ask myself one question only. Would the implementation of these recommendations help or hinder that process?
First, we must appreciate that there will have to be a very careful selection of the subjects which are to be debated. Looking up the Procedure Committee's report, I see that of 64 reports only 16 were debated. That means that a heavy burden will be placed on whoever has to select subjects for debate, because there will always be a large number that remain undebated.
Some of us forget that the Government are elected to do certain things. In their election manifestos they put forward certain ideals. I make no party point on this matter. Most Governments endeavour during the tenure of their Parliament to

163
carry out their pledges, thus limiting the scope of Parliament.
New Members often think that they can alter procedures, but they find that they are strictly confined and that there is little chance of achieving anything, except on a Friday. An hon. Member's influence in foreign affairs might be greater, because what he says might be reported throughout the world. But in the ordinary run-of-the-mill debate the Government win. We are in abnormal circumstances now with a minority Government, but as a rule any Government can pass any measure that they wish to pass by forcing it through by their own majority.
We all know that when the Government decide that they wish to pass certain legislation the civil servants get together and draft a Bill. Many imperfections occur and are put right in Committee, on Report or in the House of Lords. Perhaps there is room for a change in the procedure for drafting Bills. I am not sure that the extra knowledge that is gained from Committee documents will alter that situation in the slightest degree. It might not influence the Government in their legislation and it will not influence the vote.
It is important that Parliament continues to exert a strong fiscal control. Year after year, and century after century, more and more money is spent. It is important that the House is given more control over public expenditure and Government activities.
The rights of Back Benchers seem to have been forgotten. Back Benchers should be given more opportunity to speak in major debates. The practice is that we hear two opening speeches and two closing speeches, and a few Privy Councillors, but how many Back Benchers have the chance of making a major contribution?
There are two ways of altering the present situation. The House knows that I have always advocated a restriction of 15 minutes for speeches, except by leave of the House. The second way is by suspending the 10 o'clock rule. The difficulty is that Ministers—and for once I am on their side—have jobs to do the next morning. If a time limit is extended, they will have to spend extra time on the
164
Front Bench listening to speeches which they do not wish to hear and their jobs will be made more difficult. However, I suggest that we should extend the proceedings for an hour or more from time to time. That would allow more Back Benchers to contribute to debates.
The problems of the EEC have been well aired. We must consider them carefully. The House will be faced with an additional burden by ensuring that EEC measures are approved by Parliament. It is important that the Government have the power to negotiate on important issues and then return to Parliament. This is something which should be done only on rare occasions.
There is also the matter of questions to the Prime Minister. The public must think it farcical that every question must start with the same ridiculous formula. I cannot see why such questions cannot be properly phrased.
Anything that will help this House in its work of controlling expenditure and exercising the rights given to us by our constituents is to be encouraged. The power to call for persons and papers is something which the House ought to have. The extension of power recommended is fully justified in my view.
Change is required. The report before us requires further extensive examination with the object of ensuring two things: first, that the House does its job of controlling public expenditure, and, secondly, that it gives its elected Members a chance to contribute to major debates on the Floor of the House.
9.57 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Like other hon. Members, I very much welcome this report, so admirably and persuasively presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I welcome, in particular, the suggested reorganisation of the Select Committees to match Government Departments. That seems to be a much more rational structure than the haphazard one which has grown up.
I welcome the provision that Standing Committees should be allowed to adopt the procedure of Select Committees and to hear expert evidence. I understand why it is suggested that this should be limited to three sittings at the outset. In

165
practice I should have thought that it would be found necessary and desirable to extend this principle to a larger number of sittings.
Changes such as those proposed would undoubtedly be helpful in enabling the House better to do its job as a law-making body and as a check on the detailed actions of the Government. If the House can control or check the detailed actions of the Government, such power will develop into the exercise of influence over Government policy. By making the House more effective in these ways, we shall raise the prestige of hon. Members. This is important in itself and important because it may lead to hon. Members being more independent in their actions.
I want to deal with the importance of hon. Members being more independent. This is the key to the House of Commons performing its third function, that of translating the settled will of the nation into effective political action. This function is not properly fulfilled by what my noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham described as the elective dictatorship.
It is odd that Labour Members, who argued so convincingly against the concept of the 11-plus examination as one that would decide a child's fate on the basis of one decision taken at a particular moment, should argue that the will of the electorate is carried out properly by the result of a general election held at a particular time at which the elector is presented with a choice between two pre-packaged sets of policies. He has to choose one or the other. Having chosen, because of what I regard as the pernicious doctrine of the mandate, he must swallow it whole during the next five years, regardless of changes in circumstance, atmosphere and the national will.
The House of Commons should be the place where the forces of popular will and the great interests of State meet, clash and resolve themselves into effective action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) recently put that forward persuasively. It is in this House, and not in smoke-filled rooms belonging to the TUC or CBI, or even the smoke-filled rooms of Whitehall, that the forces should resolve themselves into action in accordance with what the nation wants, not in its whims but in its settled will.
166
It is only if we cannot so change ourselves as a House of Commons that the nation will need to have recourse to what I regard as a second-best solution. That is what is being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, namely, a second Chamber to correct the abuses of power of this House. It is far better for us to bend our outlook to meet the needs of the time.
It may be argued that the only way to do this is by electing this House on a system of proportional representation. Much as I should like to see this, I am too realistic to believe that it is possible in the near future. But is it impossible to make the best of what we have and to have Members more independent in their outlook, to have more Brian Waldens, John Mackintoshes and Humphry Berkeleys? When one embarks on such a catalogue it is inevitable that, speaking from this side of the House, one comes up with more names of Labour Party Members who have demonstrated their independence by crossing the Floor of the House or by voting with the party opposite than one can find from this side who have exerted their independence the other way round. It is difficult to argue this without opening oneself to accusations of partisanship. None the less, that is a valid contention.
We must bring about a state of affairs where more Members are prepared to be defiant—and not just of their party Whips. It is not the Whips who force Members to swallow their consciences and follow a party line even when they believe it is not in the interests of the nation. Much more than the Whips lurking in their little rooms off the Members' Lobby, it is the pressure exerted at the grass roots by a Member's association and local party. I see no easy solution for giving a Member of Parliament more independence in relation to his political party. But this should be an object of policy.
The recommendations of the Committee are a helpful step in that direction. They will increase the prestige and stature of Members of Parliament. I only wish that the Lord President was as open to new ideas in this matter as he has shown himself admirably assiduous in his attendance at these lengthy debates.
Mr. Frank Hooley: The first report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1977–78, is a cautious and moderate one, but I believe that it deserves implementation in full because it has the seeds of development which could be extremely important for the discharge of the work of this House.
I am obliged to the Select Committee for the attention which its members obviously paid to the memorandum which I submitted to them, and I am grateful for their efforts to meet some of the points in it.
I came to this House 13 years ago, and it seemed to me within a very short time that the major shortcoming of our procedures was the total absence of any form of coherent or systematic Committee structure. It is an absurdity that we should have had a wierd hotchpotch of what are called Standing Committees, which really are ad hoc committees, and Select Committees set up at random for random purposes with no coherence and no specific design.
The major contribution of this report, if it is implemented, is that to a large extent it will put an end to that absurdity and give the House a coherent system of Committees with which to carry out its work. The report itself says that it will provide the House with the possibility of scrutinising the activities of the public service on a continuing and systematic basis. That is the fundamental thrust of the report, and I agree with it.
To those who say that it will diminish the authority of the Chamber or somehow reduce the effectiveness of debates in the Chamber, I argue that in the modern age it is totally absurd to suppose that we can discuss matters of the technical, political and social complexity of nuclear power, microprocessors, genetic engineering, preventive medicine and juvenile delinquency or a whole range of matters for which the House now has to have responsibility and on which it must exercise not only political but some degree of technical judgment during the course of an argy-bargy for seven hours across the Floor of the House. They can be intelligently considered only by some careful study by a group of hon. Members taking evidence from
168
Ministers and civil servants but also from outside experts so that they may gather together a body of evidence on which to form a reasonable judgment.
I am aware that at the end of the day the judgment will be a political one, since we are politicians. Equally, I am convinced that, to arrive at a sensible political judgment, there has to be a sensible process of investigation and probing into the various aspects of the matters under discussion. We cannot carry out that kind of process without an intelligent Committee system.
If for no other reason, the EEC dimension must compel us in this direction. It is absurd to suppose that this House can exercise any effective surveillance, let alone control, over EEC matters unless we have some machinery whereby the various aspects of the EEC's policies, programmes and proposals can be considered systematically by groups of hon. Members who have an interest in and a special knowledge of such matters as agriculture, energy, finance or whatever it may be. It will not do to go on pretending that in an hour and a half between 10 o'clock and midnight or between midnight and two o'clock in the morning the House can come to some sensible conclusion on complex proposals which may affect hundreds of thousands of workers and other people in this country as a result of some decision by the EEC Commission.
By creating this structure of Committees, I believe that it will become possible for the House to take matters which are put forward by the Commission or which come to the attention of the various components of the EEC, to look at them carefully and to come to a considered and sensible conclusion about them. On that ground alone, if on no other, I believe that the Committee's recommendations for the 12 specialist Select Committees should be fully supported.
As regards the structure of the Committee system, almost anyone could think of 12 Committees with, perhaps, slightly different variations of grouping from those suggested in the report. When one examines the suggested 12 Select Committees, however, they seem to be a fair

169
and reasonable distribution of departmental responsibility, and I do not disagree with them.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I would be sad to see the disappearance of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I have been a member for many years. I have great admiration for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who has chaired that Committee with great success over a long period. It is perfectly possible that the proposed new Committees covering the Departments of Energy, Education and Science and Industry can cope successfully and effectively between them with the subjects hitherto explored by the Science and Technology Committee. While I should be sad to see the disappearance of that Committee, I believe that its work could be carried on under the new system.
Likewise, I would be sorry to see the disappearance of the Select Committee on Overseas Development. I have served on that Committee and I believe that it has been valuable. However, its work could be adequately discharged by a special Sub-Committee of the proposed Select Committee on Foreign Affairs as set out in the report. I see no insuperable practical difficulty in that case.
I agree entirely that the Public Accounts Committee should be retained. However, I am inclined to depart from the judgment of the report in the matter of the Committee on the Ombudsman. I should be inclined to keep that as an independent body. It fulfils an almost quasi audit role such as that fulfilled by the Public Accounts Committee in a strictly financial sense. That Committee is important in matters of civil liberties, and I should be disturbed if its work was dispersed over the 12 Select Committees as suggested in the report.
Mr. John Ellis: My hon. Friend has not referred to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Has he a judgment to make on the recommendations in regard to that Committee?
Mr. Hooley: I believe that the same principle applies there as to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The work that has been done by that Committee over the various range of bodies that it has scrutinised could be
170
discharged by the new Committee on Industry, or Energy, or one or two of the others. The nationalised industries are responsible, through the appropriate Minister, to different Departments, and I do not see why they cannot be adequately scrutinised under the Committee system proposed in the report.
Mr. John Ellis: I asked my hon. Friend for his comments on that matter because I felt it to be worth while. Does he not agree that there is some benefit with the nationalised industries—whether steel or electricity—in the Committee being able to compare how the different industries attack their problems? If different Select Committees each deal with their own nationalised industries, it may not be possible for the Committees to get that kind of information.
Mr. Hooley: I believe that the proposed Departmental Committee on Energy would be perfectly capable of scrutinising the gas, electricity and oil industries or whatever, just as the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries does at the moment. Within the range of their commitments the other Departmental Committees could do that job.
Mr. English: My hon. Friend is quite right. We thought of this point. We proposed that, in so far as there might be features common to nationalised industries, a Sub-Committee of the Departmental Committee of Departments which have nationalised industries should undertake that co-ordination. We cannot have the tail wagging the dog—a nationalised industry Committee with a set of seven Sub-Committees to deal with each Department of State. Instead, we have proposed one Sub-Committee to cover several Departments of State dealing with a nationalised industry.
Mr. Hooley: I think that that point has now been reasonably well ventilated.
I regard a Committee membership of 10 as too small. If the Committees are to carry out scrutiny and other responsibilities, as is implied in the report, a membership of 10 will probably be inadequate. If it is proposed that the scrutiny process should be carried out by 12 Committees each with 10 members, that is only 120 hon. Members out of 500 Back Benchers, and if the system develops, as I am sure and hope it will, far more than just over

171
one-quarter of the Back Bench membership of the House would want to participate. I am sure that over a period more hon. Members would want to do that, and I am not at all pessimistic about finding an adequate number of Members to provide the Committees with a larger membership than 10.
I am puzzled by the proposition in the report that only the Departmental Committees on foreign affairs, home affairs and Treasury matters should have the power to set up Sub-Committees for investigation purposes. I cannot see why a Committee which will be covering a Department with the enormous responsibilities of, say industry, energy or health and social services should not have the power to set up Sub-Committees. I doubt whether it would be able to do its work effectively without that power.
I turn now to the working of the Committees. I agree that the publication of evidence by newspapers before a Committee reports to the House should be permitted. Our Select Committees sit in public, and it is therefore absurd to have this technical objection to disclosure of evidence or of any memorandum submitted to a Committee simply on the ground that a report has not been made to the House. What makes the matter worse is that in the case of a lengthy inquiry a report might appear 12 or 18 months after the evidence has been given. I therefore agree with the recommendation on that point.
I am dubious about the proposition that every hon. Member should be given personal research assistants. My preference would be an enormous strengthening of the research and information capacity of the House of Commons Library. There is a powerful argument for that in any case. However, it would be more economical and efficient for the capacity of the Library for dealing with research, statistics and so on to be immensely expanded so that Committees could, as of right, and without impairing the day-today work of the Library, request information that they required for particular inquiries.
There is the curious proposition that the Chairmen of these new Committees should be given a special payment. I see no reason for that. There are already
172
enough quasi payroll Votes in this House. The fewer the number of Members who have differential payments from the normal run of Back Benchers, the better. There is obviously a case for paying Ministers, but I cannot see why the Chairmen of Select Committees should be paid. That could raise all sorts of invidious difficulties.
I turn now to the powers of the proposed Committees. It is right that they should be able to require the attendance of Ministers, including Secretaries of Stale, as needed. It is right that departmental Estimates should be referred to them for consideration and that they should have the power to consider statutory instruments and EEC documents. The Committees should also be kept fully informed on the progress of EEC proposals within their fields of interest. I believe those to be five essential powers, and I cannot see how the Committees could function effectively without them.
I turn briefly to three other points in the report not related to the central proposal, which I entirely support. I believe there to be some merit in the idea of having a Select Committee procedure on Public Bills so that the Standing Committee may take some evidence and consider the general matters relating to a Bill before proceeding to the clause-by-clause examination.
I entirely approve of the suggestion that the House should meet on Fridays from 9.30 to 2.30 instead of the present absurd arrangement under which we waste three hours before we begin at 11 o'clock. On a considerable number of occasions I have encountered an awkward conflict between honouring an obligation to constituents and appearing in the House for business which was important and of special interest to me. If we could move our Friday business forward by an hour and a half, that would enable most English Members certainly—and possibly assist Scottish Members as well—to take part in debates on business of the House on a Friday and still honour commitments which they might have made to constituents long before.
I think it sensible also that the dates of recesses should be agreed right at the beginning of a Session. Again, one wishes to make commitments to constituents or other bodies, and it is extremely helpful

173
to know precisely how the Session will work out.
I am disappointed that the Committee funked the issue of morning sittings. It is quite absurd that in this day and age we should waste four perfectly good hours of daylight between 10.30 and 2.30 and not commence our business at a sensible hour. It is entirely feasible for the House to begin its business at, say, 10 o'clock or half-past 10, have an appropriate time at which business breaks, and, if necessary, have Committee meetings in the early evening. The present system under which we transact so much of our business between about 11 o'clock at night and two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning is quite indefensible. I am sorry that the Committee did not tackle this problem head on and make a firm recommendation.
But the central thrust of the report is that the House should provide itself with a coherent and systematic Committee system, and I regard this as a valuable—indeed, indispensable—proposition, and it has my full support.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: The debate has been remarkable for the report which has preceded it, which has given us an opportunity to study the working of Parliament and to reflect on that work over a good many years, trying to put our minds to the question of how we can reform our institution of Parliament, but it has been remarkable also, if I may say so, for the skill of the members of the Committee who have contributed to this thoughtful exercise. I think in particular here of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who presented the case for reform and for acceptance of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
I have found the occasion extremely valuable because this is one day, and tomorrow is another, when we shall be determining the shape which Parliament should take and, I hope, will take. I am not saying that I accept the Committee's report in every particular, but this two-day debate is of great significance because it will determine an evolution of Parliament which will be little short of revolution.
174
The Committee proposes to the House that we accept drastic changes in the way we go about our work. By and large, I agree with most of those drastic changes. I have for long felt that consideration of Public Bills in Standing Committee upstairs should be preceded by, if not altogether replaced by, a system of examination in which the adversary aspect of politics is taken out. Let us have that on Second Reading. I am very pleased that we are at least to have the opportunity, if the recommendation is accepted, of three days of examination in detail, sitting as a Select Committee on a Bill, of all its points, being able to call witnesses as we can in Select Committees now.
I agree, too, with the observations that have been made about the place that Question Time has in our affairs. For many years I have regarded Question Time as little more than a joke. I regard Prime Minister's Question Time twice a week as a complete and absolute farce. I should not mind if the facility of Question Time were removed and replaced by that which is proposed by the Procedure Committee—namely, a more accurate method of questioning, scrutinising and restraining the Executive by means of the proposed Select Committees.
We overplay our hands at Question Time. We overplay the publicity value of Question Time. We do ourselves no good in so doing. I am thinking not only of broadcasting, which has revealed what Parliament is like when Parliament chooses to play theatre. To some extent, performing in the Chamber is like performing on the stage, with the exception that we have to produce our own scripts. It is a pity that we have allowed the facility of getting at the Executive, of getting at the Government, of questioning Ministers and even breaking Ministers to become somewhat debased. Questions have become trick questions. There are even more tricks at the Dispatch Box that are designed to help Ministers parry the questions that are put to them. I have no hesitation in saying that Question Time has slid as part of our institution.
The Procedure Committee has recommended a better structure of our Select Committees. The 12 Select Committees that have been proposed to match the Government Departments are my principal consideration. Some of the other

175
Select Committees will be retained, especially those concerned with the private business of the House. I am glad that it has been recommended that major Committees be retained such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Committees concerned with the scrutiny of European legislation and statutory instruments. I have served on Select Committees for almost all the 13 years that I have been in this place. It is nearly 13 years. For many years I was on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. For four or five years I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) about the place of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and its shortcomings. I enjoyed serving on the Committee. I thought that it did valuable work for Parliament and for the public. It was the only mechanism we had for examining and questioning the workings of the great industries that Governments had created. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Committee may go only as far as the industry itself. It cannot go behind the chairmen of the corporations to ascertain, for example, the strategy of Ministers and of the Government for energy and transport. The hon. Gentleman illustrated that shortcoming only too vividly.
It is true that transport is split between Department and Department. British Airways was surprised by the £1,500 million expenditure by British Rail on the London to Manchester and London to Liverpool routes. It was surprised by that decision as it knew it would have a drastic effect on its air traffic on the same routes.
The better structuring of the Select Committees will undoubtedly make matching departmental Select Committees much more important. I understand that that is the intention. It is true that hon. Members will become more expert as the 10 of them on each of the separate Committees get down to the nitty-gritty of working closely with advisers and are able to send for papers and persons and to question civil servants and Ministers as we do at present in Select Committees.
Hon. Members become expert in one area after another. That is no doubt good. Back Benchers will become busier
176
and feel more important. The Committee went out of its way to say "That is not the object of these recommendations. We do not seek to make work for work's sake or to create conditions whereby hon. Members may have greater job satisfaction." Nevertheless, there will be greater job satisfaction.
However, that is not the reason for our being here. We are not here to please ourselves. We are here to serve the public, our constituents and the country, and to help the Government to govern better. The Opposition have that duty as much as members of the Government. Will Back Bench Members be better employed and more effective in pursuing their duties to their constituents and the country?
A Back Bench Member may sound effective, even today, in a Select Committee such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Nationalised Industries Committee or the Expenditure Committee when he or she puts questions to a no doubt nervous permanent secretary and receives civil and cautious answers. Equally, such questions put to the chairman of a nationalised industry are listened to and answered with great care and courtesy. The hon. Member involved feels that he is in a position of some importance. He goes away feeling that he is a bigger man than he would be if he stayed only in this Chamber, trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from time to time in our debates.
Having felt more important, will he achieve anything more than an appearance in a blue book which is printed following the investigation by each Select Commttee? His questions will appear in small print. Thick books will be tucked away on shelves in offices and libraries. That is where the work of these important Back Bench Members will be found. Their work will be reported in this Chamber. We are to have at least eight days, on Mondays. That is a good day. I hope that we shall all—not just the 10 hon. Members involved—turn up to take part on those days when Treasury matters, foreign affairs and defence are being studied and debated. I hope that we regard those matters as important.
We cannot force Members of Parliament into this Chamber any more than we may take a horse to water and make

177
it drink. We must give them a purpose at the end of the road. The debate must not be simply an occasion for consideration and hearing interesting expert speeches from members of the Committee who have become more knowledgeable, having had the advantage of getting closer to the subject and to Government thinking. There must be an event at the end of the day such as a vote. I am not saying that it must be a vote. Some of our greatest debates—not on Bills—do not necessarily end in a vote. Such debates take place when we consider matters of moment.
I am concerned that this place should not wither and fade away. I strongly support evolution, or revolution, towards a more structured system of committee study and restraint and control of the Executive. I am sure that the Executive will welcome that. Nobody would welcome the fading and withering away of the House of Commons.
Members of Parliament may become much more knowledgeable. No doubt they will become much more feared by those in Government—Ministers, civil servants and representatives of the nationalised industries and local authorities—with whom they rub shoulders. They may be much more respected as a result of the greater knowledge they have developed. That is one consideration, but it is not the be-all and end-all of the career of a Member of Parliament to be either knowledgeable or feared.
The question is, shall we be more effective in our scrutiny and restraint of the Government? It is one thing to criticise the Government in Committee upstairs or to send for the civil servants, but something has to happen, and it is here in this House that it has to happen. In the end, the action has to be brought back here. This is where action has to be taken. That is the only thing that will make the Government Front Bench realise that the House of Commons is still important. What happens in a group of 10 experts upstairs will not worry anyone on the Government Front Bench, or any Government Front Bench that might replace it in the future.
On balance, I think that we shall be making a considerable advance, but I am concerned about what will happen when
178
the reports of the Committees are debated here. I am concerned that they may turn out to be rather dull affairs and poorly attended, as are the debates on the Public Accounts Committee. For such progress there is a price to pay. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not present. He knows that when I talk about this Chamber I echo perhaps his as yet unspoken thoughts in this debate. I like this Chamber. I confess to being rather unprofessional as a Member. I confess to not being very full-time. But I confess to having a love for this place. I had that love for this place long before I came here. I confess to having a love for this place as it was 200 or 300 years ago, with all its faults. I have such a love for it, with all its faults, as it is now, and I shall go on loving it.
I should like to think that it is in this Chamber that a Member of Parliament will still make his name—and lose it, perhaps. I should like to think that, whatever we may do in the next few days and in the next few weeks, if we eventually vote on these propositions we shall not take away the opportunity for a Member to shine in this place rather than in a small room upstairs.
Would great names such as those of Churchill, Bevan, Macmillan and Macleod have been made upstairs? Would the Leader of the House have made his name in a small back room upstairs? Would the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have become famous for his investigations in a small back room upstairs?
Sir David Renton: He has.
Mr. Crouch: I know that the right hon. Member does a lot of work in Committee, and I am very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has reminded me of that. Indeed, some of those who have spoken today are among the greatest workers in the back rooms upstairs. They have made contributions today of outstanding thoughtfulness and constructive-ness. I have listened to many speeches of different tones about the type of reform that we are proposing.
I recall our late friend John Mackintosh, who was such a great contributor to Parliament and a sustainer of this place. It was when John Mackintosh spoke from the Labour Benches that I heard him,

179
and I came in to hear him whenever I saw his name go up on the screen.
I am really saying to the reformers, and to my right hon. and learned Friend—for whom I have such an admiration as a reformer and for his powerful advocacy today of this reform—that I want to save them from themselves a little, just by pausing, because we are being asked to accept what is, as it stands, a rather over-structured system. It reflects, in a way, what this Parliament has become. We are rather afraid of this place. We are afraid that we cannot do our job with the Members on the other side of the House. We want to get them into a private room and to have new rules. In the end, we have to face them across the Table. We have to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, even if we have to wait six hours in order to do it.
I have heard many hon. Members saying today that they have lost patience with the Chamber because they can do more important work elsewhere and get more words said by catching the Chairman's eye more often in Committee. But this is the place where we must have the patience. There are many hon. Members present today, not Privy Councillors, who sit diligently and patiently. Some sit not so patiently, but in a frustrated way, and eventually catch the eye of the Chair. If they do not, they raise a point of order on which they can make themselves heard. That is the nature of this assembly, so different from other democratic assemblies in the world. We must sustain it in that way.
Mr. English: I have been listening with great care to all that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he not think that there is room for both—that there are, and always will be in an assembly of 635 people, such people as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is capable of dominating the House by a speech but rarely sits on a Committee? There are others more capable of working in a Committee than with a set oration in the front of the House. But is there not room for both? When we are suggesting that 120 people might sit on an effective set of Committees, that will not take away all 635 people from the House.
Mr. Crouch: I accept that, of course. I have always taken that view, and it
180
is really the purport of what I am trying to say—that there must be room for both. But I want to add a word of warning—that we must ensure that there is a place for both.
This assembly of Parliament has become different over the years, as we are all aware. We are somewhat smaller than our ancestors, though we may be more expert. We must see that this place does not go the way of the Floor of the Congress and the Senate of the United States, where I could have a speech printed and handed in. My constituents could read it in the official record next day, but I would never have had to speak. That is what I want to avoid.
I do not believe for a minute that it will happen here, but I do not want everyone saying "I am too busy to go into the Chamber today. I must get up to my Committee. That is where I am a kingpin." Sometimes when I am on the Public Accounts Committee I want to be down here, and I cannot leave the Committee because something very important is already in train. I may already be involved from the previous meeting in questioning, and it would be discourteous to a permanent secretary who has come with his entourage of assistants and advisers not to be in my place up there when I should be here.
When we eventually interpret the recommendations, we must not neglect to take these matters into account. I do not want to lose the Chamber. Nor do I want to lose the complete Member of Parliament, like the "compleat angler" the whole man. I do not want to be a professional. I do not really want to be an expert. I do not mind having enough knowledge to face experts, but I do not want to be an expert.
All Members must be something like all-rounders when we go back to our constituencies, when we go round the country, as everyone has acknowledged today. I must dismay hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), whose speech and memorandum I very much admired, but I do not want to be a full-timer. I do not want to be a nine-to-fiver. I shall put in more time, but I shall have to do it in the peculiar, unprofessional way that characterises this place.

181
Parliament was not designed for our convenience or, I regret, for that of our wives, husbands or children. Those who are elected by the people are elected to come as their representatives, even at difficult times of the day, through the day and into the night. This place is for the government of the people. We are their representatives, and we must play that role more than anything else we think of.
I accept reform, but with these few reservations. Let us reform, but let us have a little care. The Chamber itself must be reformed. How dull it is when we have six hours of dull debate that we need not have, when the measures going through could be dealt with in two or three hours, or even less. That is a matter which is easily taken care of. But it is still in the Chamber that the great decisions will be made. This is where control over the Government will be effected, and this is where history is made—not in the small rooms upstairs.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said that decisions were made in this place. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) will agree—as we both served as Whips together—that decisions are taken not in this place but in the Lobby where the numbers are counted. That is the point at which real decisions are taken.
I suppose that I approach the report in an over-simplistic way. Though my remarks may be critical, I wish to pay tribute to the work that has been done. I agree with a large part of what I have heard this evening. I shall deal with one or two minor points. I do not think that we can reduce the role of this Chamber in the making of major decisions or the fact that those decisions are made, as I said, in the Lobby when the numbers are counted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) made the point that when we consider, let us say, the nuclear energy industry, we are all concerned about what we are doing to the environment. It may not be the experience of other hon. Members, but when we come to vote on such issues I often wonder whether we are taking steps which might destroy the environment. How do we know?
182
I spent some time looking back at the history of the Industrial Revolution to see what happened. It is a changed situation today. We have nationalised industries, and many experts work elsewhere for the Government. It may interest hon. Members to know that with the advent of the railway, debates took place about how it would affect and pollute the environment. The great engineers of those days, besides designing the railways, spent half their time in this place. The procedure was different, because very often it was done by Private Bill. But they gave us the benefit of their knowledge and experience, so that hon. Members could be apprised of the detailed considerations before they came to any decision.
I am always sorry that we have less expertise in our ranks. Who knows—the present engineer or nuclear technologist may say "I am paid to do a job." The engineer may say "I design a bridge. Whether people use it for the betterment of mankind or whether they jump off its structure and commit suicide is a matter for the politicians." This may be a different trend which we must take into account.
I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Member for Canterbury has anything to fear. The Chamber is the set piece for debates. What occurs in the Select Committees is important. We can have discussion and we can put questions. So far in this debate, I do not think that I have heard mention of the power of the Government of the day, through Ministers, to appoint chairmen and members of the boards, which is the real difficulty with regard to Select Committees. The difficulty is whether, when one asks questions, one can get the answers.
I do not criticise people in this regard. One has some loyalties in these matters. Although I am on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I am not on the particular Sub-Committee that considered steel, and I do not want to open old wounds. But the experience of that Committee demonstrated that it was acting on behalf of this House in sending for people to give evidence, calling for papers and requiring certain knowledge. When co-operation was refused, the Committee demonstrated the power of the House by showing that it had the ability to bite.

183
I have always taken the view that my job, in so far as I was a member of a Committee, was to ask the appropriate question so that the answer was on record for the benefit of the House. There is enormous merit in reaching some common ground, particularly when a Committee is composed of hon. Members of different political persuasions. For instance, when we considered the steel industry, Conservative Members were perhaps concerned not so much about its efficacy with regard to the nationalised industries but rather with whether we could hive it off back into the private sector. Of course, we did not reach conclusions on those points. That would have been an absurdity. But, because we were able to ask questions and come to some decisions, other hon. Members were able to say "In so far as they have been able to agree, it has enormous merit ". The Lord President was almost bristling with regard to certain contributions that were made. One could almost feel his sense of outrage, precisely because it was feared that efficient Select Committees might detract from the authority of this Chamber. I therefore hope that we shall see the changes proposed in the general thrust of the report.
I certainly approve of full-time Members of Parliament. The concept of part-time Members is a manifest absurdity. Of course, any experience that an hon. Member brings to the House is relevant, particularly with regard to his former employment. But how can a coal miner retain part-time employment down the pits and come to this House at the same time? The concept of part-time Members may be all right for lawyers or for hon. Members who accept a certain amount of lecturing at universities, but with regard to the wide diversity of jobs that are done it is not possible to bring a working experience to this House, although it is possible to bring an experience about one's former job.
There is another reason why Select Committees are important. I do not happen to believe in specialisation, although some of my hon. Friends do. I came here to represent my constituents. I have had the honour of sitting for two constituencies. The first was Bristol, North-West, which contained docks. In order to serve my constituents there, I
184
had to know something about docks. Therefore, I found out. At that time we were building Concorde, so I needed to know something about the aircraft industry. I profited from the pursuit of those matters.
Now that I sit for Brigg and Scun-thorpe, my main interests are agriculture and steel. Frankly, I became interested in serving on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries when I learnt that it questioned the heads of all the organisations relating to British Steel. It is an irony of fate that, having been appointed to that Select Committee, I was allocated to a Sub-Committee which does not deal with the steel industry, although it considers its reports in full.
However, one learns along the way. My own Sub-Committee has dealt with many matters, including water authorities, the Bank of England, Cable and Wireless, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and even the Tote. It has been a valuable experience looking at all those industries and getting some expertise in those areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) may wish to intervene, but, as I understand the report, I can see the logic in building a coherent structure stretching down to departmental level that will generally follow the Expenditure Committee. If that is the experience of my hon. Friend, I bow to it. I have served on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and it has been of rich benefit. We have looked at many huge industries, all of which belong to the nation and some of which are completely different in character. Nevertheless, we have sought to make comparisons as to how strategy has evolved in one industry as opposed to another.
I am not one of those who say "We must have change and forward thrust" and then, when it comes to my corner, say "It is sacrosanct. We must do nothing about it." I hope that I am not putting forward that kind of argument. However, it is a serious argument that my particular Committee feels that, rather than be contained in a particular Department, there is benefit in our having the opportunity to enlarge our knowledge by looking at other nationalised industries which may not come under the same Department.

185
I stress that I sincerely hope that in this regard we shall look at that proposal very carefully. There is diversity. I can appreciate that the argument can be made in regard to other Committees, but on this aspect there is a differing case to be made.
One of the things that we learnt from the chairmen of the nationalised industries is that from time to time they meet each other to discuss the problems and how they surmount them, and to discuss matters of common interest to huge organisations serving the nation. I can appreciate the benefit of that and the benefit in a continuing relationship between Committees, particularly the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and a cross-section of chairmen of nationalised industries, not necessarily under the same Department.
I have repeated that because it is important. I hope that we shall get a degree of consent for this proposal. In these cases, it is notorious that the two Front Benches are concerned with the status quo. Ministers and prospective Ministers will want to keep the reins of power in their hands. Recent evidence that the Committee on which I serve has taken from chairmen of nationalised industries has been very enlightening as to the degree of control exercised—the special directives, the arm-twisting. It is right that this House, in the final analysis, should control those bodies. It is not merely a question whether they shall return a profit, or of what the Act says, because as Parliament made the Act it can change it.
One of the most important things in discussions between whichever Minister it is, whatever his ideology, and the chairman of a nationalised board, and the kind of directives and suggestions that are made, is that it is open to Parliament to debate those questions. We ought to push out the boundaries of the power of the Select Committees in the sense that they act for the whole House. It is not that they make decisions. For example, if there is an argument as to whether a nationalised industry should buy aircraft made in Britain or made elsewhere, Parliament should decide in the end and say whether it is in the national interest that it should buy an aircraft produced in Britain rather than an aircraft which, on commercial considerations, it would
186
buy elsewhere. But it is not for Ministers to make these decisions one way or the other on their own. It is for them to report to this House and for the House to make such decisions.
Therefore, it is important that Committees of the House should be able to ask the questions. Chairmen of nationalised industries say that they object to receiving directives which are in conflict with an Act of Parliament. But they do not object provided that their point of view—whatever it is—is reported to the House in an unbiased way.
If the House appoints a chairman to these important boards, we should be able to listen to the evidence. We appoint servants to do jobs—to run the electricity and steel industries. We appoint such people to do certain tasks. Often they say that they are asked to do conflicting tasks. They say that they cannot do a certain task without Parliament taking certain action. The dialogue takes place between the Minister—of whatever Government—and the heads of the nationalised boards. Parliament does not necessarily know what is going on or what the arguments are.
This is where the Select Committees come in. We have built up a good relationship with the chairmen of the nationalised industry boards. My Committee's relationship with the Governor of the Bank of England is good. I do not suppose that he is an ally of mine politically. He tells us about the lifeboat operation and what he is doing about that situation now. He uses the Committee correctly and wisely.
I support the Procedure Committee. It has done a good job. It would be a retrograde step to take action which would inhibit the Nationalised Industries Committee from gaining the experience of the various nationalised industries. I hope that Back Benchers will not allow the Front Bench to push the issue away from us. In general, the report should be acted upon.
11.3 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain: I have listened to most of the debate, but no hon. Member has referred to the report's recommendation that at certain times speeches in the House should last only 10 minutes. I believe that that

187
time has been reached, and I propose to keep my speech down to 10 minutes.
I have been a Member of the House for nearly 20 years. I have been a member of the Estimates Committee, the Procedure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. I am now on the Chairmen's Panel.
I have been fascinated today by the nonsense which has been expressed about "whole-timers" in the House and the inference by Labour Members that such hon. Members are not doing their job particularly well. I defy any Labour Member to say that he has a better record in attending Committees or Question Time than I. I have missed four days in 20 years. I do not consider that I am a full-time Member of the House. Since becoming Chairman of a Committee, I have missed not a single word of any Committee that I have had the honour to chair. But I do not consider that I am a full-time Member of the House.
I do not consider that being a full-time Member is a proper job for a Member of Parliament, because such a person becomes an oral civil servant. To do his job properly, a Member of the House should be in touch with industry and with the outside world. He should not sit like a monk in these premises. I have always looked upon this place as a public meeting of a board of directors, when the directors talk to the shareholders. I have always looked upon a Select Committee meeting as a board meeting.
One Committee which has not been discussed so far is the party committee. It does not come within the terms of reference of the report. We all know that it is at that meeting that the policy of the party is made and reflected in Government proposals. We all know that the party committee is really a working committee where policy is produced. It is a meeting where the views of one's constituents are distilled into party politics. We have not discussed that, and we would be out of order to do so at length. If we are to take our job seriously, we must have expert guidance in Select Committees. We talk so blindly about controlling the Executive. I have never heard such pompous folly. How can 600-odd Members control thousands of civil servants? They can no more do
188
so than a board of directors of a large company can control the company unless it has the respect and confidence of the work force and unless the rest of industry believes that it can make a contribution.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I have told him that I would mention him, and he has explained that he could not remain to hear the debate. He said during his speech that when he left a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee he felt rather better for having attended. I am sorry to say that when I attend meetings of the Public Accounts Committee I feel very humble. I ask myself "Have I contributed anything to help the machine get on? Does the civil servant feel that my contribution has helped his Department? Has it helped the case?" This is our duty as Members of Parliament. How can we translate that feeling into reality in this House? How can we make our contribution? We can make it, I suggest, by bringing to bear the experience we have had, by seeing the world outside. We can bring to bear our experience over the years.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) said that a coal miner elected to this place has to be a full-time Member because he cannot go back to the mines. The hon. Member has got the matter quite wrong. We do not expect a coal miner to go back and work on the face, any more than I would be expected to go back and lay bricks because I once laid bricks. A coal miner who had a contribution to make here would bring his experience and knowledge to this House and show the nation how to improve productivity. If he had to go back for a time and work in management in the mines, he would be better for it.
Mr. John Ellis: I have never done a job where my employer would have permitted me to lob off to the House of Commons or anywhere else for two or three days a week. I was a shipyard worker. What would my employer have said if I had told him that I wanted to be off tomorrow because I had a debate at the House? It is all right if someone has a part-time director's job.
Mr. Costain: I agree that until a man gets into this place he will not find anyone who will allow him to come to the

189
House of Commons on Tuesdays and Thursdays. When he gets here, he should not devote the whole of his life to this place. He should get out and keep in touch with industry.
Mr. Emery: I was here for the major part of the start of the debate. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are a large number of coal miners who are face workers and officials who serve on local councils? They are given time off for service with local authorities. Why should they not at the same time be able to apply themselves in other areas? It is wrong to suggest that, because one is a coal face worker, a labourer or working with one's hands, one cannot be given time off for other executive responsibilities.
Mr. Costain: I thank my hon. Friend for intervening. But I said that I would speak for only 10 minutes, and I did not want him to take five of them.
If the House is to be up to date and efficient, we must use the best of all systems. When I was on various technical committees, I was shown in confidence Bills which were to be presented on First Reading three months later. As I was a Member of Parliament, it created suspicion whether I should see the Bills when they had been sent by a Government Department for the criticism of industry. As a Member of Parliament I was not allowed to see them, but as a member of a technical committee I was allowed to see and criticise them. That is farcical.
I welcome the idea that a Bill on First Reading should be in a form that we can see. A Bill should also be subject to examination in Committee by experts. I am chairing a non-controversial Bill through Committee. It is a technical Bill that deals with pilots and marine matters. We have a gallery full of experts. It would be preferable to have taken evidence directly from them rather than each Member rushing out to the corridor and having whispered into his ear what he should say. Such a Bill should be considered by experts at its first stage.
It is a farce in Committee that a Minister has to have notes passed to him. I like the Canadian idea which comes out in the report that a civil servant can sit
190
next to the Minister in the same way as a Clerk can sit next to the Chairman in Committee and help him to answer questions, not relying on how quickly he can scribble a note and whether the Minister can read it. That is not the way to legislate. The experts should be sitting by the Minister giving him advice. At certain stages of a Bill, the civil servants should be allowed to give evidence in Committee.
There is much need for reform, but it must be taken gradually in ways in which we in this House have the benefit of experience. There is no explanation for it, but amongst the 630-odd Members of the House we seem to have one of everything, an expert on most things. It is sheer coincidence. Can we use that expert knowledge for the benefit of the House and the nation?
11.14 p.m.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I want to take issue briefly with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) on what he said about the role of the full-time as against the part-time Member. But, first, I must say, as a member of a Select Committee, that I have found this a fascinating debate. We have learnt a great deal from the speeches. With only one exception, all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have accepted the thrust of the report, although they argued about the pace at which changes should be introduced. The one exception was my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) early in the debate. I want to take issue with him, although he is not here, because the record should be set straight on at least three areas where he damned our report with faint praise.
My right hon. Friend said that though a great deal of work had gone into the report and it was very pariseworthy, he thought that the Chamber would suffer, that there would be a division between specialists and the rest and, worse still, that the specialists on these new Committees would themselves perhaps be bought off.
Those arguments are fundamentally wrong. Equally, the other argument, which we have not heard today but which I had anticipated and will anticipate because I am sure it will be raised tomorrow when some other parliamentarians return from their extended

191
weekend, is that in some strange way the proposal to give more power to Select Committees would hamper the robust process of opposition which is the true nature of this place and the greater glory of the Chamber—that it would bring in overmuch consensus and rub away the sharp cutting edges of political debate.
All these arguments, whether they come from the consensual side—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford is nothing if not a consensus man—or from the sharply partisan side, are mistaken. The reason why we need to have Select Committees which are better able to undertake the process of scrutiny than the existing Committees is precisely that we have suffered already, the House has suffered and the legislature has suffered, and when that happens the Chamber suffers, too. Our debates, however strident and partisan they may be, are less well informed. I cannot believe that that is good.
Nor can I believe my right hon. Friend when he says that the members of specialist Select Committees would become an elite who would argue amongst themselves, whereas the humble Member who was not of that group would feel inhibited from taking part in debates on the subject in the Chamber, or that in some stranger way still the members of the Select Committees could be bought off by the Government. If that is not the case now—and I have not heard anyone suggest it today—I cannot see that it would be the case in the future.
We want to extend the process of scrutiny as effectively as the House has, over centuries, extended and entrenched the process of opposition. If we can make scrutiny as recognised in the parliamentary process as opposition traditionally has been, we shall have improved the lot of Parliament.
The problem is that the existence of part-time Members inhibits this process. I quite accept what the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said about his own attendance here. He is a most assiduous Member and an excellent Chairman of Committees. However, from all the research that I have seen on the matter, only about half of the Members of this House attend Committees. That is the nature of the problem. Those hon. Mem-
192
bers have to shoulder more of the work and perhaps will have to shoulder even more in the future.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is life.
Mr. Whitehead: It is certainly the case that no one could be as part-time as a part-timer used to be.
As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has joined us, I can recall the case of a great-uncle of my wife who sat as the Conservative Member for Chelmsford for more than 10 years. He was a brewer by profession. He brought all the specialist knowledge of brewing to this Chamber. He spoke twice in this Chamber in 10 years, against taxes on beer. That kind of part-time Member is no longer with us. Whichever side of the House he was on, he would have been drummed out now. Certainly he would have been if he had sat on these Benches.
I believe that we ought to see in future that the Member of Parliament, given the great complexity of the job, if he is to be effective here, is first more of a specialist and, secondly, more or less full-time in his attendance. That is not to say that he should become some kind of Lobby fodder hack, intent only upon drawing the money for the amount of hours he puts in. Of course, one keeps up one's outside specialisations and contacts, but what sticks in the craw of many of us here is the notion that one should be remunerated for that and that one should have to go to a particular office in the Strand for a couple of hours a day just to put in enough time to draw one's fees for the directorship or consultancy. That happens on both sides of the House. The Members we shall come increasingly to respect in this place are the Members who do the work at the rate for the job. Those Members, we believe, should be given proper facilities. Half of us on the Committee believed that they should be full-time.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who spoke most eloquently in opening the debate, said in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) that the Committee had by what he alleged was a curious vote decided to put in one reference to full-time Members. The majority was even narrower on my hon. Friend's amendment,

193
which would have been paragraph 1.12 in the report. If we are to pray in aid why we were not present to vote, and have extra lists delineating our dinner engagements and our wedding anniversaries and so on as well as our abstentions and our votes, I suppose it could be said that the Committee was at all stages more or less equally divided. So is the House. I do not think that we shall have full-time Members yet, but we must have better-informed Members who are regular attenders.
When my constituents read about some of the great rows in Parliament over matters such as the Bingham report or the aid to Chrysler and so on, they frequently ask me why we had not acted upon the matters earlier and why Parliament was unable to discover the facts before the scandal. I admit that there is the good work of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have paid tribute to it in the report. From time to time, various Sub-Committees of the Expenditure Committee come across this or that matter. But I have to tell my constituents that one of the reasons why we did not stumble over the oil sanctions scandal was that there was no specialist Committee of the House examining the matter in detail in the 1960s when the facts could have been discovered.
I have to tell them about the Chrysler matter that when the Prime Minister of the day was able to stop the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster coming to give evidence to a Select Committee which just happened to be looking into the motor industry at the time, that was an absolute scandal and an insult to Parliament. In so far as the report strengthens us in that area, it is good and for the good of the House.
I turn now to the process of legislation through the Chamber. First, I come to the procedures on timetabling. I joined the Committee after a year of its proceedings and so I was not privy to the earlier discussions about timetabling. I thought at that time that perhaps the Committee had gone far enough. After further consideration, I now believe that, while we have checked certain abuses, we have not gone far enough to see that there is proper consideration of Bills and that there is not the gratuitous time-wasting on the one hand and the overweighted bullying by the Government on
194
the other which under present procedures are bound to accompany the processes of legislation.
I have come to the view that we need a House Business Committee which would act as an arbiter, which would not happen under the proposals in the report on the Government's allocation of time for any Bill and the Opposition's desire to delay. Delay is the great weapon of Oppositions, but it should be a selective weapon rather than a blunt instrument, and it is better when it is used in that way. If consideration were given to a House Business Committee, selected as we propose in the report but giving judgment on all Bills, that would be a better process for scrutinising the claims of Government that, for example, only six days as opposed to eight, nine or 10 days should be allocated to a Committee stage.
My final point—again, I draw on my own experience in these matters—is that the process of scrutiny and discussion of a Bill would be improved also by our recommendation for there to be a Select Committee stage in the so-called Public Bill Committees. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that everybody here knows about something. The only thing that I knew about in any detail when I came here was the process of broadcasting, and I happened to be stuck almost at once on the then Government's Sound Broadcasting Bill in 1972.
I was appalled by the procedures on that Committee. I was appalled by what my own side did as well as by the then Government's attempt to drive it through, because the whole thing was a kind of political Passchendaele. We were fighting over inches of territory—over hours gained. The only objective of the Opposition was to keep the Bill in Committee until Easter, and the Government's objective was to drive it through with the minimum changes possible and with the minimum discussion, so it seemed to me, of the specialised objections made to the various clauses.
Surely, it is better in the eyes and the interests of our constituents that, just as we should see to it that every clause of a Bill of concern to them is given proper time, whether taken in Standing Committee upstairs or here on the Floor of the House, and that the timetable should allow for that, equally we should hear the

195
specialised interests, and the civil servants, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, since if that happened our constituents would not be able to say to us, as they do now, "You ignored these points. When Parliament passed this legislation there were these terrible flaws, and you did nothing. When you did nothing about it, it must have been because you cared nothing about it."
In fact, we have cared all right but we have not had the power to do anything about it in the past. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will take seriously the overwhelming opinion of the House, which we have heard today and, no doubt, we shall hear tomorrow, that the House should act upon these proposals in the interests of our entire democracy.
11.27 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Implicit in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and in many of the speeches in the debate thus far, I feel, is the idea that the House should in some way take over some of the functions of Government. To some extent that is desirable, and I certainly go along with the proposals so eloquently introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), but I believe that the House ought to bear in mind that we are not the Executive. We are the legislature, and, therefore, we are bound to have at all times a certain amount of opposition from the Executive of the day, which cannot divest from itself the responsibility of Government.
One sees that far more clearly perhaps in the Washington constitutional scene, where the American Government are a sort of amalgamation, a market place where everyone is fighting for his bit of what he can get. But here it is much more rigid, perhaps, and we must, albeit from time to time most unwillingly, allow the Government to govern.
It seems to me that in the proposals before us we are asking for more open government and that at least we should be able to monitor more than we can at present what the Government are doing. But we cannot allocate to ourselves a position which will allow us to control them very strictly.
196
If I may respectfully say so, one of the themes which I draw from the document before us is that by introducing these new Committees we shall in some way find a sort of new harmony between the House and the Government of the day. On the contrary, I believe that the closer we press them the harder they will fight back. They must do so to carry out their duties. It does not follow that we should not press them. However, we should not lose from our minds the thought that by introducing new and perhaps more efficient Committees to scrutinise more closely the work of Government we shall introduce less conflict. We are likely to introduce more conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) said that as a member of a working party outside the House he was privy to certain proposals of the Government which as a Member of Parliament he was not entitled to know. I have been in the same position recently as a member of a Select Committee. There are proposals from the Ministry of Defence for the reserve forces. When the Sub-Committee on Defence and External Affairs visited the reserve forces, it discovered that everybody present at the place of the visit—at least, all the officers and those in positions of responsibility—knew all about the proposals of the Government for the reserve forces. The proposals were contained in a report that the members of the Committee were not allowed to see. The officers had strict orders not to refer to the report when speaking to us. We felt humiliated.
There is a current example. The Sub-Committee of which I am a member is studying the rights and wrongs and the possibilities of replacing the nuclear weapon in the British armoury. To study that important issue, it asked the Ministry of Defence whether it could have before it various officers with certain responsibilities and scientists with responsibility under the Ministry of Defence who are also studying the issue. It asked for them to come before the Committee to give evidence. It was told that none of them could come. They were all ordered not to come before the Committee.
The only parliamentarian to come before the Committee to give evidence was the Secretary of State for Defence.

197
I yield to nobody in my admiration of our present Secretary of State, but I am bound to say that his evidence was extremely anodyne. It did not carry us far along the path of our important study. The Committee is not allowed by the Executive to hear any of those who are preparing the learned theses that are necessary to enable it to make up its mind.
It is disappointing that the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee is not allowed to hear the expert evidence that is at the disposal of the Ministry of Defence. Although I welcome unreservedly the proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire outlined, and although there should be a better and more coherent system of Committees, I do not fool myself that by having more Committees, or better Committees, we shall be able to topple the Executive from the position that it wishes to adopt. I only wish that that were possible.
The House has a role to play, and I believe that it will be helped in fulfilling it by the proposals before us, but let us not fool ourselves that we shall get very much further forward. The position is fundamentally one of constitutional conflict, and we should realise that.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. George Robertson: I rise to make a specific contribution on a specific recommendation. I hope not to detain the House too long in doing so.
It is perhaps symptomatic of the centralised legislature of the United Kingdom that we are discussing this important report—everyone who has contributed so far has emphasised its importance—during the week before the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales. There is likely to be a less than average attendance from the Celtic periphery.
The proposals include reference to the Summer Recess. It is important that a Member from Scotland should say that there is something of more general importance in dovetailing the Sessions of Parliament into the school holidays than the precise circumstances affecting Scotland. Parliament has an obligation not only to the constituents of hon. Members and the responsibilities of hon. Members. If we are to promote good practice throughout
198
the country, it is up to Parliament to set an example to the community in general.
Only a few weeks ago, a Government working party felt that the importance of the family was such that it was compelled to recommend a Minister for the family within the Cabinet to emphasise the importance of the family to the national life and the national economy.
I think that some of the habits of this House as exemplified in the Procedure Committee's report indicate that perhaps we have become unduly obsessed with the importance of flexibility and the open-ended nature of the final Session of Parliament rather than with the obligation that Members of Parliament have to their families. That is no more emphasised than in the circumstances facing most Scottish Members of Parliament. As a recent addition to this House, perhaps it is impertinent of me to do the emphasising here. There is, however, evidence in appendix 51 to the report from the Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party relating to the circumstances applying to the 71 Scottish Members of Parliament.
I mention that evidence since the point is not simply a national one. It is not even a Scottish one, because the nature of school holidays applies as uniquely in the North of England as it does in Scotland, terminating as they do just at the point at which this House goes into recess. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is not the Parliament—and even after devolution it will not be the Parliament—simply of England. Therefore, if we are to recognise periods of holiday, as distinct from periods of parliamentary recess, we must take into account the circumstances prevailing in parts of the United Kingdom other than England.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), the Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party, said in his evidence at appendix 51:
" Scottish M. P. s…are also deprived of the company of their children during most of the school holidays."
I think that it would be more effective to say that the children of Members of Parliament are deprived of the company usually of their fathers and occasionally of their mothers during that period—a part of their school holiday regarded by

199
most educationists as being of considerable importance to a child's upbringing.
At the same time, the majority of school holidays for the children of Scottish and North of England Members are taken up with their parents being involved in perhaps the heaviest part of a Session of Parliament. As one who had his initial experience solely in that period, I think that the 1978 Session, being a fairly light one in parliamentary history, tends to drive home the point that the emphasis on the family is taking less and less of a part in Parliament's priorities.
The recommendation in the Procedure Committee's report is that an earlier rising of Parliament for the long Summer Recess is desirable and should be sought. It is, however, said in other evidence to the Committee that the existence of an open-ended Session is necessary for the relationship between the Back Bencher and Parliament as a whole. But I think that, given that there is a remarkable similarity in the times at which Parliament acts, it may be open-ended in theory but there is a remarkable coincidence of dates, as described in the Committee's report, which tends to suggest that if there were ever any temptation by the Government to overrun the beginning of August and go into more than the second week of that month there would be a mass rebellion by those Members who come from parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland or the North of England.
I believe that Parliament must pay regard to the interests of the families of Members of Parliament. This is not simply a parochial or partisan point to be made by individuals who have young families, or even by those who come from areas of the country with eccentric school holiday dates.
If we are to lay down values for the rest of the community in looking after our families and paying regard to children's welfare, it is up to Parliament to take a lead in doing that. Due concern should be paid to the recommendation contained in paragraph 9.30(iii) when the report finds its way into legislation.
11.40 pm
Mr. Adam Butler: Hon. Members will know why it is fairly rare for me to participate in debates. That is also the reason why I was not able to
200
attend the opening Front Bench speeches. The fact that I am here shortly before midnight is an indication of the importance that I attach to the subject. The debate will last for two days, during which we shall collect the voices and air our views on the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
I agree that Friday business should start early in the day if it can be arranged. Friday is generally a day when I visit my constituency. This precludes me from taking part in important business, which is generally Private Members' business. Many Members of Parliament have a similar experience. It would be of considerable benefit if we rose at 2.30 pm on Fridays. As most Members of Parliament stay in London on Thursday nights, there is no reason why we should not meet at the earlier hour of 9.30 am.
I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said about the recess. We must pay greater regard to hon. Members' families and the changes in school holidays. We cannot possibly fix the dates of recesses in advance. The parliamentary timetable must be flexible for Government and Opposition business. Let us have greater regard for the school holidays and the demands of our families.
The question of Standing and Select Committees on Bills was one of the most interesting ideas considered by the Select Committee. For a long time there have been various ways of looking at the subjects of Bills, which may proceed through the party route. Reference was made to the party committees. That is one way in which matters dealt with in a Bill can be considered. Hon Members may consider the individual subjects. It is very much for the Government to deal with subjects either through the Green Paper or the White Paper procedure.
Lobbies are becoming much stronger than in the past. Whether we should upset the Standing Committee procedure for Bills is a question that needs detailed consideration. However, there is a strong case—I go no further—for having a Select Committee procedure on Bills, to which the representations of the lobbies can be made in public rather than through private Members which is generally accepted today. My experience will be similar to that of other hon. Members.

201
Generally, we refer representations to colleagues sitting on the Committee dealing with the Bill in question. There is a considerable argument in favour of a Select Committee procedure on Bills before they go to Standing Committee.
The main proposal of the Procedure Committee on Select Committees shadows the main Departments of State. This is part of the process which I believe we have to go through to strengthen the role of Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive and the attendant bureaucracy. The tendency in recent times has been to move far away from Parliament. The debate has been largely non-political, but I see this tendency as being very much represented in the Government's approach to settling some of our national problems through the special relationships held with one main power group in our society, the Trades Union Congress. I believe that this tendency is constitutionally unhealthy and that it is essential that we bring back power to Parliament in as many ways as we can. That is one reason why I have been a keen supporter of sound radio and, indeed, of television, believing those to be ways of bringing attention back to Parliament and having the main speeches which affect the future of this country made in this place.
But we have the difficulty in our parliamentary system that we manage to combine the Executive with the legislature in the shape of the same people, and the tendency over the past years has been for the Executive to gain control and, through the two-party system, to be able to put through Parliament virtually what it wants, provided it controls its majority. It does not follow, if we strengthen the Select Committee system, that that majority will not be able to be used by an unscrupulous Executive. Probably most of us who have served on Select Committees would agree that there is something about them that seems to break down the party system. I think that that feeling can survive if we proceed with the recommendations of the Select Committee.
My own experience for about 18 months was on the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, which took some valuable evidence on the role of public money in the
202
private sector of industry. Indeed, we almost bypassed this place, for by the evidence that we took we contributed to the Industry Act 1972. On that Sub-Committee we were able to produce a unanimous report, as has so often been the experience of the Sub-Committees of the Expenditure Committee. At least for a time we seemed to put aside some of our party political differences. That feeling will not survive in the same way as it has done in the past if we adopt a system of shadow Select Committees, but I still think that it has a good chance of so doing. It is probably valuable for thrashing out some of the problems that confront us.
But the role of those Committees that I see as being most valuable is that of being able to quiz the Civil Service and the Ministers concerned with policy in their Departments. I have one particular proviso in this respect. I do not see that the Government of the day can operate if they have to disclose their forward thinking to a Select Committee in more than general terms. Therefore, I would expect the Committees, if they are to be set up, to be bound principally by the requirement to look at the historical position—perhaps in the same way as when Ministers appear before the Public Accounts Committee. It looks historically at the way in which they have performed in financial matters, but: Minister do not, for reasons that the House will understand, lay bare their forward thinking on policy, except in general terms. That is an important proviso which I hope the Committee will have to observe.
Mention has been made of the need for specialisation if we are to go down this route. It has always been my view that in order to make an impact in this place it is essential to specialise. We can all make general speeches outside the House on any subject that we like. The respect that any Member gains when he is speaking in this Chamber or in Committee comes from his experience or specialist knowledge. Therefore, it does not worry me that any Member serving on Committees should become increasingly specialist in his own subject.
However, we must avoid the American Congressional system, where, by and large, a Congressman will serve his entire Congressional life on a specialist committee and the chairmanship changes

203
through the process of stepping into dead men's shoes. I hope that we shall have the sort of flexibility that we have now through our Select Committee system. Nevertheless, some hon. Members will develop a particular expertise and will be all the more valuable for that.
Various hon. Members have referred to the problem of getting Select Committee reports debated in the Chamber. It would be valuable to have the new Select Committee procedure with proceedings held in public. But that will be only half the task. It will be incomplete if the reports are not properly debated in the House. This may be wishful thinking. We all know that if a Select Committee report is being debated the Chamber tends to empty and that those excellent hon. Members from both sides of the House who served on the Committee will debate the subject, probably using exactly the same phraseology and arguments as they used in the Committee.
What the Government do—perhaps we can bind them by resolution of the House—is to find more time for Select Committee reports to be debated here. Then it will be up to individual hon. Members to treat them with the importance that they deserve. But I hope that if the whole emphasis can move towards this procedure, and if the importance of this new procedure is fully realised, the reports will be treated with the importance that they deserve.
There is one final point that I must make very strongly. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office, who is taking notes of what is said, will make strong representations to the Lord President that after this two-day debate we should have the opportunity to vote on the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I cannot stress that enough. I do not believe that the argument holds that we should wait until a new Parliament. Of course, one can suggest that a new Parliament might decide on its own rules, but it is nonsense to deny to a large number of right hon. and hon. Members who will be leaving this place at the next election, voluntarily or involuntarily, the opportunity to give of their wisdom and experience in a vote on the Procedure Committee's recommendations, which I believe to be among the most important
204
things the House has had to consider for some while.
11.55 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: As I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), and as it is the normal tradition in this House, I should like to take up a point he raised. I shall refer to it later, but I wish to emphasise it now. The specialist is someone—perhaps not simply because of the role he has played in Committee, but because he can come to the House and speak with authority on a given subject—who has listened to, plays the greatest part in and makes the greatest contribution to the debates and the continuation of the work of the House. I do not apologise for rising to speak at this time. I listened to four hours of the debate before I had to leave for a short while.
I wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on his speech and the work that he and his Committee have done. It was a great service to the House. There are many of us who have been here not for very long but for 15 or 20 years who want to see a modernisation of our procedure. Certainly my right hon. and learned Friend and his Committee have, I hope, provided a means to take positive steps in that direction.
Sir David Renton: I was not the Chairman. It was the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams).
Mr. Emery: I understood that. I did say "on his speech". I did not refer to my right hon. and learned Friend as being the Chairman.
At this hour I do not wish to be critical, but I am sorry that the report did not stress that this is a debating Chamber and should remain so. It should not be a Chamber of set speeches, prepared in advance and presented whether by Front Bench Ministers or by experts on one side or the other who wish to put a particular point of view. Whatever reforms are introduced, we should try to ensure that we attempt to stimulate hon. Members to debate the subject and to argue contra, one with the other, about the matters raised during that debate. From my reading of the report, I am sorry to say that that does not come out very clearly. That is something which

205
I hope we shall ensure in whatever reform we carry through.
I take issue with one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). He made an interesting speech, but I did not agree when he said that we are not the Executive but the legislature.
Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend cannot possibly disagree with that.
Mr. Emery: Well, I can, and I intend so to do. One of the problems is that too often in the House the Executive, because of its strength, is able to ensure that the legislature does exactly what it, the Executive, wants. Therefore, the Executive has taken unto itself the power of forcing legislation through the House so that the legislature has no power to alter it. That, I believe, is something which could be altered on the lines of the American system.
I am sorry to have to draw on American aspects, but in the American system the Executive is not, and cannot be, the absolute legislature, whereas all too often in Government business it is not this House which actually forms the legislature, although it may rubber-stamp it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud suggests.
Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend must not always look for pie in the sky. He may think that the American constitution is better than ours, but we do not have a federal constitution. Here we have the Executive and legislature mixed up as to personalities but with very different functions. The Executive must govern, and the legislature must talk. That my hon. Friend is doing extremely well. But it is no good his talking as if he can talk himself into being the Executive, because constitutionally he cannot do that. He will have to wait for a general election before he can do that.
Mr. Emery: I do not believe that I am talking about pie in the sky. I think that my hon. Friend is trying to bemuse my argument. What I am suggesting has nothing to do with general elections or with whichever party occupies the Treasury Bench. But my hon. Friend, who has been a Minister, knows only too well that too often in this Chamber the Executive is able to present a Bill which, if it wishes, it can force through com-
206
pletely unamended, whatever the House may think. That is no strength to the legislature. Therefore, there is no sense in attempting to argue that the Executive is not a legislature, because it is very much the case that it is.
I turn to three specific aspects of the report and then to two matters about the Sessional Committee's reports. I was a member of the Sessional Committee, and I do not believe that its reports have been considered to the extent that I would have wished because of the importance of the main report.
I turn first to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. There has been great play, and a great argument from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), that the House is wrong in attempting to follow the recommendation of the Procedure Committee. I served on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for three years, and the point that has not been made is that that Committee covers and deals with a set nationalised industry only about once every five years. Once it has finished its report that nationalised industry has no worry for three, four or five years hence.
Miss Jo Richardson: I am a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. For the last few years we have had a habit of considering the annual reports and accounts of as many of the nationalised industries as we can. That at least gives us some scrutiny over them. In addition, we carry out in-depth probings from time to time.
Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I think that she underlined what I said. She said that the Committee undertook "in-depth probings from time to time". What I am suggesting is that in respect of the major nationalised industries that "in depth" probing is carried out about once every five years.
If the possibility of aligning that with the ministerial responsibilities of the set subject factors as suggested in the report is accepted, any nationalised industry will know that a running consideration of that industry is taking place all the time. I see that as an advantage. It does not overcome certain of the advantages which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has been able to present, but it

207
is a counter-argument that must be presented before one comes to a decision on whether one abolishes the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
I turn, secondly, to paragraph 9.23 of the report. That says:
" We consider that the work of a Member of Parliament should be a full-time job, particularly if the proposals in this report for increasing parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive are accepted."
I know that this was an amendment to the report which was carried by a split decision of six votes to five. But I reject this absolutely and completely. If this Chamber becomes one for nothing but full-time politicians, it will lower its standing in the country by 10 times the degree to which it has been lowered over the last four or five years. If a Member of Parliament cannot bring to his decision-making an up-to-date experience of what the world outside politics is about, he will be making the worst possible decisions. Decisions based purely on party politics are the worst types of decisions, be they about economics, industry or so many of the subjects on which the Executive must decide. It is partly because that has been happening more and more that this Chamber has lost much of the respect that it used to have in the eyes of the public.
I make no judgment about anyone else, but I do not hold myself as being the most able or the most hard-working Member of Parliament. However, for the whole of my 20 years as a Member of the House, other than the time during which I was a Minister, I have held executive responsibility in companies—not merely responsibility as a director—at the same time as I have carried on my parliamentary duties. It has meant that one has had to work damned hard. But I have enjoyed it and loved it. I make no complaint.
I believe that the fact that I can come to the House with a knowledge of the oil industry and of banking today—not of 10 or 15 years ago, as is too often the case with some who merely sit on boards—and with an executive responsibility allows me to talk with an authority which people outside the House respect. People outside the House have no respect for Members who blabber away on matters
208
about which they think they know something because they have read about them—not because they know actively at that time what is going on in a certain industry or concern.
Sir David Renton: And take decisions.
Mr. Emery: On the matters concerned, they then take decisions which affect the whole of the community.
Therefore, it would be a great blow to parliamentary democracy if we insisted that Members of Parliament here, similar to those in America, had no real outside interests. Many senior American Senators and Members of the House of Representatives say that one of the tragedies of the American system is that Members have these interests unofficially. They cannot declare them. They must not be known about. It is done under the counter. Surely that is the worst of all possible worlds. Therefore, it is essential that we have here a large number of Members of Parliament who are able to carry on a duality of jobs.
I accept that it is wrong for hon. Members who do anything outside the House to expect the House to organise its activities for their benefit. One's first interest must be the House of Commons, and one one must be able to deal with and carry out the full responsibilities of the House. It would be wrong if the House arranged its timetable, debates or Committees to meet the convenience of outside interests.
I have argued about the need to encourage Members to gain experience outside. I talk not only of industry but of trade unions and journalism. I am happy for Members to have any industrial or other interest. It should be secondary to their parliamentary commitments; but that should make them better able to make decisions.
I turn to the subject of questions to the Prime Minister. Any Member who has been in the House for a time will accept that questions to the Prime Minister have altered in character in the last 10 years. I do not wish to judge whether that has been good or bad. But it is strange that we should not want the Prime Minister to give the most serious and well-reasoned reply to any hon. Member.
The type of question that has evolved, such as "When is the Prime Minister meeting the TUC or the CBI?" or

209
" What are his arrangements?", is regarded as an enabling question which allows an hon. Member to pose any question which he believes will hit the headlines on that day.
The House must decide whether that is good or bad. I judge that it is not good. The Prime Minister should have the right—and the protection—of answering in depth the questions which are asked. Therefore I approve the recommendations on this matter. They will ensure that we have a better discipline and a system which is an improvement on the parliamentary "bingo game" which means that the cleverest question is broadcast on radio and quoted in the newspapers. That is not what the House is about. I hope that the House is wise enough to escape from it.
I turn to the question of Standing Order No. 9. The judgment of the Committee, even before the happenings of the last two months, is correct. It is even more correct now than it was before. What happened was that Members of Parliament were taking advantage of the original purpose of Standing Order No. 9 to raise constituency matters or issues which might gain them publicity. They knew that there was little chance of their application being accepted, but this method gave them the chance of using prime parliamentary time, before Orders of the Day, to raise a subject which they could not otherwise have debated.
The Select Committee suggested that the Standing Order No. 9 procedure should operate in the same way as a private notice question and that it should be for Mr. Speaker to judge whether the matter was of sufficient importance to allow an hon. Member to put it to the House. It seemed to us on the Committee that that was the way to bring some order into the situation in the face of ever-increasing applications under Standing Order No. 9. I accept that this imposes greater responsibility on Mr. Speaker, who already has enough burdens. It is unkind to burden him further. However, it is not something to which Mr. Speaker is unaccustomed.
During the proceedings in Committee we were made aware that some hon. Members had suggested to Mr. Speaker that if their private notice question was not allowed they would make an application under Standing Order No. 9. That is
210
a pressure to which the Chair ought not to be subjected and a procedure which should not be allowed to hon. Members. It reinforced our argument that we were right to recommend the limitation on applications under Standing Order No. 9.
I accept the Committee's recommendation that we should have specialist Committees to shadow a number of Ministers. This is the only way in which we can decrease the authority of the Executive. Those who were present at the beginning of the debate will recall that I asked the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving), about any other method of limiting the power of the Executive. It seemed that he was not able to give an alternative method.
Therefore, while I endorse absolutely the appointment of these Committees. I do not believe that the House has considered in depth from which side of the House the Chairman of such a Commit tee should be appointed. If the Chairman is a member of the party in Government, the Committee may be seen as an adjunct of the Minister and a method of following Government policy. If he is a member of an Opposition party, he will immediately be seen as an opponent of the Government, attempting at all times to criticise the activities of the Executive and the Minister. But he cannot be somebody in between. The House must come to grips with that problem when setting up the Committees.
I urge that the Chairmen be drawn from the Opposition. That will not please the Government in power.
Mr. English: I congratulate the hon. Member on raising a point that we did not discuss in detail. At present, both Government and Opposition Members chair a variety of Committees. For example, the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee that I chair has always had a Labour Chairman, whatever the party in Government. There are other examples, and there are Committees that are always chaired by Opposition Members. Both are possible.
Sir David Renton: The strict position under the rules of order is that each Select Committee chooses its own Chairman. Theoretically, the field is open.
Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned

211
Friend for their interventions. I am delighted that at 23 minutes past 12 we are debating the report in this way. But I am a cynic. I believe that the Chairman is more likely to be a nominee acceptable to the Government Whips. I do not think that I am far wrong in my judgment of the behind-the-scenes operation. In theory the Committee may make its own choice, but there is a good deal of influence on that decision. It would be fairer to face the point: is that Chairman pro-Government or anti-Government? If we are to get a degree of independence for the House, that Chairman should not be from the party in Government. That may be difficult for Ministers and the Executive. But they have had it their way for too long. It is about time that this House brought authority back to the Chamber and its Members. That is one way to achieve it.
Let us all pray that the Government bring some decision-making procedure to the Floor of the House before we go into a general election. Government supporters may say that it will be difficult and unpopular, and that it should be left to the new Government. However, we still have nine months to go. We all know that there will not be a general election until October. There is plenty of time. If the task is left to the incoming Government, they will have so many difficulties to overcome that the chance of their spending time dealing with the procedure of this House in the first 12 months of their period in office is very slight Therefore, I suggest that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the House is able to come to decisions on certain of these recommendations before a general election.
I have signed the early-day motion tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. I did so with a slightly heavy heart. My reason for doing so is that I want some of these matters decided. However, if my right hon. and learned Friend really hopes that all the recommendations will be voted upon individually, with amendments, and so on, we shall find ourselves devoting weeks to the job.
I hope that the usual channels will get together and decide how we can come to
212
a number of sensible decisions on the recommendations in the report. But it is essential that before we go into a general election we decide the method by which the new Parliament should set about dealing with the next five years after the election. If we can achieve that, it will be of great benefit to this House and the nation as a whole.
12.27 a.m.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: It is rare that a Back Bencher can rise in this House knowing that there is almost no constraint on his ability to address the House for as long as he wants to. It is the general experience of Back Benchers that they rise towards the end of a debate and feel constrained to be much more brief than they would choose to be. Rarely does a Back Bencher have more than five minutes in which to address the House. As a simple engineer, I must tell hon. Members that, having done a little equation of the ability of this House to hear Back Benchers, it is the norm for Back Benchers to have not more than the chance of making three 10-minute speeches in a year. That is the standard which most Back Benchers have to accommodate in their life in this House. It works out at about 0·03 seconds per constituent over the life of one year of a Back Bencher in this House.
I am inclined to the view, having looked at these long volumes of the Select Committees' reports, that, welcome as they are to this House, we have approximately twice as many Members of Parliament as the country needs. If I were one of those who went to the wall, so be it. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour, would naturally wish me to be one who went to the wall. But with the necessary adequate support there is no reason why each hon. Member could not deal with constituencies twice the size of those we now serve. Therefore, we would have a better chance to serve double the number of constituents.
I welcome the idea that Select Committees should look more broadly at the work of Government Departments. You will be aware from your experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the standard of interrogation in those Select Committees shows the inadequacies of today's Government machinery. It is not sufficient to look after the government of this country,

213
and I do not think that either the Government or the Opposition can be satisfied with the reports that Select Committees produce on the standard of the Executive and the Civil Service.
We are not now getting on the Floor of the House the standard of information that we as Members of Parliament expect to enable us adequately to interrogate Ministers. Today was a beautiful example of the ability of a Government Front Bench to fail to communicate information that was sought by its own Back Benchers and by the Opposition. The standard today is not sufficient for the continuity of democracy, and I believe that this House must reform itself, because there is no other means by which it shall be done.
Mr. Peter Snape (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]
12.32 am
Miss Jo Richardson: After the disclosure earlier this month that a virginity test had been carried out at London airport on an Asian lady arriving to marry her fiance, there has been a widespread outcry, first in The Guardian and subsequently in the rest of the media, from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, from the Indian Workers' Association, from the Commission for Racial Equality, from the Equal Opportunities Commission and from many outraged members of the public. There has been an outcry also from the Indian Government and the Indian press.
The disclosure of that test has led to more revelations and to discussions of other practices which are carried out by immigration and entry clearance officers at posts overseas. My purpose tonight is to draw attention to those practices rather than to the virginity tests. I want from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a promise of a public inquiry into the practices and the way that they are carried out.
214
Two things become clear. First, if we had a freedom of information Act this issue might not have arisen. We might have been able much more easily to demand to know the facts had such an Act been in force. Secondly, if we had Select Committees to monitor Government Departments, and if there had been one to monitor the Home Office, we might have been able to find out what has been happening.
I want to begin by referring to the virginity tests and by paying tribute to the lady who was courageous enough to complain. She suffered very much, and we should try to let her know that she has done a public service by revealing what happened to her. Suspicions have existed in all sorts of organisations and among a large number of members of the public that such tests have been carried out in the past. But since Asian women are extremely modest, and since this kind of test is frightening, painful and morally affronting, it has probably been difficult for any women who have been subjected to it to discuss it even with their families and fiances.
I want to tell the lady concerned, and any others who have undergone a similar ordeal, that I am sure the House would wish to endorse the public apology which the Home Secretary made in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who is her Member of Parliament.
We all welcome my right hon. Friend's immediate action in issuing instructions that such tests must not take place, and the instruction also from the Foreign Office that such things must not happen in our posts overseas. That is entirely as it should be, and all of us were encouraged by the commendable speed with which the instructions were issued.
I have since received from my hon. Friend the Minister of State a letter in reply to my own protest. While he has tried to explain the situation, I confess that I found his letter complacent and rather grudging. Indeed, it by no means answers completely either my letter or the questions which I and other hon. Members have tabled about this test. The letter does not say, for example, and neither did the answer to the questions, whether the practice was known about at ministerial level.

215
I have been busy telling people—and, indeed, really believing it—that since my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), when he was Minister of State, told us that he had issued instructions for the practice to cease, it had in fact ceased and had crept back only in some individual way on the part of some individual immigration officers, and that neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor my hon. Friend the Minister of State could have known about it. I should like an assurance that they did not know about it. But if they are able to give an assurance that they did not authorise it, who did? The House should demand to know who did in fact authorise it.
We ought to know at what level in the Home Office this practice was known. Who were the people who made the decision that these tests should be carried out? Were they in the Home Office itself, or was the practice restarted by individual members of the immigration service?
For offensive and discriminatory practices to be ordered by anyone is, in my view, wrong, but if they be ordered by an immigration officer, who is the equivalent of an executive officer in the Civil Service, or even by a chief immigration officer, who holds the equivalent grade of a senior executive officer, that is, to my mind, to give people at a relatively junior level in the Civil Service powers which they should not have.
Tests such as these are discriminatory, and doubly so. They are sex discriminatory because they can be carried out only on women. Who ever heard of a virginity test being carried out on men? They are racially discriminatory because they have been carried out on women who come from a cultural background which places particular emphasis on female modesty—in other words, on Asian women.
I asked for a breakdown by country of origin of the figures for women who had had to submit to this test and I got no answer. I am willing to bet that no immigration officer has ever tried to inflict the test on a white woman passenger. I am sure that he would have got a clip over the ear if he had tried to do so. So it would seem that Asian women can be asked, or have been asked, to submit themselves to it, but white women can-
216
not have been. There are a number of questions which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have not yet answered, and I hope that they will be answered tonight.
My main purpose is to widen the issue beyond the virginity test and to ask whether the other practices that are carried out by the immigration service and entry clearance officers are not equally dubious. There has been a great deal of disquiet about revelations on the use of X-rays. The evidence is alarming. It has alarmed qualified radiologists, members of the medical profession and the World Health Organisation. The WHO has said that it exposes those tested to unnecessary radiation risk, especially, as has happened in one instance, if the test is carried out on pregnant women. That is something that we would never allow in Britain through the National Health Service.
It is common practice—all Members of Parliament with immigration cases know it—that at our embassies and high commissions abroad X-rays are used to determine the age of a child or young person. Following the hullabaloo that has arisen—many of us have been protesting about the use of X-rays to determine age—medical opinion, too, is beginning to query the practice. It is beginning to say that it is an unreliable method of determining age.
One of my constituents is a young lady aged 19. She has been engaged for some years to a boy of her own age. When the time came for him to enter the country, he applied in the normal way for entry as a fiance. When he was interviewed, he was asked to submit to an X-ray test. He thought that that was strange but he submitted to it. He was informed that he was not 19 years of age but 13. The matter has gone to appeal. My constituent is affronted that her fiance's birth certificate should be disbelieved. He has a valid birth certificate. She is upset that she should be thought to be a baby-snatcher. She said:
" No way do I ever want to marry a kid of 13."
It is clear from the descriptions which I am sure all of us receive from our constituents and from other evidence that, far from merely checking the documents of

217
applicants for entry and courteously making inquiries, many entry clearance officers start from the standpoint that applicants must be lying and are probably not the persons they claim to be.
Tricky questions are asked. Often they are asked of the children, and of children in the same family, separately. For example, they are asked "How many people are there in your family? How many sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts and cousins do you have? How many rooms are there in your house? What is the relationship and the distance between the kitchen and the living room?" I should find it hard to remember the disposition of my flat, and I can understand how others become muddled about these matters.
One of my constituents came to Britain in 1963. He raised enough money to be able to bring his wife to join him here in 1973. The application was refused because there were discrepancies between his story about the number of buffalo on his father's smallholding and his wife's story about the number of buffalo. Trivial matters of that sort have caused a great deal of trouble and have caused many families to remain separated.
It is high time that the secret instructions given by the Home Secretary to immigration officers under the immigration legislation were made public. The instructions to entry clearance officers should also be published. When so much power lies in the hands of relatively junior officials, it is essential that we know the nature of the detailed guidance. If the guidance is unacceptable, we can campaign to change it. If it is reasonable, public opinion will be reassured and we shall know when the cases are brought to us whether the guidelines have been breached in any way.
I am talking about the frequent rudeness and abuse to which those arriving at London airport are subjected by members of the immigration service. I am talking about the personal and offensive questioning that they have to undergo overseas and here at ports of entry. I am talking about the often unnecessary detention at Harmondsworth and Gatwick. In 1978 at Gatwick there was one instance of detention lasting a little over seven months. I am sure that much of that detention is unnecessary. All that could
218
be exposed and restricted if we knew the exact nature of the guidelines.
Many tourists come to this country—Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians and so on. If they are white, they come in properly as visitors. They are not questioned. They are not rounded up after staying here for a month and shoved into Pentonville prison. But if they are black they often are.
We must make the immigration service and the entry clearance service subject to proper scrutiny and ministerial control. We have no procedure for investigating complaints about the behaviour of officials. If we complain to the Minister, all that he does is to ask the immigration service about which we have complained for a report about itself. And the Minister always upholds the findings of that report from his own service.
Many organisations—I mentioned them before—have complained and caused an outcry about what has happened about virginity and other tests. I know that the whole matter has caused resentment in the entire Indian subcontinent.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Select Committee on Overseas Development has been in India during the past fortnight and I can tell my hon. Friend that representations were made by parliamentarians of the Lok Sabha. They will be pleased to hear what my hon. Friend has said tonight.
Miss Richardson: I am sure that that is true, because I have seen the Indian press. I believe that the Indian Parliament reassembled today, and there will probably be a debate on the matter.
Let me reiterate my three demands. We need a public and independent inquiry into the conduct and control of the immigration service and into the conduct of our officers overseas. We want the publication of the detailed instructions that are given to them. Finally, we want the establishment of an independent procedure for investigating complaints.
If those three things are done by my right hon. Friend, he will do much to allay the alarm that has arisen amongst Asians and lessen their sense of affront. It will help to repair the damaged relations between Britain and India, and this is important. It will lessen the sense of shame, and it is a sense of shame that is

219
felt by many people in this country, that such things can happen here. It will show that when we protest, as we rightly do, about limitations on human rights imposed by other countries, we are doing everything possible here to ensure that human rights are respected. We have, after all, obligations under the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits
" cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment ",
which is precisely what we have been handing out to the people whom we should be welcoming here. It would also reassure those who believe in combating racialism and who trust the Government to do the same thing. Anything less than agreement to those three demands will leave an ugly smear on Britain's face.
12.48 a.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): This debate affords me an opportunity to clear up misunderstandings which have arisen about our immigration procedures and to announce some steps that I propose to take.
First, it is important to consider the recent incident in the context of the immigration control as a whole, and many of the comments which have been made about the recent case—which I shall come to in a moment—seek to draw conclusions about the whole procedure for examining people wishing to come to this country.
During 1977 the immigration service examined and admitted to the United Kingdom, in accordance with rules approved by the House, more than 12 million people subject to control under the Immigration Act. In the course of those examinations about 15,700 people were found not to be qualified for admission under the rules and were refused leave to enter. In other words, only about 0·1 per cent of those arriving at the ports were refused entry.
The refusal rate is naturally higher in respect of countries from which there is strong pressure to emigrate but, even so, of those from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who arrived here in 1977, 0·8 per cent. were refused admission. That is substantially lower than the refusal rate from a number of other countries.
220
It is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that a proportion of those coming here attempt to do so by pretending to have qualifications under the rules which they do not have. Many hon. Members will know of individual cases where this has been shown to be so. There are those who claim to be dependants but who are in fact married, independent, and so on. I do not want to go into all the cases. They are not imagined deceptions. It was for this reason that an independent procedure was set up in the late 1960s. Such cases are known and experienced daily. It is therefore to be expected that in a proportion of the cases coming before him the immigration officer will suspect deceit and have to inquire into it. Nothing in the recent case, or in the instructions which I gave in the light of it, alters the fact that the immigration service must inquire into cases where evasion of the controls authorised by Parliament is suspected.
Let me now come to the particular case. The immigration officer concerned suspected that a woman seeking entry as a fiancee might already be married. If she was the wife of someone other than the man said to be her fiance, she would obviously not have been eligible to enter as his fiancee. If she was already married to him, she would have required an entry clearance as a wife seeking to come here for settlement. It is a fact that entry clearances are required for wives and not for fiancees.
Although we may now discount those suspicions in this case, it does not follow that it was unreasonable for the officer concerned to have them. The immigration rules approved by Parliament state quite clearly that
" A passenger who intends to remain in the United Kingdom for more than six months should normally be referred to the medical inspector for examination."
This is in the interests of public health and to prevent advantage being taken of the facilities provided by the NHS by those not entitled to make use of them. In 1977, 45,000 travellers were medically examined at the ports of entry in accordance with powers and rules approved by this House.
As a fiancee, the woman in this case was required to undergo the usual medical examination required under the rules to which I referred for a person coming

221
to settle here. From the inquiries that I have made, I understand that in referring her to the medical inspector for this purpose the immigration officer asked if, in addition, he would give his opinion whether she had borne children. In this case—I am giving the facts of the matter—the woman's written consent to an examination was obtained after its purpose had been explained to her in her native tongue. In saying that, I fully understand that there must have been, whatever the circumstances, an element or duress involved.
The case has given rise to important and damaging misunderstandings. I have had inquiries made. While it is not possible in the nature of things to say categorically that an examination like that made by the doctor in the recent case had never been made before for the same purpose, I have had inquiries made from the records of medical examinations at the ports. To the best of their knowledge, a vaginal examination for such a purpose may have been made only once or twice during the past eight years, according to the records which have been looked at. That does not excuse what happened, but I am trying to put the matter in perspective.
Nevertheless, as I have already made clear to the House, I considered the reports on this case and decided that immigration officers should not ask the medical inspector to examine passengers with a view to establishing whether they had borne children or had had sexual relations. Identical instructions have been given to posts overseas. The fact of the occurrence, once, twice or three times, was not known to Ministers. Nevertheless, it is a ministerial responsibility, whether we knew or not.
My hon. Friend referred to instructions in the past by a former Minister of State. From the investigations that I have made, I can say that the instruction that was given in Pakistan at that time, even if it had been issued more widely, would not have forbidden the sort of request made in the recent case.
I am also looking into the objects and nature of all medical examinations, in the immigration control context, to establish a standard and acceptable set of procedures. I have done that in consultation with my chief medical adviser, Sir Henry
222
Yellowlees, and I shall announce the conclusions when the investigation is finished. There have to be medical examinations. They must be looked at by a professional to find out the nature of them and the reason for them. When the investigation is finished, I shall, as Isaid, let the House know the result.
The question of X-ray examinations was raised tonight. It has been raised in the last few weeks. I have asked myself questions about the need for X-ray examinations and the method of them. There is the question of X-ray examinations to assess age, as opposed to tests for diagnostic purposes. I judge it to be right, in view of the concern which has been expressed in recent days about such tests, that this question should be properly considered again. I am accordingly reviewing this matter also, taking into full account expert professional advice. We are looking at medical examinations for the purposes of immigration control and at X-ray examinations. It is, I think, time that we looked at these, and I shall announce the findings to the House in each case.
My hon. Friend talked about instructions to immigration officers, and I have looked at these carefully. I have read through the instructions again today. One of their purposes is to deal with abuse, and undoubtedly it would be wrong to publish some of the information that is given in those instructions. It would only help those who want to abuse immigration control. I have looked at them most carefully, and I do not believe that, in the context that we are discussing tonight, anything would be achieved by such publication.
I am well aware of the effect of the recent case on members of the minority communities living here and on those wishing to come here. I deeply regret this and the distress experienced by the woman in the case. I hope, however, that what I have been able to say tonight will put the matter into perspective and add to the reassurance which I hope and believe should also have been provided by my announcement two days after the case came to notice.
In the same spirit, I would also say—I have many responsibilities in this respect—that it is easy to forget the many thousands of cases handled without criti-

223
cism and to draw from the particular case unjustified general conclusions about the operation of the control as a whole.
It is right that in this one aspect, let alone all the others, there should be immigration control. Since hearing what happened, I have asked myself what I would expect for the female members of my own family, and it is on that basis and on the basis of the facts as I have been able to ascertain them that I have looked at this matter.
We shall look at medical examinations for the purpose of immigration control and at the question of X-rays. Thought has been given to this for some time. There is the question of the purpose of X-ray control, and whether it helps. Given the problems arising from X-rays,
224
should it be done? We are looking at that as well.
I would not want to be responsible for an unfortunate case such as we have been considering, but I do not hide from my responsibility. It happened in my time as Home Secretary, if only on two or three occasions, and therefore it is my responsibility. It is sad that that has sparked off the two inquiries that I shall have carried out professionally But at least I hope that out of a most unfortunate incident, which I wish had not taken place, some good will result.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to announce this tonight.
Question put and agreed to
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

INDUSTRY
  Special Steels
  Special Steels
  Industrial Strategy
  Industrial Strategy
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Textile Industry (Lancashire)
  Textile Industry (Lancashire)
  International Computers Limited
  International Computers Limited
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Investment
  Investment
  Industrial Output
  Industrial Output
  British Steel Corporation (Corporate Plan)
  British Steel Corporation (Corporate Plan)
  Sector Working Parties (Performance)
  Sector Working Parties (Performance)
  Sir Anthony Part
  Sir Anthony Part
  Civil Servants (Retirement)
  Civil Servants (Retirement)
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Output
  Output
  Steel Industry (Import Penetration)
  Steel Industry (Import Penetration)
  Lucas Aerospace, Liverpool
  Lucas Aerospace, Liverpool
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Compensation)
  Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Compensation)
  Private Industry (Government Assistance)
  Private Industry (Government Assistance)
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Biotechnological Processes
  Biotechnological Processes
  Dunlop Ltd.
  Dunlop Ltd.
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
  Works of Art and Museum Objects
  Works of Art and Museum Objects
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panel)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Panel)
  London Music Colleges (Salaries)
  London Music Colleges (Salaries)
  Chinese Students
  Chinese Students
  Discretionary Grants
  Discretionary Grants
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
EMPLOYMENT
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
  Maternity Pay
  Maternity Pay
  Training Boards
  Training Boards
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Youth Opportunities and Special Training
  Youth Opportunities and Special Training
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Sentences (Suspension)
  Prison Sentences (Suspension)
  Taxis
  Taxis
  County Council Bills (Notice of Provisions)
  County Council Bills (Notice of Provisions)
  Magistrates' Courts (Committals for Trial)
  Magistrates' Courts (Committals for Trial)
  Local Government Elections 1980
  Local Government Elections 1980
  " The Governor's Handbook "
  " The Governor's Handbook "
  REFERENDUM VOTING
  REFERENDUM VOTING
  Fly-fishing (Gwynedd)
  Fly-fishing (Gwynedd)
WALES
  Tri-ang Pedigree Limited
  Tri-ang Pedigree Limited
  Farms
  Farms
  Sports Council for Wales (Budget)
  Sports Council for Wales (Budget)
  Referendum
  Referendum
  Air Wales
  Air Wales
  Road Construction (Expenditure)
  Road Construction (Expenditure)
  Welsh Museum (Purchase Grants)
  Welsh Museum (Purchase Grants)
ENERGY
  Electricity Discount Scheme
  Electricity Discount Scheme
  Coking Coal
  Coking Coal
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
  Energy Conservation (Bromley)
  Energy Conservation (Bromley)
  Emergency Petrol Rationing (Disabled Drivers)
  Emergency Petrol Rationing (Disabled Drivers)
  Power Stations (Fluidised Bed Combustion)
  Power Stations (Fluidised Bed Combustion)
  Coal Liquefaction
  Coal Liquefaction
  HILLINGDON LAW CENTRE
  HILLINGDON LAW CENTRE
  LEGAL INTIMIDATION (DEFINITION)
  LEGAL INTIMIDATION (DEFINITION)
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Catterick Camp
  Catterick Camp
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Malta (Medical Facilities)
  Malta (Medical Facilities)
  Iran
  Iran
  Rhodesia (Mission)
  Rhodesia (Mission)
  Northern Ireland (European Assembly Elections)
  Northern Ireland (European Assembly Elections)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Green Currency
  Green Currency
  Tomatoes (Neapolitan Canners)
  Tomatoes (Neapolitan Canners)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Banking Bill (Standing Committee Proceedings)
  Banking Bill (Standing Committee Proceedings)
  Lone Parents (Tax Allowances)
  Lone Parents (Tax Allowances)
  Devolution (Scotland and Wales)
  Devolution (Scotland and Wales)
  Inflation Rate
  Inflation Rate
  Tax Rebates (Industrial Disputes)
  Tax Rebates (Industrial Disputes)
  Overtime and Bonus Payments
  Overtime and Bonus Payments
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Allowances
  Allowances
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Museum Service (Purchase Grants)
  Museum Service (Purchase Grants)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
  INTERNAL AFFAIRS
  INTERNAL AFFAIRS
  French Prime Minister
  French Prime Minister
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
SCOTLAND
  Referendum
  Referendum
  Sports Council (Budget)
  Sports Council (Budget)
  Council for Tertiary Education
  Council for Tertiary Education
  Expenditure (Strathclyde and Lothian Regions)
  Expenditure (Strathclyde and Lothian Regions)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Museum Service (Purchase Grants)
  Museum Service (Purchase Grants)
  Munn and Dunning Committees
  Munn and Dunning Committees
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Authorities (Members' Personal Interests)
  Health Authorities (Members' Personal Interests)
  Child Special Allowance
  Child Special Allowance
  Earnings Related Supplement
  Earnings Related Supplement
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Prednisolone
  Prednisolone
  Voltarol
  Voltarol
  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Private Medicine
  Private Medicine
  Eraldin
  Eraldin
  Bulk Purchasing
  Bulk Purchasing
  Alcohol Addiction
  Alcohol Addiction
  Bodyscanners
  Bodyscanners
  Medical Equipment (Revenue Implications)
  Medical Equipment (Revenue Implications)
  Hospitals (Staff)
  Hospitals (Staff)
  Medical Equipment (Shortages)
  Medical Equipment (Shortages)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Census Test
  Census Test
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Supplementary Benefit (Allowances)
  Supplementary Benefit (Allowances)
  Surgical Footwear
  Surgical Footwear
  Electroconvulsive Therapy
  Electroconvulsive Therapy
TRADE
  Export Earnings
  Export Earnings
  Imports (Manufactured Goods)
  Imports (Manufactured Goods)
  Exports of Manufactured Goods (International Comparisons)
  Exports of Manufactured Goods (International Comparisons)
  Patents (Regional Filing Offices)
  Patents (Regional Filing Offices)
  Malta
  Malta
  European Community (Anti-Dumping Procedures)
  European Community (Anti-Dumping Procedures)
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Cutlery
  Cutlery
  Shoes
  Shoes
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Import Substitution
  Import Substitution
  Import Penetration (Target Levels)
  Import Penetration (Target Levels)
  Small Importers (Assistance)
  Small Importers (Assistance)
  China
  China
  Polymer Plastics
  Polymer Plastics
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
TRANSPORT
  Driving Examiners (West Midlands)
  Driving Examiners (West Midlands)
  Evesham Bypass
  Evesham Bypass
  Traffic Signals
  Traffic Signals
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Advanced Passenger Train
  Main Line Electrification
  Main Line Electrification
  Concessionary Fares (Elderly and Disabled)
  Concessionary Fares (Elderly and Disabled)
ENVIRONMENT
  Location of Offices
  Location of Offices
  Rates
  Rates
  Water Authorities (Boundary Adjustment)
  Water Authorities (Boundary Adjustment)
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Local Government Commissioner (Powers)
  Local Government Commissioner (Powers)
  Local Government Employees
  Local Government Employees
  Water Authorities (Debt Charge)
  Water Authorities (Debt Charge)
  Rent Charges
  Rent Charges
  Castle Point District Council (Development Programme)
  Castle Point District Council (Development Programme)
  House Building (Essex)
  House Building (Essex)
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Sport
  Sport
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  New Towns (Owner-occupied and Rented Dwellings)
  New Towns (Owner-occupied and Rented Dwellings)
  Canals
  Canals
  Antarctic (Exploration Arrangements)
  Antarctic (Exploration Arrangements)

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

MEXICAN OIL PRODUCTION AND BRITISH COMPANIES
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, how they envisage British companies allied to Mexican companies participating in oil exploration and production in Mexico.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is no question of British companies being involved in oil exploration and production in Mexico, as this is carried out exclusively by the Mexican State Oil Corporation. British companies are, however, seeking to identify opportunities that may arise in conjunction with Mexican interests to supply specialised equipment and services to the Corporation.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he can give the House an assurance that any undertakings to supply equipment, or whatever, to the Mexican oil industry will not be monopolised either by the nationalised oil company in Mexico or by the nationalised oil company in Britain?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the United Kingdom offshore capability is based on experience gained in the difficult conditions of the North Sea, and in consequence British companies can offer a range of specialised services required for offshore oil development work. With regard to the British National Oil Corporation, its current overseas activities are almost entirely those of an international oil trader.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would supplement his kindly and fairly informative answer with this further information: Is it the case that the British National Oil Corporation is itself organised in syndicates of supplying firms to assist in its operations abroad?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the first instance this would be a matter for the Corporation, but any activities beyond the role of oil trader would require the consent of the Secretary of State for Energy.

RACE RELATIONS AND BROADCASTING
2.38 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: 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 are aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not consider a broadcasting studio to be a public place within the meaning of the Public Order Act 1936 and whether they consider that amendments to that Act, and to the Race Relations Act 1976, should be brought before Parliament as a matter of urgency so that a person using words that are threatening, abusive or insulting such that hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group in Great Britain on the air can be prosecuted.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Government are aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed the opinion to which the noble Lord refers. The BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority already have to ensure, so far as possible, that nothing is included in their broadcast programmes which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling. It may occasionally—for example, in a live unscripted broadcast—be difficult for the broadcasting authorities to carry out this requirement. The Government are not at present convinced that legislation is the appropriate answer, but they will give

1519
further consideration to the matter, in consultation with the broadcasting authorities.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not think, however, that if people who appear on radio and television programmes are aware that anything that they say is immune from prosecution, under either the Public Order Act or the Race Relations Act, this will encourage them to give themselves up to the most extreme sentiments? Is the noble Lord aware that the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has said that this revelation by the Director of Public Prosecutions could have serious implications? Will he, therefore, in consultation with the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and the broadcasting authorities, examine this matter as a question of urgency?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that in examining this matter—which, as I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we shall be doing—we shall take into consideration some of the very points which the noble Lord has mentioned. The noble Lord has pinpointed a particular problem in relation to broadcasting which it appears, on first examination at any rate, Parliament did not grapple with in all the discussions that took place both here and in another place when this legislation was passing through Parliament. So I, for one, am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn everybody's attention, both Houses of Parliament included, to this particular point. There are certain differences between the kind of safeguards which the Public Order Act 1936, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, aimed at, in particular the possibility of imminent violence arising either as a result of something said in the street or as a result of something said on the public platform. There is a difference, of course, between that and broadcasting. Having said that, certainly I undertake to take into account what the noble Lord has said.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, does not the Minister agree with me that part of the trouble at least arises because the television authorities go out of their
1520
way to find extreme views in order to make the programme, in their view, more interesting? Is not this something which the Government and the BBC should be considering?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether I go all the way with what the noble Lord has said, in particular about broadcasting authorities going out of their way to encourage such people to take part. I should not have thought that that was the case. Indeed, Parliament has laid very severe restrictions indeed, among the ones which I mentioned in my original Answer, upon both the broadcasting organisations to make sure that the public are safeguarded. However, when I examine this question I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. So far as sanctions are concerned, there is always an ultimate sanction, which Parliament has provided for.

CABINET PAPERS: SAFETY OF FOREIGNERS
2.42 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 are satisfied that the rule allowing Cabinet papers to be made public after 30 years does not place any foreign nationals, whose names may appear as having worked in cooperation with this country at the end of the war, in danger of reprisals in their own country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the Public Records Acts provide for the prescription of a longer period of closure than 30 years for any particular class of records, and it would be normal to prescribe a longer period in any case of the kind mentioned in the Question.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he can confirm that as yet the Government have had no evidence that any person in the

1521
position such as I described in the Question has in fact suffered in his own country as a result of our making public our Cabinet papers?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance, but one must always be watchful for the interests of those whose continued existence, in the light of information that might be disclosed from the records, might not be agreeable to certain foreign Governments.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, at a time when the period was reduced from 50 to 30 years, the matter was fully considered by a number of committees and the Government were aware that the reduction to 30 years might expose British nationals as well as foreign nationals to some risk of criticism, but it was thought that the interests of public disclosure were such as to outweigh those disadvantages?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend has analysed the issues very clearly, but to implement the decision is sometimes a little difficult.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, does not the risk arise, especially where foreigners are concerned, when the papers of Government Departments are published 30 years later, and when they are transferred to the Public Records Office after weeding? Can the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that this hazard will be taken fully into account during the weeding process, and particularly as the children and grandchildren of a foreign national might well have reprisals taken against them after a considerable period of time?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that this consideration is very much borne in mind. I think we have an honourable record of not letting down our friends in matters of this kind; a record which I hope will be maintained.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that the great danger is that the weeding might be too unscrupulous?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know about the word "unscrupulous"; I am not sure that I can say that, but an inquiry has been set up with a distinguished membership to look into the operation and mechanism of the Public Records Acts. But I adhere to what I said previously. I do not think there have been any problems in the particular field of a foreign national whose activities here, if disclosed, might give him trouble, either personally or through his family. I do not think that has arisen and I am sure that the Departments will bear it in mind.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while agreeing completely with what the noble and learned Lord said about our record, may I ask whether the matter does not arise now because it was comparatively recently that the 30-year period was introduced in place of the 50-year period?
The LORD CHANCELLOR?: Yes, my Lords; I think that is so and, if I may say so, I think it was most helpful for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to have tabled this Question, so that the minds of the Departments may be alerted to the need for precautions.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS: REVIEW
2.47 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: 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 on what date the question of "reckon-able service" arising out of the debate on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill in 1977–78 (now the Act of 1978) was referred to the Top Salaries Review Body in accordance with the undertaking made during the passage of the Bill.
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body, on 23rd October 1978 asking him to review and make recommendations on the pension position of former Members

1523
of the House of Commons who left the House before the passing of the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1978.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply and particularly for the helpful part he has played in obtaining this Answer, may I ask him whether he will now, in accordance with his own promise, approach the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, to give some priority to the matter in order that the widows of former Members of Parliament may get some benefit immediately?
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend will realise that the timing of a discussion on this subject is a matter for the review body. After all, the Prime Minister has communicated with the chairman, and I think that is as far as I can go at this stage. We regard it as an urgent matter.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it is not a fact that from the very outset the Boyle Committee set itself against granting any pensions at all—years ago—to Members of Parliament who sat there before the year 1964, some for many years; since when many of them—perhaps the majority—have died? To my certain knowledge some of them have died in penury; and, in the circumstances, would it not be better not to pursue this matter for the sake of the handful of those who remain, but to try to forget it?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has put a point of view; but I think he will remember that we had a debate on this subject and we promised that this matter would be raised again. So that is the position; it is now being examined.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House assure us that the case of that handful of ex-Ministers who, in the matter of pensions, have been so badly treated in comparison with Her Majesty's Government's present Ministers, has also been referred to the top review body?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know that the noble Viscount spoke on this during
1524
our debate and the main argument was on the issue of pensions. If it is possible to have this added to the other matter, I am prepared to look at it; but the Prime Minister has fulfilled a promise and I would prefer to leave it at that. We asked for this and it is being examined.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, from my recollection of the debate I think that the noble Lord himself said that these particular people would be referred.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will make sure that that promise is fulfilled in the sense that they will consider this, but the main issue is the pensions issue.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government will intimate that they think this matter ought to be dealt with, that the people concerned may in some instances be in a very bad state and their widows in a similar bad state, and that really it is a disgraceful thing that people who, in many instances, have served for so many years should, even in the few instances that are left, be treated in this way?
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say this in reply to my noble friend: After all, we were asked to do this and we have done it; the Prime Minister has done this. What more do noble Lords want?
Lord BOOTHBY: An Answer from Lord Boyle. When—1993?
Lord PEART: The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was against it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Hughes to advance the Committee stage of the Countryside (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill from Thursday 29th March to Tuesday 20th February.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Greater Manchester Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see from the Order Paper, there are four Private Bills down for Second Reading this afternoon, and I think perhaps it might be convenient if I said a word or two about the procedure, as it is somewhat complicated. I intend to move the Second Reading of each of the four Bills one after the other, and, of course, any noble Lord who wishes to speak on the Motion that the Bill be read a second time is perfectly at liberty to do so in the normal way. But not until the Second Reading is agreed can any of the Instructions be moved. So, as soon as the Second Reading of this Bill, the Greater Manchester Bill, has been agreed, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will be called to move his Instruction. That, too, can be debated, and when that has been disposed of then the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will move his, and finally the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will move his. Once the Instructions are dealt with, then we shall move on to the Second Reading of the next Bill, the Isle of Wight Bill.>
May I briefly remind your Lordships of the background and purpose of these four Bills. The Local Government Act 1972 established new local government areas in England and Wales, and in Section 262 enacted the repeal, with certain exceptions, of provisions contained in Private Acts at present in force in those areas or parts of them. The powers conferred by those Private Acts will cease to have effect in metropolitan counties at the end of this year and in other counties at the end of 1984 unless they have been re-enacted by other legislation. The 1972 Act provided a unique opportunity for a thorough revision of all local legislation and, from 1984 onwards, local legislation will be well documented and much more readily understandable by the public.
The first major Bill promoted to retain provisions repealed by the 1972 Act was the County of South Glamorgan Bill in 1975, and that was followed last
1526
Session by four more Bills of the same type, the Cheshire County Council Bill, the County of Merseyside Bill, the West Midlands County Council Bill and the West Yorkshire Bill; those Bills passed through your Lordships' House and are now in another place. General powers Bills of this nature deal with a very large number of topics affecting a great many people and must be scrutinised with very great care. For this reason, I propose to follow the procedure which, with your Lordships' agreement, was used for the County of South Glamorgan Bill, and again last Session for the other four county council Bills, and refer the unopposed provisions to a small Select Committee consisting of two other Members of this House and myself.
Finally, may I say something regarding the Instructions to the Committees on these Bills which have been put down by various noble Lords. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House of these Instructions, which in some cases reinforce points made in petitions against the Bills. Since all the Bills are opposed, they and the petitions against them will be considered by Select Committees, which will also have to comply with any Instructions which may be passed by your Lordships this afternoon. According to usual practice, Government Departments concerned with provisions in any of these Bills will report on them, and those reports will also be before the Committees. My Lords, I beg to move that the Greater Manchester Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to a question raised in a petition on this Bill. The petition has been lodged by the General Council and Register of Osteopaths by way of objection to the provisions of Part XVI, which is concerned with establishments for massage and special treatment. The object is to maintain satisfactory conditions at sauna bath establishments and the like by strict control of standards, to prevent them degenerating into houses of ill repute. This laudable intention is not new, and attempts have been made in the past to apply similar powers to the premises of members of the General Council and

1527
Register of Osteopaths, who seek to amend the Bill so as expressly to exclude its application to members of the Register. It is, however, my understanding that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to amend the Bill, though negotiations on the form of the amendment have still to be concluded and agreement reached. Once a satisfactory settlement has been concluded, the Petition will be withdrawn and all opposition dropped.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would allow me to intervene at this point. We are in a rather complicated situation. As I am responsible for drawing up the list of speakers, and as my office was not always sure whether Peers wished to speak on Instructions or on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it is possible that the list of speakers may be rather confusing. Perhaps, as the Lord Chairman has said, it will be best if those Peers wishing to speak on the Second Readings of the Bills will speak first and then we could hear those who wish to speak on the Instructions later. We have now passed the Second Reading of this Bill. If the House would now like to proceed straight to the Instructions, then I am quite prepared to do that. Would it be the wish of the Front Bench opposite and of the Liberal Front Bench that we now proceed to the Instructions?
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, could I ask the Leader of the House whether that does not prevent a speaker in the debate speaking against the Instruction?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this: I put my name down too late to get on to the list. The point I wish to make is a distinctly Second Reading point, not against the Bill itself, but a point which arose on an Instruction to us when we were sitting on the Committees last year on the other Bills, and which is very apposite to these particular Bills.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have now
1528
passed the Second Reading of this Bill, so I think we should now speak on the Instructions. The noble Lord can speak on the Second Reading of another Bill, of course.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I have put down my name to speak on the Isle of Wight Bill, and I am on the list of speakers on the Greater Manchester Bill. Privileged though that is, should I now wait for the Isle of Wight Bill before I speak.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
3 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that:

(a) they should give special consideration to Clause 192 (Prohibition of parking of caravans and boats in front gardens) having regard to the fact that during the Session 1977–78 similar clauses in four County Council Bills were deleted by the Select Committee on Opposed Common Clauses for the reasons cited in paragraph 30 of the Special Report (H.L. 137) made by the Committee to this House, and

(b) they should take into account the burden that will be imposed on those whose interests are opposed to the clause if in the course of the re-enactment of local authority legislation following local government reorganisation the clear decision of the Select Committee as set out in the said paragraph 30 is not followed by subsequent promoters.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if your Lordships would permit a degree of latitude when speaking to these Instructions, because there may well be a number of your Lordships who will wish to raise points, as I do myself, which go a little beyond the precise terms of the Instructions. In addressing your Lordships on the Bill I should like to refer back almost 12 months to a similar occasion on 28th February last year when we examined the four County Council Bills referred to by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees; namely, the Merseyside Bill, the West

1529
Yorkshire Bill, the West Midlands Bill and the County of Cheshire Bill. Once again we are faced with a very substantial Bill which is largely a Consolidation Bill comprising a large number of Acts, notably 90 Acts which are partially repealed and only one Act which is wholly repealed, covering the last 150 years.
I read with interest an Explanatory Memorandum which is not attached to the Bill but for which I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Clitheroe for providing, which deals in detail with the clauses in the Bill. The principal point which the Greater Manchester Council raise in their memorandum is as follows:
"The Greater Manchester authorities are of the opinion that there is a large corpus of valuable local law which has not been overtaken by national legislation. If action were not now to be taken to preserve it, that whole body of law would be lost automatically at the end of 1979".
That is perfectly true because, if we examine the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, it will be apparent from Section 262 that all local statutory provision will cease to have effect in the metropolitan counties at the end of 1979—of course that concerns this Bill—and elsewhere by 1984. It was not appreciated in 1972 what a mammoth task that would be, and so it has proved.
However, I should like to refer especially to the situation which arises on my Instruction. I should like to introduce the point by reverting to what was said a year ago regarding the four metropolitan county Bills. Unhappily, we have a recurrence here. On that occasion I moved an Instruction in precisely similar terms to that which I propose to move today. In their wisdom, the drafters and promoters of the Greater Manchester Bill have sought to bring in a clause which relates to exactly the same area. I should like to refer to that particular clause; namely, Clause 192. Their notes on this clause are not very explicit and I shall quote them. Clause 192 relates to the prohibition of parking of caravans and boats in front gardens. The notes on that clause from Greater Manchester are as follows:
"This follows the same lines as the preceding clause, but relates to a different kind of subject-matter. Commercial vehicles"—
that is the clause above—
"are to be controllable, because they represent a business use intruding into a residential area.
1530
Caravans and boats, on the other hand, are very much an amenity in themselves".
From that note I would deduce that boats and caravans are to be welcomed in private gardens if they are an amenity in themselves. I cannot see from the note on that particular clause any suggestion that they are a disbenefit to the locality.
Referring once again to the situation as it was 12 months ago, when I moved the Instruction on that occasion the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees permitted the Instruction to go forward, and he said on the 28th February, at column 370 of the Official Report:
"Finally, I should like to say something regarding the Instructions which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has on the Order Paper, which are directed at a provision which occurs in each Bill seeking to restrict parking in private gardens of heavy commercial vehicles, boats and caravans. His Instructions relate, in particular, to boats. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House"—
and so on. However, the point which I should like to raise is that the Select Committee examined this clause in all four Bills. The Select Committee decided to strike it out, and we are now examining a Bill in which we see once again the same clause occurring. I should like to point out to your Lordships that it is possible over the next few years—certainly during the next five years which is the period which ends in 1984—that a recurrence of this clause could happen, not once but many times. Once again the same petitioners will come forward seeking to delete the clause. Once again I, or possibly some other Members of your Lordships' House, may feel disposed to move an Instruction.
The point to be made here concerns the question of the common clauses. It has been of great benefit in the past that the common clauses should be adopted by all local authorities. Where they are not specifically obliged to do so, nevertheless they are strongly recommended to do so. It would be a very vexatious situation if, as regards Private Bills, petitioners repeatedly are obliged to petition against precisely the same clause and precisely the same matter.
In that connection, I would mention a specific point; namely, the question of parliamentary costs which arises under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865. The House of Lords can award costs to a

1531
successful petitioner only where the Committee—that is, of course, the Committee concerned with the Private Bill—unanimously reports that the petitioner has been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending his rights proposed to be interfered with by the Bill. There is such a situation, therefore, if there is a unanimous decision, but let us suppose that there is not a unanimous decision by that Committee. Over and over again the petitioner, in order to protect his position, may be obliged to return to make the same point. I do not think that it is necessary to go further into the matter. I set out the details of the matter in my remarks last year and your Lordships, who were kind enough to speak on the Instruction, also made particular reference to it. The situation is unchanged and I would respectfully draw the attention of the Select Committee to the Official Report. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that:

(a) they should give special consideration to Clause 192 (Prohibition of parking of caravans and boats in front gardens having regard to the fact that during the Session 1977–78 similar clauses in four County Council Bills were deleted by the Select Committee on Opposed Common Clauses for the reasons cited in paragraph 30 of the Special Report (H.L. 137) made by the Committee to this House, and

(b) they should take into account the burden that will be imposed on those whose interests are opposed to the clause if in the course of the re-enactment of local authority legislation following local government reorganisation the clear decision of the Select Committee as set out in the said paragraph 30 is not followed by subsequent promoters.—[Lord Sandys.]

3.9 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I had thought that other noble Lords would speak before me as regards this Instruction. However, as no one has risen I rise to say that I support my noble friend Lord Sandys in his Instruction that your Lordships should require the Select Committee, to which the Greater Manchester
1532
Bill is referred, to give special consideration to Clause 192 concerning the parking of boats in the front gardens of dwelling-houses. In doing so I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Yachting Association which is one of the petitioners against this particular clause; and I must assume that my remarks also refer to caravans, as regards which I am not particularly an expert.
I must agree with my noble friend Lord Sandys that there is absolutely no need to repeat what we all said on 28th February last year, when a similar clause was proposed in Private Bills. Sufficient evidence was then produced by your Lordships to show what a very strong case existed for the petitioner's action to get that clause, dealing with the parking of boats and caravans, deleted from the Bill. Those arguments must still apply today. Although Clause 192 of the Greater Manchester Bill is drafted differently from those clauses which we considered in our Second Reading debate last year, it still imposes restrictions on the rights of individuals in their own homes.
Perhaps the most relevant of all the local authorities' requirements is that they already have sufficient powers to ensure that boats parked in front gardens do not commit a nuisance to others, and particularly to neighbours, without adding further restrictions and penalties. For example, if a boat parked in a front garden blocks the light from a neighbour's window, or if a boat parked in a front garden obstructs the view of traffic using the road—perhaps on a corner or a bend—sufficient powers exist under general law to deal with that nuisance.
In the definition of a "boat" in Clause 192 of the Bill which we are debating it gives the dimensions as "not less than 1.5 metres" high or—and I must emphasise that it says "or" and not "and"—"not less than 5 metres" long. Thus, in the debate last year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pointed out that a rowing skiff 18 feet long would come within this clause. It is difficult to see what nuisance that could be to anyone.
In these days, when recreation and exercise are recognised as playing such an important part in all our lives, and when we are at some risk of becoming a spectator

1533
nation, perhaps it is most relevant that every encouragement should be given to those who make the best use of their spare time, who enjoy maintaining their boats at home during the winter months and getting them ready for the next summer. Therefore, I support the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Sandys.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, not for the first time have I found myself in a procedural muddle and not risen in time to speak. I support my noble friend Lord Sandys in his Instruction, as I did last year and, like my noble friend Lord Cathcart, I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Yachting Association. First, I support my noble friend Lord Sandys in everything that he has said. Furthermore, I shall not repeat what I said a year ago in your Lordships' House about similar provisions.
However, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Lord Chairman, if he is able to, to draw the attention of the Select Committee to Hansard of 28th February, where similar clauses were discussed. I should also ask whether it is possible—-and I am interested in what my noble friend Lord Sandys has already said—for those organisations, such as the one to which I belong, which have had to petition once again against this clause (which is identical to the one which your Lordships' Select Committee threw out last year) to claim costs, should your Lordships' Committee reach the same decision, as I suspect it might, as last year. If such organisations cannot, it would seem to me to be grossly unfair. No doubt the ratepayers of Manchester do not mind, or perhaps they are not even told by their council, what it will cost, but, as a member of the Royal Yachting Association, I mind quite a bit. If costs cannot be claimed, small organisations, such as the one I speak about, would be ruined. Surely there must be some way to end the ridiculous situation of them having to continue to petition against similar clauses, possibly in another 30-odd county council Bills.
I would also ask your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord the Lord Chairman, whether there is not a case in future for a mandatory Instruction to be given on the Floor of your Lordships' House if, in future, a county council should try to repeat such a clause in a
1534
Bill. If that is not practicable, is there any other way in which county councils can be discouraged in the future? Surely the Greater Manchester County Council is acting unreasonably and vexatiously in this matter.
3.15 p.m.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, as indeed I did last year for the four county council Bills which we were then considering. I shall not repeat what I said on that occasion, except to say—as I am sure many of your Lordships are aware—that boating is a very fast-growing sport in this country. It is enjoyed by people from all walks of life, from the top to the bottom. If this clause were to be allowed, it would tend to discriminate against the not-so-well-off boatowner who may not necessarily be able to afford to lay up his boat in a boat yard for the winter and who, if he had a small garden, would therefore be unnecessarily penalised under this clause. In addition, most people enjoy overhauling and repainting their boats during the winter. For a council to be given powers that could prevent a person doing that, would not only be unnecessary but also an intrusion into a person's rights of enjoyment regarding his own property.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the two noble Lords who have already spoken, have said, a Select Committee of your Lordships' House has already disallowed this clause in the Bills which we discussed last year. I feel most strongly that to have to consider these matters yet again is not only wasting the time of your Lordships' House and the time of another Select Committee, but is also wasting the time and money of those who have to petition a second time against this matter. That is to be deprecated and I strongly support the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I, too, want to say a few words in favour of the Instruction that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. As has been said, as a result of the Local Government Act, a golden opportunity was given to Parliament to reform the Private Local Acts and to make sure that there was some degree of uniformity between them. Unless

1535
we are very careful, we shall be in the process of throwing away that opportunity. A Committee of your Lordships' House has already examined very carefully the four Bills that have been mentioned—Cheshire, Merseyside, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire—and it reached the conclusion that in this particular instance:
"the evidence of nuisance is very slight and is far from establishing a need for taking local powers which would clearly be an intrusion into the rights, some long-established in law, of individuals to park in their gardens boats, caravans and vehicles incidental to the enjoyment of their dwelling. The Committee therefore disallowed the provisions to prohibit parking in private gardens in all four Bills".
If we now allow those provisions to be incorporated in this Bill or any other future Bill which comes before your Lordships' House, surely we shall create a patchwork of legislation in which people are permitted to do certain things in one area of the country and not in another, and no one will know precisely where he or she stands. If provisions of this nature are to be brought forward, they should be in Public General Acts; they should not be brought forward piecemeal by local authorities, as is being done now. It is an abuse of the privileges of local authorities to bring forward these Bills, one after another, with the same provisions, when they know that your Lordships' House and another place have already disallowed those provisions in relation to another local authority.
Therefore, I hope that not only the Greater Manchester Council but others which may be coming forward with similar provisions in the future, will get together with their parliamentary agents to look very carefully at what has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon, so that we are not plagued with an unnecessary repetition of the same debates year after year as local authorities come forward afresh with provisions which your Lordships have already disallowed.
3.20 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I have no interest to declare or axe to grind, but I sympathise deeply with those people who have become sufficiently prosperous now to buy themselves a boat and a caravan but, at the same time, have not got enough money to afford to leave the boat at moorings during the winter, and cannot
1536
afford hotel and boarding accommodation for their summer holiday. Their only chance of a summer holiday nowadays is to have a caravan, particularly if they have a number of children. Where else are they going to keep their caravan except in their garden? We have heard that there are ample safeguards if they are becoming a nuisance to somebody else. I think that in this increased leisure society, in which people are becoming more prosperous through increased wages and through much increased moonlighting, we should be able to allow them to keep their things in their own gardens.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to support the noble and sea-going Lord, Lord Greenway. I have no interest to declare. I have no desire to be translated to Manchester—although I am sure it is a very good See—but none the less it seems to me that I should like to make a three-word speech, the shortest I have ever made, and simply say, "Votes for Boats".
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has proposed with regard to all three Bills. In 1971 in this House a Bill was passed called the Isle of Wight County Council Bill. There are three-and-a-half pages in that Bill labelled Part II discussing public order and public safety.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I think he has moved on to Lord Avebury's Instruction, which we have not yet reached. We are at the moment discussing Lord Sandys' Instruction and we shall come to Lord Avebury's Instruction in due course.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord was proposing a Motion which concerned all three Bills.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself plain. Having moved the Second Reading of each Bill, we then take the Instructions seriatim, one after the other, and any noble Lord who wishes to discuss a particular Instruction can discuss that

1537
Instruction. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has not yet moved that particular Instruction.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I want to come back to the simple question of whether we should be allowed to keep boats in our front gardens, because that is what we are discussing. Boats can have a very aesthetic appearance, unlike some motor cars that are parked in front gardens. If motor cars are to be allowed to be parked in front gardens, why not boats? In the road where I live there are three houses which have a boat in the front garden. I look at them with pleasure every time I pass. Unfortunately I do not own a yacht myself. What occurs to me as I walk up and down the road is this: When prospective house purchasers walk down my road and see three houses with boats in front of them, that must surely put up the value of the property in the eyes of the would-be purchasers.
Furthermore, and perhaps a little more seriously, if a person has a boat, and if he finds great pleasure in the use of that boat, it is an interference with the liberty of the subject to say to him, "Thou shalt not". I am allowed to go fox hunting if I want to go fox hunting. I am allowed to go and watch football matches and throw bottles on the pitch if I want to do it. Why should I not be allowed to have a boat in my front garden if that is one of the few pleasures that I have in life? I support noble Lords who have spoken from the other side.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps what I was going to say applies more to this Instruction than to the Second Reading. It is mixed and I hesitate, but I shall come in now. I sat last year with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, on the Committee for those four Bills. As your Lordships are probably aware, the Committee came to several conclusions, one of which was reversed by the House as a whole, so it cannot be said that the Committee did not do its work properly, did not go into all
1538
these aspects with great care, and especially the aspects on boats and caravans. They were well presented, at great length, and at considerable expense to the parties concerned. We listened, we pondered and came to a decision that I think the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, will agree with me was a unanimous decision. I underline, and cannot agree more with various noble Lords who have said that it is a total waste of time, money, expense both to the organisations concerned and to the ratepayers of the various metropolitan counties concerned that they should have to go through this performance again. The process of producing individual Bills is an even greater waste of time, money, and skilled man-hours.
Surely the needs of metropolitan counties and district authorities could be met by one general purpose Bill. I know that the needs of Greater Manchester are different from the needs of, say, Wiltshire, Suffolk, or East Anglia, but they still do not have to take up those powers concerned. In the West Yorkshire Bill, and in one of the other Bills concerned, they will ask for the same powers in a slightly differently worded clause, but each having the same effect. Surely this is an inefficient and archaic way of protecting the public interest. It is of course good for lawyers, parliamentary agents, and local councillors' self-esteem, and for all sorts of totally unimportant and expensive reasons. I know that this is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, who chaired our Committee last year. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, speaks he will underline that what I am saying is true—and I hesitate to put words into the mouth of a distinguished Privy Councillor—that this was the complete decision that we all came to. Anecdotally, and finally, the Manchester Bill is nearly 200 pages long, and the Constitution of the United States is 18 pages long.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I can speak briefly because, in the main, the noble Earl has said what I wanted to say. I particularly support Clause (b) of the Instruction. I am sure that the thing will be thrown out as our Committee threw it out, but the great thing is to stop this happening in future; to stop a great abuse of power by local authorities.
3.28 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, perhaps I could say one quick word as certain questions have been addressed to me. First, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for having done me the courtesy of informing me that he posted a letter first-class to me on Friday, which has not yet reached me. May I further thank him for the courtesy of explaining to me what was in the letter that has not reached me. I should like to respond to what he asked me, and to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me, and to the whole tenor of those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the fear that this kind of clause might occur again and again in future Bills.
I think it is a little unlikely. If for a second year running, a Select Committee has a look at this clause and considers the Instruction that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has moved and refuses to accept it once again, I hardly think it likely that future promoters—or that this would be the advice given to future promoters by one of the agents—would try and run such a clause again. But, in the event that they did, I think that your Lordships could probably with some degree of confidence rely on the Unopposed Bills Committee, to which it would then be referred, to look with great suspicion on a clause which had twice been considered by Select Committees of this House and twice refused. In the unlikely event of even that going wrong, there is always the further final chance that a petitioner can of course petition in the other House, so the safeguards are fairly strong.
So far as the question of a mandatory Instruction to the Committee is concerned, they are rare birds, but there would be no reason in a case like this, where the House had already taken a decision two years running, why a mandatory Instruction might become a more sensible way of proceeding. As for the question of awarding costs, I can only say that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, correctly quoted the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, and that is the position; namely, that the Committee, if it is unanimous, can award costs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 196 (Arrangements as to construction of buildings or carrying out of works) in order to satisfy themselves that it does not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 196, as drafted, would enable the contracting authorities, which are the direct labour or public works departments of the Manchester Council and the Wigan Council, to undertake new building and construction work for a number of public bodies. That means that the two councils would be carrying on a commercial trade with public bodies and the profitability or otherwise would directly affect the ratepayers. Furthermore, the contracting authorities would be in competition with the private sector, which has more than adequate resources to carry out the work. There is no provision that the power should be exercised in fair competition with the private sector and no requirement that a proper economic charge should be made for any work done, so the private sector could be faced with unfair competition, while, if the authority should make a loss or overspend, the ratepayers would suffer. The two federations concerned consider that the powers sought by Clause 196 should not be granted unless the promoters can show that extending the contruction activities of the contracting authorities would constitute as efficient an application of the limited resources, manpower and materials available to the industry as would be achieved by private contractors. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 196 (Arrangements as to construction of buildings or carrying out of works) in order to satisfy themselves that it does not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, it was Saturday when I first heard of this Instruction and therefore I did not have the time or facilities to put my name down on the list of speakers, and, being a new Member of your Lordships' House, I was somewhat at a loss to know what to do next. Having arrived here this morning and finding myself in opposition to the Front Bench opposite, I am more nervous still.
To prepare my case I went to the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. I believe the Instruction should not be accepted. If it were, it would be unfair and against the spirit of the Standing Orders of this House, and I hope I shall not bore noble Lords by referring to page 167, under the heading "Instructions", where the paragraph dealing with permissive instructions evidently reaffirms the principle in our Standing Orders that the House should not try to do something which is being done elsewhere, namely in Committee. It goes on:
"The most usual type of instruction on a Private Bill is of a cautionary nature. For instance, the Committee on the Bill are sometimes instructed to have regard to certain matters and not to authorise certain works unless satisfied that certain conditions have been complied with".
I can see plainly that the reason for that may be that Members of your Lordships' House who are not on the Committee and cannot attend its meetings might have knowledge of certain circumstances, in particular affecting the Bill, of which they think the Committee should be aware, and therefore a cautionary Instruction could be moved in this House and would normally be accepted. However, it also implies that Instructions of this sort should not be moved when the matter is to be debated by the Select Committee. Evidently that is fair because, if an Instruction of this sort were accepted, it would mean acceptance of some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, mentioned—namely, that there could be unfair competition and that local authorities are not suitable organisations to carry out this work. That provokes me into saying that if one examines the record of the private building industry in this country one could make a case that not only was it inefficient but that in certain cases it was a menace to society, and I am sure I need not tell noble Lords about certain cases that have occurred in the private sector which, if they had
1542
occurred in local government, would have caused local government to be very ashamed indeed.
There is another aspect of this Instruction which must be borne in mind. If this House is to go on record as being a fair body which seeks to do justice to all, surely we ought not to jump the gun by saying that this Instruction should be accepted. If we did, we should be accepting an Instruction containing a principle that ought to be argued about by the Select Committee so that the promoters of the Bill have a chance to put their point of view or to comply with any requirements that any member of that Select Committee may wish to have inserted—for example, about the waste of public money or the removal of unfair competition; that is, of course, if unfair competition can be designated, and I have doubts that about.
It is also a bad Instruction because it gives the impression that an attempt is being made merely to oppose competition in the building industry. On that aspect, I would comment only that when the great barrage across the River Thames is finally, if ever, constructed, we may see the weakness of employing private contractors to carry out that sort of work. Indeed, one of the lessons we should have learned about employing private trade in the building industry is the scandal that existed in this country after the war in regard to bomb damage repairs, when "cost plus ten" was the common and accepted way of doing it. If this House is to be fair to be promoters, it should take note of its Standing Orders, which imply that Instructions should not be used to prejudge an issue which quite evidently will come before the Committee. We should be content to allow it to go before the Committee and let the promoters put their case.
3.39 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, misread the Standing Orders in that he argued as though this was a mandatory Instruction and as though the advice which my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne gave carried with it the force of preventing the Select Committee from discussing the merits of whatever the petitioners might do. In fact, this is a non-mandatory Instruction, and, far from cutting across the

1543
powers of the Select Committee, it helps them; it allows the Committee to know at once the feeling in the House generally towards this matter.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I do not think I was confused when I referred to page 167 of our Standing Orders. That deals with a cautionary Instruction. Perhaps in my inexperience I did not make myself clear. I was raising the issue that this kind of Instruction tends to debate a principle—a principle which, according to the objections lodged with the Select Committee, will be debated by the Select Committee in any case.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord is not taking into account the fact that whatever we do with the Instruction now will in no way interfere with how the Select Committee does its work and with what any petitioners may wish to say or do when the matter goes before the Select Committee. At the end of the day an Instruction is nothing more than a comment on a Second Reading debate. All the points which my noble friend has made in the Instruction he proposes are points which could legitimately have been made in a normal Second Reading speech. One would expect a Select Committee, in examining any matter on behalf of the House, to take into account points that are made in a Second Reading speech. I believe that the non-mandatory Instruction which my noble friend is now putting to the House is helpful in that it allows the Select Committee to know that there are feelings on the issue in question, based on considerable evidence. If for any reason the Select Committee does not—contrary to the Instruction—give special consideration to see whether there is anything undesirable, it then risks the matter being overturned by the House as a whole when it is brought back.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for thinking even for only a moment that he may be so averse to any criticism against direct labour by the local councils that he has tended to dredge up a supposed technical point in order to suggest that there is a matter which ought to be looked at and which is not quite in keeping with both conventions and the Standing Orders. If the noble Lord had opposed my noble
1544
friend by arguing in support of direct labour, as against the private enterprise tender system, then I should have had some sympathy with him, though I would not have agreed with him. I wish to have on the record the point that if all the evidence is brought forward it will be shown that money is wasted and jobs are done inefficiently under direct labour, as opposed to the normal private enterprise tendering. It looks as though the noble Lord has inadvertently suggested to the House that Standing Orders ought to be viewed in a way which would be different from the way they would in fact be viewed if the matter was being dealt with correctly.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down used a most charming expression; he spoke about a non-mandatory Instruction. To my way of thinking an Instruction is an Instruction, without any qualification, without prefix or suffix. I speak as a former company sergeant-major who knew what an instruction was. I do not want to go into my personal history in regard to this matter. My reason for intervening is merely that I was chairman of a county council, and leader of a county council, and I held other posts; so I have a long experience in local government. I found that almost invariably when a council wished to place a contract, whether with another council or with a firm of private constructers, it had to invite tenders. Therefore, if the Manchester or the Wigan council managed to secure a contract to build a refuse destructor or a housing estate for another council, it would be because the Manchester or Wigan council had won the contract in open competition by submitting a tender which was better or lower than the other tenders submitted by private builders. That is the only point that I wish to make, and I believe that it knocks the bottom out of all the arguments that have been made against the clause.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not want to enter into the arguments as to the merits of this particular clause, but I ought to say that there is nothing in Standing Orders which in any way leads me to advise your Lordships not to accept the Instruction if your Lordships feel so minded. With regard to the definition of "mandatory", the normal use of the

1545
word in this connection arises when the House instructs a Committee not to accept a certain clause altogether; here the Instruction is merely drawing the attention of the Committee to a particular clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, correctly said, there is a petition against this aspect of the matter, and the Select Committee will be considering it in the normal way, and both promoters and petitioners will have a full opportunity to deploy their case.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Lord Chairman sits down, may I put it to him that if the position is as he has stated, why need one bother to put down an Instruction when the matter is to be fully considered? It is obviously being done for a particular purpose.
Lord ABERDARE: I did not put down the Instruction, my Lords.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I must say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Sefton has said, as well as with the remark that has just been made. I wonder what precisely will be the effect of the Instruction if it commends itself to the House. As I understand it, the issue will be argued as between the promoters and the opponents of the Bill. Therefore, I ask myself what will be the effect if the Instruction is passed?
Is it not the case that it may well be interpreted, rightly or wrongly—as my noble friend Lord Sefton suggests—as a pre-judgment of the issue which the Committee has to consider? If the Bill goes before the Select Committee without the Instruction it will be open to argument on its merits. The Instruction—whether or not it is so intended—seems to suggest that, whatever may be the merits of direct labour, there could in certain circumstances be what the Instruction calls "an undesirable extension" of powers. It seems to me that those very words must be calculated to bias and to influence the judgment of the Select Committee on the merits of the matter. I do not wish to comment upon the Standing Orders which enable the House to approve Instructions of various kinds, but I should have thought that the case for this Instruction had not been made out.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, am I allowed to make another comment?
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, if I may reply, I would say that, so far as I understand it, all I was doing was to draw attention to the points that I made. I do not for one moment consider that anything I have said will influence the Select Committee in any way. The Select Committee will have evidence from both sides to consider, and the only advantage in having moved the Instruction at all is that this short debate which we have had in your Lordships' House will be on the record.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY rose to move, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 69 (Notice of street processions) of the Bill unless they are satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Private Bill rather than in national public order legislation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may know, various county councils have included in their Bills for this Session provisions requiring persons who organise or conduct a procession to give a certain number of days' notice to the police. The arguments on this provision may to some extent be similar to those with which we have already dealt in regard to the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. If local authorities continue to come forward with provisions that have already been disallowed or withdrawn, then that is just as much a waste of time when we are dealing with a matter of public order legislation as it was a few minutes ago when we were discussing a matter of planning. Where these provisions have been considered by another place, I think I am correct in saying that in one case they were the subject of an Instruction, and in another case the local authority concerned gave an undertaking that the relevant clause would be withdrawn.
There are before us this afternoon three Bills which contain similar provisions and it may be for the convenience of the

1547
House if in moving my Instruction relating to the Greater Manchester Bill, I also at the same time discuss those Instructions which I have tabled relating to the Isle of Wight Bill and the South Yorkshire Bill. With regard to the South Yorkshire Bill, I am very pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that this morning I received a letter from the parliamentary agents acting on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, stating that with the leave of the Committee appointed to consider the Bill they would propose to withdraw the clause. That leaves us with the Greater Manchester and Isle of Wight provisions.
The first point I want to make is that your Lordships may well think that it would be inconsistent to grant to one or to two authorities powers which have been denied to several others, or which yet others have decided, on reflection, they would not continue to seek for themselves. It may be said that, in the past, some local authorities had powers similar to the ones being sought in these Bills, and I believe that that is true. But I also think that over the years we have become far more conscious of the need to maintain and preserve our civil liberties than perhaps we were at the time when those provisions were enacted.
The honourable Member for Birmingham Hall Green referred to various requirements in the West Midlands towns when another place were considering their Bill, and those were enacted in 1959. I am not sure whether any of them were more recent than that, but, if they were, then I would only say that, so far as most honourable Members are concerned, they are too busy to read these voluminous Bills—and I have great sympathy with the noble Lord who remarked earlier on that when one is faced with a Bill of such enormous length as this it is very difficult to make sure that you have spotted everything in it that might be objectionable. This Greater Manchester Bill, as the noble Lord has already remarked, is 181 pages long; and, therefore, unless we have organisations outside, such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, which are vigilant and carefully go through these Bills line by line, then it is only too easy for the promoters to slip in what your Lordships might consider to be objectionable provisions. But I
1548
think, as has already been said, that under the Local Government Act 1972 we have this wonderful opportunity to sweep away all the obsolete provisions that exist in Private Acts up and down the country and to replace them with something which is more attuned to modern conditions. Then we can start again with a clean slate, and can decide on the requirements that have to be observed, in this case by those who organise or conduct processions, from first principles, instead of doing it in a haphazard and piecemeal manner.
As my honourable and learned friend the Member for Montgomeryshire remarked when another place were considering similar provisions in another Bill, if one thinks that notice should be given so as to help the police maintain public order—and that is a point of view that one could easily respect—then the police are just as entitled to the consideration of Parliament in one part of the Kingdom as in another. In all other respects we make uniform rules throughout the country, and where a person is obliged to do anything that would facilitate the task of the police in preventing the law from being broken then that obligation is the same in Barrow as it is in Birmingham, in Lambeth as in Leominster, in Harwich as in Harrogate. It would be quite wrong, my Lords, as I suggested in the debate on the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to create a patchwork of legislation, as we should be doing if we allowed these clauses in the Greater Manchester and the Isle of Wight Bills, so that in different parts of the country people had to give notice of varying numbers of days of their intention to hold a procession. I feel very strongly that this is a matter which can be dealt with properly only in a Public General Act, if indeed we think it is necessary for notice to be given at all.
The then Commissioner of Police for the metropolis suggested when this matter was being considered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the course of his inquiry into the disturbances in Red Lion Square, that seven clear days' notice should be given of any procession; and I take it, although, as New Society remarked in its issue of 15th February, nobody is clear as to where this suggestion emanated from, that probably it germinated in the mind of the then Commissioner

1549
of Police for the metropolis and was picked up from the evidence which he gave in the Red Lion Square inquiry, and that that is how we come to find it in all these Bills. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, found that the absence of any such requirement had played no part in the causation of those disorders; and the noble and learned Lord went on to point out that 80 per cent. of the processions held are in fact notified to the police voluntarily, while in the few instances where notice had not been given the police had no difficulty in finding out that a demonstration was planned for the very simple and obvious reason that an effective demonstration demands quite a degree of advance publicity. The noble and learned Lord went on to point out that there were some fringe elements who would not give notice, whether or not a law existed; and he asked the question: Why should those elements be allowed to force us to adopt a largely unnecessary requirement which could be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens? I will not recapitulate all the organisations which have made representations against this clause, but the Association of Funeral Directors, for instance, has expressed serious, not to say grave, concern about these clauses.
It may be said that the events of Red Lion Square occurred some years ago, and that both the scale of demonstrations and the extent of the violence committed by some participants in such demonstrations has worsened since then. Perhaps that is so, and I am sure that almost everybody—certainly everybody in your Lordships' House—would deplore the behaviour of the thugs who terrorise the people of Brick Lane, or those who cause disturbances in Lewisham, for example. But in highly-publicised cases such as those, the police in fact have plenty of warning, and most of the time, I think, they have done an excellent job in maintaining order. Where the law has been broken, it was certainly not as a result of the police being given inadequate notice of the demonstration. If the Metropolitan Commissioner and other chief officers of police believe, however, that provisions such as those we are now considering would be useful, then let them come forward with properly considered proposals for legislation showing how it would stop violence and curb lawbreakers.
1550
Then, I am sure, Parliament would give very careful attention to any evidence which might be produced.
In the absence of such evidence, we have no reason to depart from the advice which was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and certainly not to do so in a piecemeal manner. I think that these provisions would curb the freedom of law-abiding people without affecting the bullyboys of the streets. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 69 (Notice of street processions) of the Bill unless they are satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Private Bill rather than in national public order legislation.—(Lord Avebury.)
3.58 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I do depart from the advice given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and indeed from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In his speech the noble Lord related his remarks to both Greater Manchester and, indeed, South Yorkshire, and suggested that there is not a case for those authorities to bring forward powers. My Lords, I have looked with care and interest at what Greater Manchester propose. They have been good enough to furnish details on this particular clause, and I think it might be for the benefit of the House if, with your Lordships' permission, I read out the note which Greater Manchester have attached to it.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to these notes, which came from the Greater Manchester Council, before. Could he say why they are not available to the rest of your Lordships, where they are and what is their provenance?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, their provenance is indeed from Greater Manchester. The document is entitled An Explanatory Memorandum. It is not attached to the Bill.
Lord AVEBURY: It is not out of the Printed Paper Office, my Lords.
Lord SANDYS: It is not in the Printed Paper Office, my Lords, but I was fortunate enough to be furnished with a copy by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. I understand that this is an official document, and perhaps your Lordships would be willing to accept that as evidence from me. If I may be permitted to proceed, I would read the point because I think it is very material to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. It says:
"The purpose of the power being sought in Clause 69 is to ensure that the police and the district council know in advance of a proposed public procession. The clause does not give any additional powers to the police to control a procession. This can already be done under the Public Order Act 1936. The power is considered to be necessary in the light of recent experience within Greater Manchester when a local authority felt impelled to make an order which the Home Secretary confirmed to prohibit processions for a certain period. The fact that neither the police nor the district council were given specific warning of the proposed procession made it difficult for the police to plan for the event and for the local authorities and the public to take consequential action to safeguard their property".
I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury said. He adduced the argument for your Lordships that notice of a public procession should be a matter of public general legislation. He added the evidence and the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; but against that it must be said that chief constables should have a freedom to act. It is the case that in the South Yorkshire Bill, South Yorkshire seek powers to obtain three days' notice and in the case of the Greater Manchester Bill at least seven days' notice before the event is sought. Both these local authorities are acting in the light of experience, in the light of the experience of the chief constables in those particular areas, and they have good reason to do so.
I believe that there is an opportunity here to reject the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because there is very strong ground for believing that these local authorities are seeking powers which are justifiable in local circumstances. We have a police force which is not organised on a national basis. Chief constables should be given the opportunity to act in the capacity to which they have been appointed. I believe that the clause should stand.
4.2 p.m.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, I do not believe that it is inconsistent to have this power in different locations according to circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested sweeping away the obsolete. There is nothing obsolete in what I am about to say. It applies directly to Greater Manchester at the present time. If we are going to invoke the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, let me read from his Frank Newsam Memorial Lecture at the Police College recently. He said:
"Members of the general public have a right not to be disturbed as they move about the streets and other public places on their lawful business and pleasures. The principle is plain but I fear that the law's reconciliation of these rival claims for the use of our streets and public places is uncertain, archaic and underdeveloped. This obscurity of the law makes it difficult for the police to be effective without losing an unacceptable measure of public support".
In advocating the formulation of clear law, he went on:
"The criticism I make of English law in the field of human rights is not its lack of principle nor that it is always ineffectual, but that it has not adjusted itself to the realities of an industrial society entitled to exercise freedom of speech, protest and assembly, not only through representative institutions but directly—by assembly, march and protest in public places".
Later in his lecture he said:
"The truth is that there is no modern law governing the basic priorities in the use by society of streets and public places".
I therefore think that there is nothing inopportune in respect of this debate if I speak as follows.
I rise to support the inclusion of Clause 69 in the Greater Manchester Bill, irrespective of what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to say; and I ask the House to reject his Instruction. Since being demobilised from the Royal Marines in 1946 and coming down from Cambridge in 1948, I have lived very close to or in Greater Manchester and have worked full-time in industry in the City of Manchester itself. I do not suggest that that qualifies me especially to give an opinion on this subject but clearly it is no disadvantage—any more than it is a disadvantage to have served on the City Council of Manchester and on the City Bench until my elevation to your Lordships' House. Of course, the freedom and rights of the citizenry should be paramount; but note that I said

1553
"citizenry" and not just some citizens. I suggest that it is time that the greatest good for the greatest number took priority—not to the exclusion of certain individuals but so as to temper their behaviour and the threat to the preservation of public order.
The requirement to give seven days' notice to the chief constable and to the district council of the intention to march or demonstrate, of the purpose thereof, of the route to be taken and of the person in charge—or who is meant to be in charge—is prefectly reasonable to protect those other citizens, thousands of them, wishing merely to go on their own lawful occasions to and from work or wherever else they wish or need to go. This provision in Clause 69 leaves time for the police to ensure that proper emergency services can be made available at the site no matter how great the demonstration or the march.
We all know from very recent picketing experiences how men, women and children have felt that their lives had been disrupted and many feel that they have been threatened. They must surely be properly protected from unreasonable activity. All I ask is that notice be given of the intention to march or demonstrate. I am all for preserving the absolute freedom of speech, free speech, demonstrations, marching and so on. But when the original developments in Manchester took place there was not the vehicular traffic moving at speed and there was not the complexity of industry and public services that exist today. I think it is the greatest intrusion on the liberty of the individual not to be able to use the highway, quite properly, without obstruction. If notice is given, the individual citizen can choose not to go by that particular route or to go at some other time. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for what reason should the majority be incommoded in the way he suggested they should by no notice being given? If proper notice of the situation is given, the ordinary citizen can choose the time and the route that he will take.
The real deep-seated trouble is not the procession. It is the procession led by a counter-procession or a demonstration by an anti-demonstration; and a state of enormous disorganisation can result—and has resulted—because proper notice
1554
has not been given. It is a specious argument to suggest that the police are bound to have heard of the projected march because of the considerable publicity it will have aroused. That is not true. Nor should we ask the civil power to have to listen to rumour and tittle-tattle from which to get its impression of what will be required for the preservation of public order. The police must ensure that if there is going to be a counter-procession, it does not take the same route or happen at the same time—which is likely to cause something approaching riot conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows, as indeed does every noble Lord, that the Police Service, like the Armed Services, is in a considerable state of over-stretch. Surely this House does not wish to contribute to that situation, thereby risking the apprehension and maybe the real fear of householders, shopkeepers or the public generally who may have to endure these activities when the police have not been given any time at all to make special preparations for their safety.
I submit that it is, indeed, the duty of Parliament and of Government first and foremost to protect society as a whole. The cost to public funds of the National Front and then the Socialist Workers' Party marches in Manchester, Stockport, Tameside and Bolton amounted last year to £140,000. I know that half was paid by the Government; but we all know that it is not the Government who pay but the taxpayer, so that half was paid by the ratepayer and half by the taxpayer. I think that is an unwarrantable sum of money to be required when, if notice had been given, many of these extra provisions would not have been required.
On the pretext that the powers should not be given locally but nationally, if at all, through legislation, it is suggested that Clause 69 should possibly be removed from the Bill. Such, I suggest, would run counter to the principle established in 1975 in respect of the removal of individual clauses from Private Members' Bills on the grounds that they might subsequently become subject to general legislation. That may be true: but there is precious little chance of the present Government getting a measure through its own Party, let alone through Parliament, to amend the Public Order Act 1936. The picture of Ministers of the

1555
Crown on the Grunwick picket line is warning enough of this. The Grunwick demonstration meant, as noble Lords know, that no fewer than 25 per cent. of the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force had to be sent to that site on almost a continuous basis.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He is surely not trying to pretend that the police did not know that the Grunwick picket was going to take place?
Lord HEWLETT: By no means, my Lords. I am suggesting that a major procession without notice being given takes very much more attention and emergency action on the part of the police and takes them off their proper duties.
Lord AVEBURY: That is irrelevant, my Lords.
Lord HEWLETT: I beg Lord Avebury's pardon, my Lords; I do not suggest for one moment that Lord Avebury is fair to say that is an irrelevant point. With 8,500 demonstrators at Grunwick—and 3,000 of them Yorkshire miners led by Mr. Scargill—one can say that nearly a riot situation did prevail. If speaking not elected by but representing the citizens of Greater Manchester, I wish that this situation shall not be created in the Greater Manchester district, I am perfectly right to put the view in your Lordships' House. Amendments to the Public Order Act 1936, as I was saying when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, interrupted, would not be popular with this Government. I reiterate that Clause 69 is not trying to inhibit marches at all but merely to facilitate their being held properly.
My plea, my Lords, is that the wider community interest should be served; other metropolitan areas, as your Lordships have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are seeking similar powers. It might interest your Lordships to know that France, West Germany, Italy and Holland already require notice to be given for demonstrations and marches of this type. It seems to me to be eminently sensible that Greater Manchester and any other greater metropolitan area in Britain should be protected by notice of these marches being required. There-
1556
fore, contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about Clause 69, there are points of view which I ask the House to take into consideration. I am reinforced in summarising these views to your Lordships by the knowledge that the clause is supported by the vast majority of local authorities in the Greater Manchester area and by the chief constable. I am certain that the chief constable will be prepared to attend before the Select Committee to explain his support for the proposed measure. I hope your Lordships feel that there are considerable merits in the proposal and that it would be wrong to confine the scope of the Select Committee's examination of the clause in the way in which the noble Lord's Motion now seeks to do.
If I could just restate this: the clause does not, as has frequently been claimed, give additional powers to the police, nor does it restrict the liberty of the individual. It merely asks that some consideration should be given to the electorate and the public at large. The clause contains that requirement of notice of a proposed public procession should be given to the police, but the chief constable retains his regulatory powers under general legislation applicable throughout the whole country. May I remind the House that the chief constable already has power where he apprehends that serious public disorder could arise to request a district council to prohibit such a march, and such an order does not become effective until approved by the Home Secretary. He also has power to impose conditions generally on the routeing of processions in the interest of maintaining public order.
Because of the chief constable's fear in Greater Manchester some 18 months' ago that such serious public disorder would arise at Tameside, he asked the Tameside Council to impose a ban on all processions and the Home Secretary of this Government so approved. So, my Lords, I am sorry but Lord Avebury's argument simply is not sound. The difficulty in these cases is that the chief constable has no legal or formal means of knowing when or where the procession is to take place. The chief constable and the community have a right, I submit, to this information because it is the public which can suffer through damage to private property with personal injury,

1557
traffic congestion, and the most important factor of all, the disruption to the emergency services, not to mention the general fear, apprehension and inconvenience caused.
The instruction moved by the noble Lord would require the Select Committee to limit its investigation of the need for Clause 69 to the matter of whether it is more appropriate for national rather than local legislation. I have already said that I cannot foresee Her Majesty's Government getting such legislation through. In the case of the South Glamorgan Consolidation Bill, the very first to be promoted after local Government reorganisation, the House were asked by the Committee to which that Bill had been referred to uphold a principle that a proposal in a local Bill should be disallowed if it was to meet a need common to all or a great number of authorities. That this House refused to do in 1975 and I claim created a precedent thereby. The fact that a power may be more appropriate for national legislation is no reason for withholding it from a private promoter when the Government have indicated no intention of legislating nationally. That was our decision on 9th December 1975, and I claim that the House should uphold its decision today. I ask this House to support the decision that Clause 69 be maintained in the Bill and to reject Lord Avebury's proposed Instruction.
4.16 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I have no wish at all to speak against the powers which are being asked for. I think it is quite possible that such powers are necessary. May I remind your Lordships that the particular Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asks the Committee not to allow the clause unless they are satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Private Bill rather than in national public order legislation. In 1971—if I am in order in referring to it now—we had a Bill before this House which had come through the House of Commons. I am informed that it got through the House of Commons because certain Members happened to have misunderstood the Orders of the Day and did not realise that the matter was coming up. But we had a Bill which came to this House dealing with the matter
1558
of the Isle of Wight; the legislation which we are considering today is quite analogous to it. In this Private Bill which came from the Isle of Wight, they had a clause, Clause 5, which referred to public order and safety. I have the Act in my hand and it contains three and a half pages which deal with the question of public order and safety.
At the time the Isle of Wight were concerned with the control of what were called "pop festivals". Some of your Lordships may remember the debate. It so happened that, because it had come through the House of Commons and was passed by them, the Second Reading was unopposed in your Lordships' House. It was only when the matter came before the Committee that deals with Private Bills—whose chairman was at that time the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—that it then became clear that there were certain matters which were objectionable in this clause. Many people thought that the whole clause was objectionable. But since it had been passed by the other place, and since it had a Second Reading here, the only way of dealing with it was by moving minor Amendments at Third Reading. I moved two such Amendments, and it so happened that they were carried.
The promoter of the Bill and the man who introduced it in this House was the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. He presented this Bill and accepted the Amendments. The amendments were on minor matters but it was hoped they would do two things: first, would prevent too hasty action and, as they were accepted, this hasty action was prevented; secondly, would be a warning that your Lordships' House does consider these matters carefully and does not accept without deliberation what comes forward in a private Bill.
I have looked back at the debate which took place on Third Reading on 19th July 1971. The noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, said at column 755:
"Like many other speakers, I am doubtful whether powers of this kind should be dealt with by local authorities; I think they should be dealt with by central Government".
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that she believed that legislation of this type must be public and should not be introduced by means of a Private Bill. Then

1559
in column 750 she made a very important remark:
"In this country we do not have a written Constitution. If we had one, it is very unlikely that this Bill could pass …".
I was talking to some Americans about that time, and they said there was no question that such a Bill would have contravened the basic written Constitution of the United States and would not have been allowed. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was speaking for the Government at the time, both spoke of the desirability of general, as opposed to private, legislation.
I think that is a very important matter in this consideration. It is not a question as to whether the steps proposed by an authority should be right or wrong, but whether they should be generally accepted and approved by Parliament, because Parliament alone—despite what people may say—can lay down the general principles on which the order and public security of the country are governed. On that occasion, at column 760, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said:
"I appeal to the Government—pointing out that we shall watch how this matter goes—that other local authorities"—
that is, other than the Isle of Wight—
"should not be convinced that this House will automatically allow clauses of this kind to be put into Bills".
It was generally accepted by your Lordships' House at the time that it was highly undesirable that these matters, which are of public and general importance, should be decided by local authorities promoting Private Bills. A Private Bill is something which is necessary in order that a local authority should be able to carry out certain works and certain things which it desires to do. That is generally accepted, but I would submit to your Lordships that when a local authority goes beyond that and asks for powers to deal with matters which are of general public importance, that is something which concerns the country as a whole. Therefore it is something which must be decided by Parliament and not in terms of a Private Bill.
A Private Bill is like this one which the Isle of Wight has produced. When you go to the Printed Paper Office and ask
1560
for the Private Bill you are told it is in the Private Bills Office. Other Bills are there in the Printed Paper Office, but you have to go to the Private Bills Office to get this Bill. There, we find, if I may quote the Isle of Wight Bill, that Part V refers to "Public Order and Public Safety. "That is exactly the same title as they had in their Bill in 1971. It was pointed out to them in 1971, and pointed out to all local authorities, that your Lordships' House would not pass these clauses automatically but would consider them carefully.
All that is being asked now in this Motion is that the Committee, under the extremely competent control of the Chairman of Committees, will look carefully at this to decide, not to accept it, and not to reject it but whether it is something which is more appropriate in a Private Bill than in a Public Bill. For that reason, I strongly support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, one has been led to believe by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, that the Ayatollah Khomeini was going to come and lead a procession round Peterloo and that this state of near-insurrection and anarchy might be slightly modified by being told to a chief constable seven days before. If this state of affairs is something of national importance, let us remember, my Lords, that the Queen's first duty in Parliament is to protect the internal peace and good order of her Realm: that is her primary duty. Therefore, surely that must mean that either one policeman should have the power or that no policemen should have the power. That is absolutely fundamental.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, if the noble Earl would be kind enough to give way, would he not agree that circumstances in a very large conurbation like Greater Manchester are likely to differ tremen-doubly from those in Montgomery and Merioneth?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the powers of the policeman in Montgomery or Merioneth should be the same as those of the policeman in Greater Manchester, Liverpool. Guildford or Thameside. The fact that Merioneth has a lot more sheep

1561
than people in it may alter the number of people who are prepared to go on a procession: I will concede that your Lordships. But the powers of the police, and their rights and privileges, are a national and not a local concern. They should and must be uniform. Then the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, said that in France and Germany the police have these powers. France and Germany are States and not individual local authorities, and that is uniform in both France and Germany. I would point out to the noble Lord that Germany is a Federal State and, from what he said, the powers of the police in the Federal States are similar as well.
4.29 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may detain the House for a few minutes, I would begin by apologising for the fact that I did not put my name down to speak, but I have been up-country and it was only upon my return that I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had tabled this Instruction to the Committee. I would join the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, in opposing this recommendation, and in emphatic terms, because the noble Lord made the rather obvious point that if you are dealing with a policing problem in Manchester, it is a little different from dealing with a policing problem in a rural area. It seems to me that one problem which we have to recognise on this occasion is that many local authorities have in the past had precisely these powers: I would repeat, with great respect, "precisely these powers". If the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would allow me for a moment to deploy my argument I will gladly give way later. We listen with great respect to what he says and one must be able to answer his argument.
The point is that a number of local authorities have had powers either precisely similar, or remarkably similar, to the powers that are being asked for here. That is the substance of the argument. The question is whether we should retain those powers here, in one of the largest local authority areas in this country which has already had substantial public order problems because of National Front and other demonstrations. I can hardly think of a more injudicious moment to withdraw a power of this kind. It appears to me that a large number of our fellow citizens
1562
in this country would regard it as a most remarkable proposition that, at a time like this, we in this House should decide to withdraw a power of this kind.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, did the noble Lord say "withdraw a power"? They are asking for an additional power.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect, I was talking about a withdrawal of power of this kind, as is proposed in this Bill. We are talking about a clause in the Bill which, if this Instruction is carried, might well be withdrawn and it is that to which I am objecting. If I may just make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, I listened to him about the Constitution of the United States. With great respect, he is entirely wrong. As Minister of State at the Home Office, I visited the United States only a little over a year ago, and discussed precisely this question with a number of senior United States police officers who have not only this power but greater powers. I would mention the City of Boston, but there are many others which have powers not only to notify, but to require a permit to be secured. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, he is, in fact, wrong, about the Constitution of the United States in so far as that is relevant to this debate.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, since I am accused of being wrong, may I say that I discussed this matter with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee of Congress.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I would draw his attention and that of the noble Lord to the provisions in Boston, and in a number of other United States cities, which have been used by police departments in those cities for many years past. I have no knowledge of a case which has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and if such an appeal had been made to the Supreme Court, then, of course, the powers would have had to be struck out. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think that on this matter I really must be right. Developing this—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make this point. He has asserted that precisely the powers contained in this Bill are already on the Statute Book in private legislation. I challenge him to name one local authority anywhere in the Kingdom, in which seven days' notice has to be given of a procession.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, what I am saying to the noble Lord is that there are a number of local authorities. If he is asking me to name them now, then he has the advantage of me. I cannot, in fact, name them, but I shall gladly make inquiries on this point. But, with great respect to the noble Lord, I note his point about the seven days, and I have no objection to the Committee discussing at some stage in the future whether the period should be seven days or some other time. What we are talking about is prior notification. That is the substance of this matter and, with great respect, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to address himself to. We are not here talking about a fundamental question of civil liberties, as the noble Lord suggested, because the police are not here being given power to ban a procession. They are being given power to require notification to be made. I can see no grave civil liberties issue at all here. It seems to me that, at a time when the police in many of our great cities are having to deal with substantial public order problems as a result of extremely large-scale demonstrations, it is reasonable that they should be given a power of this kind. After all, we are talking about—
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords. With great respect, I have already given way twice. I think it not unreasonable that I should be allowed to deploy my argument. All I would say to the noble Lord is that we are talking about a situation where, if he received proper notification as would be required under this Bill, a chief constable would have time to make the deployment of very substantial numbers of personnel, which it would be necessary for him to make if he was to be faced with a demon-
1564
stration, possibly consisting of many thousands of people. That being so, it seems to me particularly desirable to maintain this power.
I think that the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are essentially matters for the Committee, particularly the question of whether the period of notification should be three days, four days, five days, six days or seven days. That is entirely a matter for the Committee. But the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made his attack on this clause so sweeping that it seems to me that the House should address itself to the question of principle. All I would do is to repeat that, certainly on the basis of my own experience as a Home Office Minister for a period of five years, when we were having more and more large-scale demonstrations of this kind, it is highly desirable that this power should be retained. Certainly, if the noble Lord divides the House I shall go into the Lobby against it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he has not made a very good speech saying that this is a power that is required generally by chief constables? I do not think anybody is disagreeing with that. What some of us are finding slightly odd is that one chief constable alone should have this power, and not all the others. That is what one is kicking about.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there are two answers to that point. We are looking at this matter in connection with the Greater Manchester Bill, but we considered precisely the same matter at the time of the Merseyside and West Midlands Bills. The noble Earl may have spoken on those occasions, although I cannot recall him doing so. But we have already considered this question. The Committee did not oppose this power on the previous occasion and, that being so, it puts this matter on a very different footing from the boats issue which we were discussing a few moments ago. One knows, on the basis of one's own experience as a Minister, how difficult it is to squeeze Bills into a Parliamentary timetable. We are now talking about a Bill which will, if passed by both Houses of Parliament, go on to the Statute Book in this Session of Parliament. If we are

1565
talking about some general power, then we shall not be talking about this Session, next Session or the Session after that. The question is whether we are to give the Greater Manchester police this power. It seems to me that, given the scale of the public order problems that have arisen in Greater Manchester, it is essential that they should be given this power.
4.38 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given a very impressive explanation of why we should not allow this Instruction to go forward. But there is a detail. My noble friend does not seem to have been convinced by that impressive speech, and I gather by his intervention that neither has the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. They seem to have made up their minds that, on all occasions, any powers should be national powers and that there should never by any local powers. I would go with them so far as to say that, from my experience, the overwhelming majority of powers should be national and not local. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was a good example of that. He was right in suggesting that the Isle of Wight pop concert crowds was a matter which should have been dealt with by national powers and not by local powers. But there are powers that ought to be given locally that need not be extended nationally, and I believe that one of those powers is that set out in Clause 69 of this Bill.
This clause is not giving extra powers to the chief constable. It is merely reinforcing powers that are generally accepted throughout the country. The real power of being able to direct a procession and do something about it is already national. All chief constables over the whole country have that power. So that, to that extent, the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend are covered. What these local authorities are saying—and I think that they are right—is that, while they have those general powers which are shared by the rest of the nation, they believe that there are circumstances in their area which call for those general powers to be reinforced, because of their special problem. It is the special problem of a great conurbation, with mixed races, and all the centralisation of political
1566
thought that goes on in a city like Manchester.
They are saying, "The general powers are good, and they are all that we need, but we want it to be reinforced so that the general powers can be properly applied. At the moment we have no legal knowledge as to when a procession is likely to take place, but we find out nine times out of 10, or even 99 times out of 100". As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, they say, "We see the publicity advertising processions, or we know from our various police sources that something is going to happen, and in that roundabout way we try to take some precautions which will minimise any dangers which may flow from it". But they have no legal right to know when these things will happen. It could be that through not having a legal right there would be processions which developed into disorder on a scale none of us would want.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was quite wrong in saying that no procession that would carry these dangers could take place without the police knowing about it. As an analogy, I do not know whether he saw last week that excellent television programme "Julius Caesar". In that presentation we had a precise example of the eloquent orator Mark Antony, at a time when a meeting was in progress, by his oratory and his inflammatory speech getting the crowd, at a second's notice, to follow him in pillaging Rome in order to justify what he thought was the wrongful assassination of Julius Caesar.
I do not know how long the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been actively engaged in constituency politics. I remember that on more than one occasion when I was a young councillor in the constituency of Wednesbury, where they took politics very seriously, I saw a very great orator representing the Labour Party whip up a crowd. Almost at a minute's notice he was able to get the crowd to follow him down the street and do all sorts of things. That will now be legal, unless we give to Manchester and to places like it the power to insist that they must have seven days' notice, or some days' notice, so that the police can take precautions to safeguard the shopkeepers and other citizens in the area.

1567
So it is not true in practice—although in theory it may be thought to be true by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—that the police must know on all occasions when something disreputable is likely to happen. It is true that, generally speaking, the powers already apply nationally. This will merely reinforce them locally. In the light of all that is happening today we should be very unwise to ignore the advice given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, backed up by the experience which he gathered while he was a Minister at the Home Office.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I feel that I should apologise to the House for speaking twice, but I am tempted to do so because, having moved from "Julius Caesar" to the practical times of today, I have not yet heard why it is that demonstations happen. Evidently, some demonstrations have taken place in the recent past which were deliberately aimed at causing public disorder; but there are other kinds of demonstration. I well remember that at the time of Suez a demonstration took place on Merseyside. Thousands of people were involved in that demonstration, which took place within a time span of two days. If the chief constable of Liverpool had had the power to require seven days' notice of that demonstration, that safety valve of a demonstration by thousands of people would have blown. It was only because the chief constable of Liverpool, exercising his right in a sensible way, allowed that demonstration to take place that no riots occurred in Liverpool that evening. We could not have given seven days' notice.
I think that this highlights what I said previously: whether we like it or whether we do not, the debate is taking place today in this House instead of taking place in a Committee. If I have to vote I shall vote in favour of the Instruction, because I believe that to require seven days' notice is stupid. We should give power to the chief constable, but we should have sufficient trust in him to say that his power should not be restricted by the clock. The right to demonstrate in the United Kingdom is sacrosanct. You cannot say to somebody who feels strongly about a certain issue, "Yes, express your indignation, but wait for seven days".
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that there is a big difference between the demonstration which he mentioned regarding the Suez operation and what transpired in Greater Manchester when the National Front chose to hold a big demonstration through the centre of the conurbation and the Socialist Workers' party chose to answer it by a similar demonstration over the same area? We were very close indeed to major civil disorder. If proper notice had had to be given, the police could have made far more adequate preparation than they were allowed to do.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord has completely missed the point, because he has allowed emotion to sway his judgment.
4.47 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about processions only to say that the contents of this Bill and of others like it arc the responsibility of local authorities. The Government have neither asked nor in any way suggested to the authorities that provisions regarding notice of processions should be included. I should like, however, to put to the House a few points in relation to the general law and then on the question of local Bills.
As to the general law, your Lordships will know that the Public Order Act 1936, which contains the relevant national law, imposes no requirement on the organisers of processions to give advance notice. In this country, we have not found the need to impose a general requirement, although in recent years we have had to consider that on more than one occasion. The then Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis proposed to Lord Scarman's inquiry that the law should be changed so as to include a requirement of seven days' clear notice of processions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has quoted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said at that time.
In particular, there is the noble and learned Lord's point that our law assumes that people will be tolerant, self-disciplined and willing to co-operate with the

1569
police and that that is why, with no legal requirement of notice, the police are notified in at least 80 per cent. of cases. There is also the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that those on the fringe of our society who would never give notice at all should not force upon the law a largely unnecessary requirement which at times could be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as your Lordships know, did not recommend a change in this law.
We in the Home Office considered, after the disturbances at Lewisham and Ladywood, that the Public Order Act 1936 should be reviewed. Admittedly, at Lewisham the lack of an advance notice requirement had in no way contributed to the disorder. It had, however, I am advised, made more difficult the policing of the election meeting at Lady-wood where impromptu marches were organised by the demonstrators. The lack of such a requirement also had a bearing, I am advised, on events in Manchester on 8th October 1977, when the National Front held a march through Levenshulme and Longsight. Our subsequent discussions with chief officers did not suggest that deficiencies in the national law were regarded by them as a major problem.
The arguments were finely balanced, but it is the view of the Government that the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have not been invalidated for the country as a whole by subsequent events. We see no reason currently to amend the Public Order Act 1936. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said recently in another place that in making it clear that we do not currently see any reason to amend the Public Order Act 1963, it does not necessarily follow that we should wish to advise the House to vote against an advance notice provision in a local Bill. What it does mean is that any area wishing to retain or acquire such a power should, in our view, have to justify its case clearly and firmly on grounds related to the special needs of the area. Therefore, in our view, it is for your Lordships' House to decide the matter on its particular merits.
4.51 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I have to say that the attitude of the
1570
Home Office is a cowardly and unseemly one, backing away from what is essentially a national problem and leaving it to the local authorities to make up their minds in particular cases whether or not they wish to take such powers as we are discussing at the moment. Of course I except the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, from those strictures; I know that he has not been in the Home Office for very long and I am sure that, left to himself, he would agree with the proposition that I have been advancing this afternoon, that this is pre-eminently a matter for national and public legislation and not—
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, absolutely on one particular point and that is that, although I have been in the Home Office for only a very short time, I am in fact speaking for Her Majesty's Government and I am wholly committed to the point that I have advanced before your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, of course I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Boston has said, although I must say that I would not have expected him to follow that line of argument but rather that he would have leant towards the view that I have been advancing, namely that this is pre-eminently a matter for public and general legislation and that it would be unsatisfactory to leave it to Greater Manchester or any other local authority to take these powers if they were necessary.
Who can tell where the National Front or the Socialist Workers might be minded to create a disturbance next? The noble Lord, Lord Boston, mentioned two cases as examples where it might be claimed that if the police had had better notice it would have made a difference to the arrangements that they made. The noble Lord mentioned Ladywood and Manchester but are these the only places where the National Front or the Socialist Workers are active? I have been to several places in Greater London where disturbances have been created and I am quite certain that in the Provinces also there are areas where there are cells of these organisations working towards the creation of violent confrontations, either during the forthcoming election or quite independently of any political activity

1571
that may be taking place on a national scale. Therefore, nothing which has been said in this debate this afternoon removes my firm conviction that this is a matter for national legislation.
This afternoon, we are not addressing ourselves to the merits of Clause 69, although most of the speeches have been on that subject. We are in fact talking about whether these matters should be dealt with on a uniform basis—whether we are speaking about the powers of the police or not—and there has been an interesting difference of opinion between those who have spoken against the Instruction as to whether or not there is any enlargement of the powers of the police. I say that we are not speaking so much about the powers of the police as about the rights and the privileges, as well as the obligations, of the ordinary citizen, because it is the citizen who organises or conducts a march who has to notify the police, either seven days before, as in the case of Greater Manchester, or before some different period as laid down in other Acts. When I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I did so because he used the words, "precisely these powers", and I think he now accepts that so far there is no local Act on the Statute Book which requires a notice of as much as seven days. In all the West Midlands local Acts which I examined the period is either 24 or 48 hours. But that is a minor detail as compared with the general principle that we are allowing to go through, as it were, on the nod by accepting a provision in a local Act.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, made an extremely good speech in favour of the inclusion of a provision such as this in a public general Act. He hardly mentioned the case of Greater Manchester except to refer to his own lack of experience of that city and the disturbances which would have taken place in Tameside had it not been for the appeal made by the chief constable for a period during which all demonstrations were prohibited, an appeal which was subsequently accepted by the Home Office. It was because the police were well aware that these confrontations were likely to take place that they invoked the Public Order Act and obtained the prohibition
1572
which no doubt was completely justified by the circumstances of Greater Manchester. That they did without any reference to the amount of notice; in fact it is an argument against his speech, that the Instruction should be rejected, because the police were aware that these events were to take place and they were able in good time to ask the Home Office to exercise its powers under the Public Order Act.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whether he really wants to leave a matter of such importance to chance, just in the hope that the police may hear accurately? I cannot believe that he wants that.
Lord AVEBURY: Not necessarily, my Lords. I say that this is a matter which should be examined calmly and dispassionately on a national scale and it is really not good enough for the noble Lord to introduce a comparison between Greater Manchester on the one hand and Merioneth on the other. We are really speaking here about major conurbations; those are the areas where disturbances take place, organised by the extreme wings of the Left and the Right, and, if we were going to have national legislation, it would of course cover not only Greater Manchester and London, but also Birmingham, Liverpool and the many other large urban centres where demonstrations may take place.
However, I am not trying to pre-empt the judgment of Parliament on that matter. It would be quite wrong of us to do so on this occasion. In fact, the reason why I tabled my Instruction was not so that we should arrive at a decision on a Private Bill but so that we should have a proper look at this in terms of a national problem, even though perhaps we cannot introduce legislation in the current Session, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, remarked, and though it might be next year or the year after before we could get something on to the Statute Book. I entirely accept that point and I think there might be one or two instances where the police would regret not having the sort of powers for which Greater Manchester are asking in this Bill, but I think that is an extremely small price to pay for getting the law right on a national basis and I beg the House this afternoon to pass this Instruction.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [H.L.]
5.6 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I will keep your Lordships for
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 102.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Seear, B.

Bacon, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Onslow, E.

Wade, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

White, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Alport, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Monck, V.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainford, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Briggs, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Tellor.]

Caithness, E.

Green way, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Newall, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clancarty, E.

Halsbury, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cockfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Reigate, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Croft, L.

Hewlett, L.

Sandys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Slim, V.

Daventry, V.

Hylton, L.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Derwent, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathspey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Linlithgow, M.

Vernon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Listowel, E.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Long, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Westbury, L.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

only a minute. My remarks concern the Isle of Wight Bill and also the South Yorkshire Bill. Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord the Chairman to draw my remarks to the attention of the Select Committees on both Bills, rather than that I should speak separately on the two Bills. My worry concerns provisions in Clause 36 of the Isle of Wight Bill and Clause 77 of the South Yorkshire Bill asking for powers to prevent straw and stubble burning linked to drought orders. I suppose I should declare an interest; I am a farmer. I would make three points. First, it seems to me illogical to

1575
prevent burning in South Yorkshire when neighbouring counties are not so prevented. What happens when the county boundary goes through the middle of a field? I certainly would feel aggrieved if my neighbour could burn and I could not, Would I be paid extra for this sacrifice? I rather doubt it.
Secondly, I am not certain whether the mischief that the clause is designed to stop is the hazard of fire, or whether it is intended to conserve water supplies. I rather suspect the former and consequently doubt the advisability of linking the operation of the clause to drought orders. These orders do not correspond to the driest weather when fire may be a hazard but rather follow as a result of long dry periods; for instance, a recently enacted order—I think it is still in force or it certainly was at Christmas-time—by the South West Water Authority, when there was no shortage of rainfall in Devon or Cornwall at that time, and certainly there was no fire risk in December. If it is the latter—that is, saving water—I would say, first, that it is the plough and the cultivator which is the better weapon to fight fires than water so far as stubble is concerned. Surely, if it is a question of water, there should be some exclusion for those farms that have their own water supplies.
Thirdly, I am seriously concerned about the danger of leaving acres of unburned straw about at times when it is dry and most vulnerable to accidental fire. Increased access to the countryside makes this danger worse every year. Also, as your Lordships know, there has been a very unfortunate increase in the incidence of arson on the farm today. I believe that a controlled programme of stubble burning removes this potentially hazardous risk, although I would, of course, be more than happy to agree to rules and directions on how farmers light fires and control fires. In any event, these are in force at present in many counties and districts and are strongly, indeed I would say more than strongly, supported by all responsible farmers, and certainly by the farmers' organisations.
Finally, I realise that many people dislike stubble burning. I feel that I am standing here as an arsonist. But, without going into a long discussion—which I do not
1576
intend to do—on its essential role in modern agriculture, I should say that all leading scientific thought is 100 per cent. in favour of a good burn on an arable farm. As an arable farmer I would say, that the advantages of a good burn, coupled with modern methods of cultivation practised by many arable farmers in this country, and indeed encouraged by such agricultural research stations as Letcombe and the Weed Research Station, are showing the way—and I really mean this—to some of the most exciting advances that British agriculture or British arable argiculture has seen for quite a long time.
There seem to be two common factors in my double appeal to your Lordships' House tonight and to its Select Committees. First, both my appeals try to protect individual liberty and, secondly, in both cases it seems strange, and indeed sad, that the provisions in these two Bills seek to harm farming, and in the case of the previous Bill—the Greater Manchester County Council Bill—dinghy racing and sailing. It is a strange coincidence that both of those occupations, if I can call them that, are ones in which we as a country are world leaders.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on Second Reading and begin by declaring an interest as an inhabitant of the Isle of Wight. I should like to make two brief points in commending the Bill to your Lordships and to the Select Committee. As we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, the Isle of Wight had its last Act in 1971 which, in terms of Private Acts, is comparatively recent. So, that Act dealt very recently with the matters required to be dealt with by that part of the country and the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight. Therefore, in so far as this Bill repeats the salient points of the previous Bill and updates them, I would recommend it to the House and the Select Committee.
There are many details with which I shall not bore your Lordships, but there are two petitions which I should like to mention briefly. Both petitions are worthy of consideration by the Committee. As regards that one has no doubts whatsoever. However, it seems to me that one of the petitions could lead to a monopoly situation. I should like strongly to make

1577
the point that, so far as the Isle of Wight is concerned, transport to the mainland is a matter of great importance and requires the greatest possible flexibility and alternatives as regards both goods and persons. I would ask the Committee to pay particular attention to anything in the terms of the petitions which it thinks might militate against that, both now or in the future.
My only other remarks relate to the Instruction by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am not sure whether I should speak now or wait until after the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has spoken. By the leave of the House I prefer to speak later when we know what plans the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of the Select Committee which is to consider the Bill to what the noble Lord has said, and, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Select Committees considering both this Bill and the South Yorkshire Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in examining this very large Bill, I hope that your Lordships will allow me a few minutes in which to express a number of points brought forward from this part of the world. Clauses 39 and 40, which relate to defective electrical installations, are matters which we believe should be included in national legislation. Existing legislation, such as the Housing Act 1957 and also the Building Regulations of 1965, already caters for them and we believe that those two clauses should be deleted from the the Bill.
The restrictive powers on temporary installations in Clause 61 appear to be
1578
drawn much too tightly and strictly. In relation to tents, it would prevent schools and bodies such as the Boy Scout's Association, erecting a tent for one day without permission. That was clearly not in the mind of those who drew up the Bill. Further, the fire precautions make that particular activity much too expensive. If necessary they should apply only where temporary structures go up for three days or more.
Clause 69 relates to secondhand goods. Here I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman to a parallel clause which exists in the Greater Manchester Bill. In the Greater Manchester Bill the sale of secondhand goods is dealt with by Clause 66 and I should like to refer to the problem on account of both Bills. In both cases the clauses are drawn tightly. It would make it extremely difficult for non-charitable bazaars or shops, which are in a state of redundancy and about to be demolished, to be purchased for the purpose of managing them with a view to the sale of secondhand goods for a body which is not necessarily a registered charity. It could have charitable purposes, but if it is not a registered charity it would be outside the Act. I know from personal experience in these matters that a very large number of bodies are anxious to engage in the sale of secondhand goods. I think that the local authorities, especially in view of the inflated prices which obtain for very large numbers of domestic appliances these days, should take account of the fact that a great many people would like to have the opportunity to deal in secondhand goods on sale or for purchase in this regard.
There are further restrictive measures within these clauses which will not allow children to participate. It is unfortunate that those under 16 who would probably like to participate in a function or a bazaar or something of that nature, would, as I read the Bill, be disallowed from doing so.
Clause 76 relates to oil-burning equipment and again there is concern that the clause is drawn much too narrowly. The objection relates principally to the fact that the boiler capacity is set at 3,500 litres which is getting very close to the domestic size. Domestic oil-fired central heating should be excluded. I turn to Clause 77 which deals with the matter of straw

1579
burning, so eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley a few moments ago. We believe that that could be included under existing legislation, for instance, in the Drought Act. It is a national issue, not a local issue. As regards Clause 94, dancing and drink-in establishments which already must be licensed for this particular purpose, suggests that the clause may be unnecessary.
I turn to Clause 119. A circular, addressed to your Lordships, from the Lord's Day Observance Society states:
"Firstly, it has been brought to the attention of this Society that a Private Bill entitled the South Yorkshire Bill has been presented to the House of Lords. Clause 119 gives the power to charge for admission to certain events to be held on Sundays in South Yorkshire".
The circular goes on to make representations which, no doubt, will be fully dealt with in the Select Committee.
I should also like to draw attention to Clause 139, where there is objection. The clause is concerned with the liability of directors of companies. Once again, this is a matter which should be considered as part of national legislation and not as private legislation in the local field. Those are the matters which we believe should be the concern of the Select Committee. I am grateful for being allowed to take up the time to put them before your Lordships' House.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn our attention to these clauses and I shall ensure that they are referred to the appropriate Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
5.22 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 64 (Control of pleasure fairs) of the Bill unless they are satisfied:—

(1) that it falls within the principles for the consideration of private bills set out in paragraph 7 of the Report dated 16th April 1976 of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales on the County of South Glamorgan Bill, and

1580

(2) that the matter is one which ought to be controlled by criminal sanction rather than by the planning law.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will note that the wording of my Instruction has been marginally altered in order to overcome a technicality which would have left a little ambiguity. The present wording removes the ambiguity that existed before, but there is no material change in the meaning. I seek to prohibit the clause dealing with the holding of any pleasure fair within the district of South Yorkshire without the consent of any district council. Indeed, it goes further than merely wanting to give consent; it wishes to establish that even a fair that has been operating satisfactorily for years and years shall, in future, become a criminal offence attracting a fine of up to £500 unless such consent is forthcoming.
Therefore, I set down my Instruction on four bases. First, I do not think that the provision is necessary at all as local authorities already have sufficient powers to deal with any nuisance that may arise. Secondly, it is wrong to bring this criminal sanction into a matter which has always been looked upon as being purely a planning matter. Thirdly, by attempting to bring in such a restriction by way of a Private Bill, in effect one will be by-passing the normal Parliamentary procedure on a matter which is of national coverage, with no special local reasons which deviate from the national trend. That is a good example of the point I tried to make to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a few minutes ago. He wanted to make an alteration nationally which was not necessarily of national importance, reinforcing the powers in certain areas. But the operating of fairs and all that flows from it is national—the pleasure and reaction is identical whether it is in Manchester or Merionethshire, which I think were the two examples cited in the previous Instruction.
The fourth reason—which is very similar to the arguments which have been put before during this debate on local Bills—is that when a similar clause to No. 64 was incorporated into the County of South Glamorgan Bill in 1975 your Lordships Committee cut it out. I would reiterate the arguments put earlier this afternoon, that in the face of a clear

1581
indication from your Lordships' Committee, after listening to a petition and having gone into the matter, it ought not to be repeated year after year, putting people to the expense and trouble of having to repeat what has already been decided. Therefore, this is another example which I have no doubt the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will draw to the attention of his colleagues when they look at this particular item.
I do not believe that Clause 64 is necessary because, although it is true that at present under the Planning Act planning permission is not required to use land as a fairground up to 28 days in any calendar year on any one site—at the minute they have that clearance—it is equally true that under Article 4 of the General Development Order 1977 the local authority has the power temporarily to suspend this "exemption from planning permission" for a period of six months if it believes that it has special grounds for so doing. This is a very real power for the local authority to have. I do not think that a local authority needs any further powers in order to clear away a nuisance. However, under the existing powers, which I think are sufficient, having given power to the local authorities, that order also recognises the rights of the fairground operator who can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment to have any suspension lifted if he can show to the Minister that the suspension is unfair and unnecessary.
Therefore, I submit that this power, which is available to the local authorities and which brings in the Secretary of State as the umpire, provides all that is necessary to safeguard the interests of local inhabitants. To go further, even to the point of making it a criminal sanction with a £500 fine in one area, leaving the rest of the country free, is not only inappropriate but entirely wrong. That introduces an injustice which should not be tolerated.
Further, I submit that if there is any evidence to show that fairs which have operated for centuries need to be put in this criminal straitjacket, Parliament ought to deal with it in the normal way over the whole of the country. On that ground alone I believe that this particular clause ought to be struck out by the Committee. But in addition, looking at it from the
1582
public morale point of view, I submit that it is wrong to bring criminal sanctions into a matter which is surely a planning matter. In all seriousness I would suggest that if we make a practice of bringing technical planning breaches into the courts as criminal acts, we risk adding to the sad, unsatisfactory tendency that people will begin to look at the law with contempt instead of with respect.
Therefore, in addition to this general objection, I maintain that we should look at the actual procedure envisaged in this clause. At the minute the clause requires fairground operators to submit application 35 days before the date on which any pleasure fair is intended. Even the Home Office, which has a vast experience in this matter, must consider this period of 35 days to be unrealistic. In its own model by-laws it requires fairground operators to give only five days' notice. Indeed, the actual model by-law states:
"shall give to the proper officer of the council at least five days' notice in writing of the intention to hold such a pleasure fair, specifying the dates and the place at which such a pleasure fair is to be held".
Therefore, in the view of the Home Office, with its great experience, five days is all that is necessary. Suddenly to jump to 35 days is wrong. The only concession given when this 35 days is asked for is that the fairground operator can have recourse to the magistrates' court. But that concession to the operator is scarcely practicable, for the operator may well be earning his living in another part of the country and will be unable to take the matter to the magistrates' court in sufficient time for it to be dealt with before the fair is due to open. Therefore, it is an arbitrary extension of the time which can only be extremely damaging to those who operate these fairs, which are part of the make-up of the social life of our country. I reiterate the third reason I gave, that even if it could be established that more stringent powers are necessary it should be done in this instance by a normal Parliamentary procedure that covers the whole country.
I would add one final point: the sponsors of this Bill may wish to suggest to the Committee that there is a precedent for Clause 64. They may want to quote Section 246 of the Sheffield Corporation Act 1928. But I should like the Committee to bear in mind that what happened

1583
on that occasion, as distinct from what is now being suggested, was that the fairgrounds operators withdrew their opposition to Clause 246 because they were offered an agreement with the Sheffield authorities which was satisfactory to them, and according to which they could hold their fairs in 14 places. Sheffield was a case where mutual agreement was arrived at, which is a different matter indeed to a criminal sanction with a £500 fine such as is now envisaged in the clause for whose deletion I am asking. Therefore, I am suggesting that the four bases of my appeal stand up strongly with tradition and evidence on their side, and the only precedent that can even be whispered is one which is flimsy almost to the point of being irrelevant. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 64 (Control of pleasure fairs) of the Bill unless they are satisfied:—

(1) that it falls within the principles for the consideration of private bills set out in paragraph 7 of the Report dated 16th April 1976 of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales on the County of South Glamorgan Bill, and

(2) that the matter is one which ought to be controlled by criminal sanction rather than by the planning law.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)

5.32 p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in this Instruction. I am interested to see that for one day at any rate he is an honorary Yorkshireman. South Yorkshire is an area which I know very well, and I was rather surprised that this clause came in a South Yorkshire Bill, although what the noble Lord has said about Sheffield—something of which I was previously unaware—probably accounts for it, because Sheffield, which was then a county borough, is now a part of the new South Yorkshire Metropolitan County.
I know the South Yorkshire area very well indeed, although I do not live in it but in the south of West Yorkshire. Local government reorganisation broke up many communities. One thing it did
1584
in Yorkshire in addition to many others was to break up the colliery areas of Yorkshire. Whereas they all used to be under the West Riding County Council, they are now divided between West Yorkshire County and South Yorkshire County. Except for the big cities like Sheffield and Rotherham, South Yorkshire colliery areas are mostly small towns and villages, as indeed are those in the south of West Yorkshire.
We have recently had in your Lordships' House the West Yorkshire County Bill and this did not include any such clause as Clause 64. What does that mean? It means that, in this area of colliery villages and towns, those parts which are in South Yorkshire will have to apply for permission from the district council, whereas those villages and towns which practically adjoin them but which are in the West Yorkshire County will not have to do so. It seems to me to be a ludicrous position to have this vast area of colliery towns with a law in one respect in one area and a different law in the other. As the Showmen's Guild members are going around with their fairs they will have to think, "Which side of the line am I? Do I need to apply to the district council to hold my fair, or need I not because it is just over some imaginary line?" This will mean great difficulties for the travelling showmen.
Those of us who know the Showmen's Guild know that they are a very responsible body. They have had disappointments over the years, because many of the sites which were traditionally sites for the old-fashioned fairs have become unavailable to them because of building and other reasons. This is going to be one more difficulty that they will have to overcome. Fairs are very popular indeed, particularly in my part of the world. They have been operating for many years, and I would hope that your Lordships' House would not do anything which would mean fewer of these fairs in the future. I therefore hope that your Lordships' House will agree to this Instruction to the Select Committee, because I believe there is no reason for such a law to operate in the South Yorkshire area.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I too should like to give my strong support to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in the matter of this

1585
Instruction. When I became Home Secretary, which was about 17 years ago, I remember being informed by my advisers that, as Home Secretary, I had a statutory power to prohibit the holding of a fair. I was further advised that in the last 200 years no Home Secretary had thought fit to exercise that power, and certainly I was not tempted in that direction. Seriously, however, I cannot see why there should be the element of the criminal law introduced here where, so far as I am aware, planning regulations and planning law entirely cover the point at issue.
5.36 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It was particularly nice to hear Lord Brooke of Cumnor giving us his advice again. May I say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about this Instruction. I have absolutely no reason to advise your Lordships against the Instruction. I am grateful to him for having made a slight wording change which has been helpful, but I still think it right that I should make some comment on the status of the report to which he refers in sub-paragraph (1) of his Instruction.
As he says, this was a report by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to the Select Committee on the County of South Glamorgan Bill. It set out certain principles which those Departments hoped would have the agreement of Parliament. These principles that were set out cannot, therefore, be said to guide the consideration of Private Bills by Committees, or to bind Parliament in any way. It is for this House to decide the principles that regulate Private Bills.
Moreover, as it turned out one of those principles set out in this report—the principle in paragraph 7(3), that where a need exists which is common to many authorities the matter should be dealt with by general legislation and not by Private Bill—was not accepted by this House. The House agreed to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the effect of which was that where a proposal was to meet a need common to all, or a great number of, local authorities it should be disallowed only where the Government give a firm
1586
undertaking to introduce general legislation to meet that need. I would just make that point because I should not like it to be thought that this report from the two Departments to which the noble Lord referred is really doing more than making a suggestion.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that remark. He may have noted that in my submission I did not make that point because of the reasons the noble Lord has just put on the record. The report exists, and the report gives an indication rather like the speeches made earlier this evening as to the desirability of doing it. But one has to accept that to make it a general rule which has to be adhered to would not fit in with what I have already argued, that there are certain parts of the country where you have sometimes to make exceptions. I submit that my first point—ignoring the second one—which has been commented on by the noble Lord, is sufficient to bring forth sympathy and, I hope, the right action from this Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this Bill should not leave us on its passage to a Committee without attention being drawn to Clause 5. For the reasons I am about to advance, that clause should, I submit, be dropped from the Bill. It would give one county council, Tyne and Wear, a power which the Government have recently decided, following the recommendations of an independent committee, should not be granted to local authorities pending further experience and consideration. This Private Bill is seeking to go further in Clause 5 than Governments or Parliament have been prepared to go in Public Bills in granting powers to local authorities. The Clause would set a precedent which some other local

1587
authorities might later try to follow in other Private Bills. In this way Clause 5 would, if allowed to remain in the Bill, prejudge an issue which still needs careful consideration before a decision is taken in relation to local government in general. I suggest it would be inappropriate and wrong to allow this clause to be enacted in a Private Bill affecting one local authority only.
The clause deals with conditions to be imposed when planning permission is granted in connection with mineral workings and associated waste material in order to achieve restoration when all the work is completed; the aim is to avoid dereliction and to protect the environment. So far in what I have described there is nothing new or controversial. The objectionable addition, however, is the power to force an applicant to enter into a bond with the local planning authority involving a guarantee and a sum of money. The intention is to guard against a firm going bankrupt or in some other way becoming financially unable to carry out restoration when the mining, quarrying or similar operations have been completed on the site in question. This eventuality, and the methods of providing beforehand for coping with it, have been the subject of much deliberation in recent years. The device of imposing a performance bond, as proposed in Clause 5, is controversial, since it is not generally regarded as the most effective or relevant remedy.
I must make it clear that I am in favour of conditions for restoration. Indeed, I myself stipulated them when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and had to take decisions under the town and country planning legislation. In those instances I considered the possibilities, fortunately rare, of default for financial reasons. I therefore accept that there is a problem in a limited form; it does exist and the question is what is the best solution. A committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens was set up in 1972 to consider these matters in relation to mineral workings, the subject of this clause. That committee reported in 1976. It rejected bonds as a method for the time being, recommending that further experience and consideration were needed.
1588
The Department of the Environment in its Circular 58/78, issued only last August, contained the Government's views on the Stevens Committee's Report and it endorsed the Stevens Committee's view in this respect. It may be best if I quoted a relevant section from that circular:
"While the results of changes need to be seen, we would prefer to leave open the possibility of applying some form of guarantee or fund should the developing situation show it to be expedient and accordingly to make arrangements to keep the situation under continuing review. It is our hope that the industry will demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that statutory arrangements are not necessary to guarantee restoration of the fullest standard but if that expectation is not fulfilled it may not be right to suspend action until the end of a ten year term".
Noble Lords will note that in that passage the Department of the Environment, besides speaking of a guarantee, also spoke of a fund, because there is another method, which has been under discussion, of a fund which would be available for dealing with situations where restoration could not be carried out. But both those methods mentioned are in suspense for the moment. I referred to the Department of the Environment's latest views because Tyne and Wear is in England; had it been in Scotland or Wales I should of course have been turning to the latest pronouncements from the Scottish or Welsh Offices.
I have been speaking of restoration. In this context it does not necessarily denote exact reinstatement to the original condition. That may not be feasible. Nor may it be the best legacy for the local authority, local community or general public from the work that has been carried out. Normally the operation of restoration includes removing any industrial scars—that is of first importance. After that, landscaping and the top soil being returned can also be part of the scheme. But to try to return to the previous contours and features may not be necessary or indeed desirable.
To give an example, where quarrying has taken place often a pond or lake is formed and it may be in the best interests of those in the area that it should then be used for sailing or fishing rather than be completely filled in again, and that could be arrived at by agreement. Taking a newer development, because it has dated since only 1971, planning permission has been given for the oil platform building

1589
sites on the sea shore. Here, enormous holes are excavated in the beach and it is important of course that planning permission should have in appropriate cases provisions for restoration when the work is finished, and that may be in eight, 10 or 15 years' time. I know of at least one such case in the North of Scotland where, rather than try to fill in the enormous dock that has been created, it would be much better to turn it into a marina for sailing boats and other craft, provided always that the clearing up on the other parts of the shore is properly carried out.
The present practice, which is to be encouraged, is that agreement is reached in each case, depending on the individual circumstances, and in some cases flexibility is needed in the agreement to enable the most suitable course to be adopted, because only at the end of the working, perhaps many years ahead, can the final state of the site be assessed and what will best conform with the surroundings be determined. For the surrounding land may have been built over or otherwise developed or changed in the meantime.
The Confederation of British Industry are greatly concerned about this clause. Many of their members engaged in mineral operations would be adversely affected if the clause were passed and the precedent allowed. The CBI are petitioners against this proposal in the Bill and will make their case to the Committee. I did not therefore table an Instruction for the House to consider today; the case will, I am sure, be well and fully explained in the Committee. My purpose is to draw attention at this stage to a clause which is contrary to national policy in relation to local government as a whole and is therefore an important point to be registered in your Lordships' House.
I strongly support the CBI in their objection to a power which would enable a single local authority to make a bond compulsory when planning permission is granted. Of course, there is no difficulty about voluntary arrangements; bonds are now entered into and are in use by the agreement of both parties in private transactions in particular and where the circumstances are accepted and relevant to both parties. In the case of agricultural land that is particularly so. As
1590
contemplated by the Stevens Committee and the Government in their circular, the whole question on a nationwide basis is to come up in the next few years. The system of a restoration fund will be considered as at least one other option to a performance bond. Some think that it is preferable, because there are disadvantages in bonds. For example, it is difficult to foresee the eventual costs where workings may continue for 40 or more years, and money is tied up which could be invested in industry. So, if and when a decision is reached, Parliament should be asked to consider the chosen method by the Government of the day in public legislation applying to all local authorities. The matter should not be prejudged in a Private Bill, dealing simply with a single local authority.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of SHANNON: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for what he has just said; he has said practically everything that I was going to say. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention a little closer to one or two of the aspects of the report to which the noble Lord referred. It is the report issued by a Department of the Environment committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens, and it is entitled Planning Control over Mineral Working. The report came from an expert committee which was set up to consider, among other matters, the very aspects of Clause 5 of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just drawn attention. A proposed bonding system does not per se refer to restitution of the land, but merely the finance for it. The committee investigated 145 cases in 13 different counties where the required restitution of the land was not complied with within the given time, and in only nine of the cases was financial failure of the operator a factor. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a quotation from paragraph 9.28 of the report:
"restoration could have been achieved by the proper and timely use of planning control measures which had not been applied".
Later, in the same paragraph it is stated:
"The evidence of survey … does not support the generalised assertions made in evidence that a major cause of dereliction is the avoidance by operators of their liabilities by resort to bankruptcy liquidation".

1591
Thus, we can see that financial failure is only a very minor cause for lack of reinstatement of workings. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned, the committee looked into the possibility of bonding and into other possibilities. On bonding, the committee reported in paragraph 9.31 of the report:
"The first system that we considered in this way involved imposing a statutory requirement for the restoration of each mineral working (or separate waste heap) to be guaranteed by a performance bond. From our discussions in London and Washington with representatives of bond-issuing agencies and their organisations it was clear to us that the normal commercial market would not underwrite bonds with the degree of freedom and flexibility required; many operators would be unable to secure bonds matched to their needs, in terms particularly of the period of coverage, and would consequently be unable to continue in business".
The other possibility referred to was the system of a fund which, it was suggested, could be provided by a levy on all operators in such a way that an operator who defaulted on his restoration liability, or who failed to meet a levy, would be removed from the list of operators in good standing with the fund and would be unable to continue mineral working. The committee considered such a scheme to be far preferable to bonding. The only way in which they saw bonding working at all would be as a kind of analogue to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and if this were done, it would in the early stages be necessary to have access to public funds.
In its final recommendation, contained in paragraph 9.29 of the report, the committee said quite categorically:
"We therefore recommend that the situation should be kept under review during a period of five to 10 years following the full implementation of our other recommendations".
It is interesting to note that the other main recommendation in this field related to the proper monitoring of workings by the local authority, when considering the major cause of lack of restitution—and not the fear of someone going bankrupt.
I wonder why this particular local authority is seeking powers to implement a scheme, the feasibility of which has been roundly condemned after exhaustive inquiries by an expert committee of the Department of the Environment—a committee which was set up to examine this very subject. I also wish to draw your
1592
Lordships' attention to the fact that especially in view of present and impending inflation, any bond which might possibly be put up—and that is very doubtful, as we have heard in the committee's report—could well be of little value if and when it came to be claimed, particularly in view of the very long time-scale, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned, of between 25 and 50 years in some industries. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading it will go to Committee. I hope that the Members of the Committee will satisfy themselves of some very special and exceptional reasons as to why, in the face of both an expert report to the contrary and directions from the Department of the Environment, this local authority should seek this particular power. I, for one, will listen with great attention to any such reasons on Report stage, unless the sponsors seek to withdraw the provision from the Bill.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on a Bill which, although it relates to Tyne and Wear, has been discussed by a very distinguished Scotsman followed by a very distinguished Irishman, and I want to know who is speaking for the Tyne and Wear authority? It seems to me that there is much difference both in the legal system and in terrain between Scotland and my part of the world, and so I should like to know at what stage the authorities of Tyne and Wear are to be consulted as to what they really want. They may have quite different ideas. They may not be in full agreement with what has been said by the two noble Lords. I have here a copy of the Bill; it is enormous. It seems to me extraordinarily odd that we have to have a distinguished Scotsman and a distinguished Irishman saying what they think ought to be done in Tyne and Wear.
Therefore, I hope that whoever is to reply for the Government will say whether the authorities of Tyne and Wear are to be consulted in order to find out whether they agree with the points of view put forward by the two noble Lords. I find the situation very interesting, and almost amusing, because I cannot imagine that Tyne and Wear will fall in exactly with

1593
all the points of view put forward by these two distinguished noble friends of mine.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, may I make it clear straight away that I am not speaking for the Government, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box. But, to answer the noble Baroness's question, this Bill will go to a Select Committee, and the promoters, the Tyne and Wear County Council, will have every opportunity to put their case to the Select Committee. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for the points they have made on Clause 5. I shall certainly see that what they have said is drawn to the attention of the Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

BANKING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

KIRIBATI BILL [H.L.]
6.1 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Kiribati Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The essential purpose of this Bill, in the words of the Long Title, is 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 (he name of Kiribati".
1594
Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to express my apologies in advance for having to speak at some length. The reason for this will become apparent, I hope, later in my speech. But now, in accordance with custom, I shall begin by tracing briefly the history of the Gilbert Islands and the developments leading up to the introduction of the Bill.
The intention of the Bill is that Kiribati should become independent as its territory is at present constituted. It comprises 33 islands in all, including the Line Islands and the Phoenix Islands. The total area is 264 square miles, scattered across 2,000,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean around the point at which the International Date Line cuts the Equator. The capital of the territory is Tarawa. The people are Micronesian, and the total population is about 56,000, the bulk of whom live in the Gilberts Group.
Britain's first official involvement in the islands was in 1877, when the Western Pacific High Commission was established in an endeavour to protect the islands in the region from being raided by black-birders for labour to work in plantations in South America, Fiji, Hawaii, Tahiti and Queensland. In 1888–89, Christmas, Fanning and Washington, in the Northern Line Islands, were annexed by Britain. A British Protectorate was declared in 1892 over the Gilberts Group and the neighbouring Ellice Islands, which are now Tuvalu. Banaba (Ocean Island) was annexed in 1900. The Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony succeeded the Protectorate in 1916, and was extended to include Banaba, Fanning and Washington Islands. Christmas Island was included in 1919, the Phoenix Islands in 1937 and the Central and Southern Line Islands in 1972.
During the Second World War the Gilberts were invaded by Japanese forces, and several islands were occupied. After fierce fighting at the battle of Tarawa in 1943, the Japanese were displaced, although Banaba remained occupied until 1945, when it was liberated by Australian forces. In January 1972 the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony was formally separated from the Western Pacific High Commission, and the Resident Commissioner became the first Governor of the Colony. As part of a continuous process of

1595
constitutional evolution, a ministerial form of government was created, with a House of Assembly and a Council of Ministers. In October 1975, with the agreement of the Gilbert Islands, the Ellice Islands separated from them to become Tuvalu. Full internal self-government was attained by the Gilbert Islands on 1st January 1977. There is a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister and a House of Assembly consisting of 35 elected members, one ex-officio member (the Attorney-General) and a seat for a nominee of the Rabi Council of Leaders, representing the Banabans.
In May 1977 a Constitutional Convention in Tarawa reached agreement by consensus on each of the proposed provisions placed before it. In late November last year a full constitutional conference, with the participation of Banaban representatives, took place in London under my chairmanship. It was agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Gilbert Islands should become independent, as a republic within the Commonwealth, in early July 1979. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 7445), and presented to Parliament in January of this year.
I now come to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the independence of the Gilbert Islands as a republic as from 12th July 1979. Clause 3 and the Schedule provide for the continuance after independence of laws operating in respect of Kiribati before independence subject to the consequential modification of certain enactments. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with nationality. They follow closely the similar clauses in the Tuvalu Act 1978. Perhaps I can take Clause 5 first. This provides for the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by persons with a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency. Clause 4 provides that, subject to the exceptions in Clause 5, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall lose that citizenship if, on independence, they become citizens of Kiribati. It also provides that, again subject to the exceptions in Clause 5, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who, or whose father, was born in Kiribati, or a woman who acquired that citizenship by reason of her marriage to such a citizen, but who
1596
does not become a citizen of Kiribati at independence, shall lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if, on independence, he or she has the citizenship of some other country.
This departure from the usual provisions of an independence Bill was agreed with the Gilbert Islands Government because of the unique situation resulting from the division of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony into two, one of them achieving independence in advance of the other. The centre of administration of the former colony was at Tarawa. Consequently, persons not otherwise connected with what became the Gilbert Islands Colony were born there while their fathers were serving in the administration. These persons are, in the main, currently resident in Tuvalu, and became citizens of Tuvalu when that country achieved independence. But because of the accident of birth at Tarawa, they have until now retained citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Kiribati Constitution contains provision for such persons to acquire citizenship of Kiribati automatically at independence if they first renounce their other citizenship. The Gilbert Islands Government have given a firm undertaking to publicise this provision for the benefit of those who wish to take advantage of it. Thus those Tuvaluans have the option of acquiring Kiribati citizenship if they want it. They will, however, in any case cease to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The clause is so worded as to avoid leaving anyone stateless. Clause 6 enables Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to appeals from the courts of Kiribati. Clauses 7 and 8 deal with interpretation and citation.
My Lords, it is at this stage that I would normally turn to more general matters not covered by the Bill: for example, prospects for the Gilbert Islands after independance, aid and technical assistance, and such matters. However, before proceeding to those matters, I should like to explain the Government's decision, as provided for in the Bill, that Banaba, or Ocean Island, as it is also known, should remain part of the Gilbert Islands on independence. The Banaban problem has been a long-standing one. It

1597
is a complicated subject. I therefore repeat my request that the House will bear with me if I deal with the subject at some length.
The Banaban issue has two aspects—constitutional and financial. The financial aspect has no direct connection with the present Bill. Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful if I touched on this aspect later in my statement.
Banaba was discovered by the British vessel "Ocean"—hence the name—in 1804. Phosphate was discovered there in May 1900, when the London-based Pacific Islands Company applied to the Colonial Office for a licence to mine it. The Colonial Office decided that the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate should include the island in the protectorate, and in November 1900 Ocean Island was effectively incorporated into it.
By Order in Council of 10th November 1915 the protectorate was annexed as a colony. This Order in Council referred to islands covered by the Declarations of Protectorate of May and September 1892. Ocean Island was not mentioned in these declarations: it had already been annexed in 1900 and administered as part of the protectorate. A separate Order in Council was issued on 27th January 1916 to include it, together with Fanning and Washington Islands (in the Line Islands, 1,500 miles to the east), within the boundaries of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.
As early as 1909, the British authorities had expressed disquiet about the fate of the Banabans when the phosphate was exhausted, and in 1931 some of the phosphate royalties were credited to a Banaban Provident Fund, whose purpose was to provide money for the purchase of a future home for the Banabans. The Banabans were loath to leave their homeland and for some years resettlement was not pursued. But in 1942, Rabi Island, in Fiji, was purchased freehold.
In August, 1942, the Japanese occupied Ocean Island and dispersed many of the Banabans to other Pacific islands. On Japanese surrender of the island in October 1945, the island was temporarily uninhabitable as a result of wartime depredations. After some initial misgivings, the Banabans, who had been brought together in Tarawa by the British authorities,
1598
agreed unanimously to go to Rabi with the option of permanent settlement there, on condition that, if all or any of them should wish to return to Ocean Island after two years, suitable transport would be arranged by the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony Government.
A secret ballot among Banabans on Rabi on whether they wished to stay there or return to Ocean Island was held in 1947, a large majority (270 to 48) electing to make Rabi their headquarters and home. A statement of intentions embodying Banaban land rights and rights of access was read out and explained fully to the Banaban community by officials of the then colonial government. I shall return to this later.
The present Banaban population is about 2,500. All except about 90 of them continue to live on Rabi (now part of independent Fiji) and they maintain only a rotating token presence on Ocean Island (now called Banaba). Many of the Banabans are Fiji citizens and virtually all of them are entitled to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The rights of land ownership on, and freedom of access to, Banaba under the 1947 statement of intentions are included in the present Gilbert Islands internal self-government Constitution.
Over the past decade, the Banabans have campaigned for the separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands. Their campaign has included unsuccessful appeals to the United Nations and to the British Government, and prolonged legal actions in the United Kingdom courts. The Banabans have based their claims to separation on three principal points. The first is that they are a different people from the Gilbertese; the second they had not until this century been governed by the Gilbertese; and the third that, since the Ellice Islands (now Tuvalu) were allowed in October 1975 to separate from the Gilbert Islands, so too should they.
Successive Gilbertese Governments have strongly resisted the Banabans' claim to separation, arguing that on legal, historical, ethnic and linguistic grounds, Banaba should remain part of the Gilbert Islands. The separation in October 1975 of the Ellice Islands from the Gilbert Islands took place with the full consent of the

1599
Gilbert Islands Government; it is, therefore, not a valid precedent for the granting of Banaba's separation. Moreover, the Gilbertese have argued that on geographical and practical grounds it is more sensible that Banaba remain part of the Gilbert Islands, from whose capital it is only 240 miles distant, rather than be associated with Fiji, from which it is separated by 1,400 miles of ocean.
Over a long period, successive British Governments have explored every possibility in an attempt to solve the Banaban problem, including the despatch to the region in 1977 of a special representative, Mr. Posnett, to report and make recommendations on the problem. The Government have continually encouraged the Gilbert Islands Government and the Banaban leaders to try to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The Government were therefore much encouraged when the two parties met in November 1977 in Bairiki (in the Gilbert Islands), when they passed 10 resolutions, including one for a referendum throughout the Gilbert Islands and Rabi on the separation of Banaba, and some resolutions calling for Britain to pay the Banabans considerable further sums of money. At this stage the Banabans did not link these proposals and, indeed, explicitly accepted the possibility that a referendum would go against them. Subsequently, however, they resiled from this position and said that the Bairiki resolutions should be regarded as a package. In other words, they were prepared to accept a referendum vote which might go against separation if the British Government met their financial demands.
The two sides met again in June 1978 in Tarawa (in the Gilbert Islands) but without success; although on this occasion the Banabans agreed to suspend their campaign for separation, again provided that the British Government gave them considerable sums of money. One understands a feeling about one's homeland, but it is a little difficult to accept it always as being the basis of an argument if from time to time a certain price is placed upon it.
The future status of Banaba therefore fell to be decided at the Gilbert Islands pre-independence constitutional conference held in London from 21st November to 7th December. I was the chairman
1600
of the conference. I had made clear well in advance of the conference that, in the absence of an agreement being reached between the Gilbertese and the Banabans in the meantime, the conference itself would need to decide the issue, and for this purpose the Banabans would be invited to put their case once more. The Banabans were represented by their whole Council of Leaders together with advisers.
The first week of the conference—nearly half the duration of this conference—was, at my direction, devoted exclusively to consideration of the future status of Banaba. I invited both sides once more to put forward their views and to raise any new points which might affect Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the subject. Ample opportunity was given to the participants to state their points of view. The Banabans reiterated their long-standing argument that Britain had joined Banaba to the Gilbert Islands in 1916 without consulting the Banabans. They expressed concern that the British Government could contemplate transferring the responsibility in the 1947 "Statement of Intentions", to which I have referred earlier, to an independent Gilbert Islands Republic.
They expresesd distrust that these undertakings could be guaranteed by entrenched clauses in an independent Gilbert Islands Constitution. They contended that only the separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands could safeguard the Banabans' rights to their homeland and that it was unfair and impracticable to expect them to live under two jurisdictions—that is, a "monarchical" Fiji and a "republican" Gilbert Islands. Their basic principle, on which they were not prepared to compromise, was that they would not settle for anything less than Banaba's separation from the Gilbert Islands. They wished to remain, at least for the time being, a separate British colony with the right, if they wished, to associate with Fiji. They had thus retreated from the position they had adopted at Bairiki and Tarawa; namely, that they were prepared to consider the possibility of remaining part of the Gilbert Islands in return for large sums of money.
The Banabans' demands were unacceptable to the Gilbert Islands' delegation who reiterated their equally strongly

1601
held views against separation. Nevertheless, the Gilbertese Chief Minister indicated that, within a solution which involved the retention of Banaba in the Gilbert Islands, his delegation were prepared to consider any concessions or safeguards the Banabans wished to propose.
In this situation, I adjourned the conference proceedings in order to consult my colleagues in the Government. I subsequently announced the British Government's decision that the Gilbert Islands would proceed to independence as at present constituted—that is, including the island of Banaba—but that special provisions should be included in the Independence Constitution safeguarding the Banabans' interests. On hearing the announcement, the Banaban representatives withdrew from the conference and refused to participate further.
This decision, the text of which is in paragraph 3 of the conference report (Cmnd. 7445) was based on our normal policy, and the generally accepted UN principles, on questions of self-determination, of respecting the wishes of the people as a whole within the existing boundaries of the territory to become independent.
The Gilbert Islands' delegation responded, I am bound to say constructively and co-operatively, to the inclusion and entrenchment of quite special Banaba provisions in their Independence Constitution. I regret that the Banaban representatives refused to take part. Those provisions are set out in paragraphs 62 to 69 of the conference report, and they deserve very careful study. They will, among other things, continue to ensure the Banabans' right of access to, and landownership on, Banaba, irrespective of whether the Banabans are Fiji citizens or become Kiribati citizens; they will afford them the right of representation in the Gilbertese House of Assembly, with their representative having the right of veto over any changes to the entrenched conditions; and will afford them the right of appeal to the Privy Council in any matters affecting the provisions. In addition, the Constitution will provide for an independent Commission of Inquiry to review the operation of the conditions after 5 years and to make recommendations; and the Gilberts' Chief Minister has expressed his Government's willing-
1602
ness to conclude an agreement or even a treaty with Fiji, if Fiji were willing, safeguarding the Banabans' rights in the Independence Constitution. These special provisions are entrenched in the Constitution to a degree unprecedented in my experience of such matters.
The Banabans have expressed concern lest the provisions not be honoured. I am confident that they will be: they have been fully honoured since 1947, and it would be discourteous, to say the least, to the Gilbertese people—and they are a Pacific area people, and those familiar with the area will know what I mean when I say that they have their own standards and a Pacific way and Pacific assumptions of what entails honour and behaviour—to suggest that they would violate their constitutional commitments. Indeed, I find it a little ironic that the Banabans are prepared to trust the British Government, of whom they have had many uncomplimentary things to say, but not their neighbours and kinsmen in the Pacific.
I assure the House that I personally and my Government have spared no effort to try to reach an agreed solution to the issue of Banaba's constitutional future. Faced with two parties with opposing views we believe that the decisions we took, in co-operation with the Gilbertese, have resulted in a fair and a workable solution, and that the Banabans should give it a chance. I am sure that the House will agree with the Government that the issue should not be allowed to delay the progress to independence of the Gilbert Islands, who in their period of self-government as a dependancy have shown a remarkable capacity for prudent and cheerful husbandry of their resources. That independence should not be delayed simply because one island cannot be satisfied totally about the safeguards which I believe are very substantial indeed—in fact are conclusive. We cannot rewrite history; but we can help, and we are helping, to provide for a viable future for the Gilbertese and for the Banaban community on Rabi.
My Lords, this exposition—a rather lengthy one—of the efforts of the Government over a long period of time to find a solution to the constitutional problem of Banaba will not have been in vain if I have succeeded in convincing your

1603
Lordships that we have done everything possible to find a compromise solution which is fair and just to all parties. There are nevertheless some for whom I have the deepest respect who believe that we should make one last effort to see if within the framework of the report of the conference the parties could not be further reconciled.
Such a suggestion has been made to me by the noble Baroness opposite and by her colleagues in this House and in another place. I should like to pay my respects to her and to her colleagues for putting forward the suggestion. Moreover, the Prime Minister of Fiji has made a similar proposal. I am prepared to accept the suggestion that a Minister should, before the Bill is read a second time in another place, visit the Pacific to discuss with the Gilbert Islands Government and the Rabi Council of Leaders, if they are willing, the special provisions to protect the interests of the Banabans. The Minister would also talk to the Government of Fiji, whose Prime Minister has told me he would welcome such a visit. The present plan is that my honourable friend, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Evan Luard, who was co-chairman with me of the Gilbert Islands constitutional conference, should make a visit in early March following an official visit to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
I must, of course, make clear that there can be no question of Her Majesty's Government resiling from the provisions recorded in the White Paper. This is an agreed report signed by the Chief Minister and myself, and I believe it is a most valuable document for resolving difficulties of this nature. The purpose of the visit will be to see how much further they can go to accommodate views and feelings on the basis of the White Paper, and to talk to everybody concerned in the most friendly and constructive manner possible. I am quite sure that my honourable friend is the very man to do so. Our object would be to discuss with those directly concerned the safeguards for ensuring that the interests of the Banabans are protected within a united Kiribas, in the hope that the two views might yet be reconciled.
I mentioned earlier that the financial aspect of the Banaban issue had no direct bearing on the future status of Banaba,
1604
which is a purely constitutional matter. But I should like to acquaint the House with the financial provisions we are making to help the Banabans. As the House will know, following the Banabans' unsuccessful legal action against the Crown, the partner Governments of the British Phosphate Commission, that is the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, offered in May 1977 10 million Australian dollars (about £6·7 million sterling) for a fund for the Banabans' future. That is in addition to the revenues which have been paid for many years to the Banabans as also to the Gilbertese and are continuing to be paid until the end of mining, later this year. In addition the partner Governments are prepared to consider paying back-dated interest on this sum, which would provide about a further 1·5 million Australian dollars. These amounts are additional to the generous 1·25 million Australian dollars offered by the BPC in settlement of the Banabans' actions against them, in which the court awarded damages of 14,000 dollars only.
The Government have also offered the Banabans up to £1 million for development projects on Rabi island where, as I said, the great majority of them live and have been living since 1947. In addition, the Government are prepared to finance a full resources survey of Banaba itself, their former home, to ascertain its potential for habitation and development after phosphate mining ends this year, should any of them choose to live there, and to discuss any recommendations which the survey report makes. I cannot, of course, tie my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Aid in advance of the issue of such a report, if they agree that it should be made; but I think the House will understand me if I say that I have every confidence that if such a valuable survey as this could be reported to be in favour of redeveloping Ocean Island, to overtake some of the mistakes—some of the excesses perhaps—made in another age according to the lights of a different age, to restore the island, then this country and this Government, indeed any Government, would most favourably look on the recommendations of such a survey. I am sure the House will agree that these are generous offers to a community numbering about 2,500. They should help to provide them with a viable future.

1605
I have spent a long time on the Banaban problem. I make no apology since I know this reflects the interests of many of your Lordships; but the purpose of this Bill is to confer independence on the Gilbert Islands. I now return to the economic prospects for the Gilbert Islands after independence. This will depend greatly on the success in establishing a tuna fishing industry and the early development of other revenue-earning projects, since revenues from phosphate will cease in 1979 when phosphate mining on Banaba ends. They will need to rely on aid donors for the development of these projects. In addition to our own substantial British contribution, aid will be available from the European Development Fund, and both Australia and New Zealand have aid programmes. Japan has also indicated her interest in providing assistance.
We have for many years operated a programme of capital aid and technical assistance for the Gilbert Islands, and this will continue after independence. Apart from our substantial programme of technical co-operation, we shall be providing development aid of up to £15·5 million sterling in the first four years of independence. Additionally there will be special financial assistance totalling £5·3 million sterling to support the budget of the Gilbert Islands after phosphate revenues cease.
Many people have contributed to the outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of this Bill and in particular I should like to thank my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development for her help in forming an independence settlement specially suited to the needs of the Gilbert Islands. Above all, I think this is the occasion to congratulate the Gilbert Islands Government and especially Mr. Ieremiah Tabai, the Chief Minister, for the statesmanlike way in which they have worked towards achieving a successful future for the Gilbert Islands. Our long association with their country and the friendship between us will endure, I am sure, for many years to come. My Lords, the Gilbert Islands have already expressed their intention of joining the Commonwealth, and it is as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we have the prospect of continuing the close ties which exist
1606
between us. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
6 39 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, the Minister has made a most comprehensive statement regarding the contents and significance and the surrounding circumstances of the Kiribati Bill now before your Lordships' House. I know that Members on all sides of this House would wish me to thank him for the care and attention he has given to the detail which is engendered by this Bill.
The Gilbert Islands, for many decades a peaceful British dependency, are achieving independence as a sovereign State. As such, we on this side of the House, with the Minister, warmly welcome the independence of Kiribas as a new member of the community of nations, a future member of the Commonwealth, possibly and hopefully, a signatory to the EEC Lomé Convention and eventually perhaps a member of the United Nations.
In a world of increasing interdependence and struggles for power—we do not have to be reminded today of the tensions in South-East Asia—for strategic, commercial and other reasons, no country, big or small, can ignore the need for friends and allies; and we in the United Kingdom look forward to a new relationship with the Gilbert Islanders, based on respect for their sovereign rights and long years of co-operation.
As the Minister has already said, the Gilbert Islanders have in the last two years been responsible for their own internal affairs, and no one who has watched their progress would fail to appreciate the able and dignified way in which their new tasks and responsibilities have been assumed by the Chief Minister and his colleagues. Under the Bill, the 33 coral atolls, within about 2 million square miles of sea, will, in accordance with the expressed wish of their inhabitants—about 55,000 to 60,000 people—become an independent sovereign territory and constitute an independent republic as from 12th July.
One of the first questions which I should like to put to the Minister—and I give him notice that there will be a certain

1607
number of questions from this side of the House—is in connection with claims to the Northern Line and Phoenix Islands, because this is an important issue which is causing some anxiety, and with justification. I wonder whether the Minister can give any indication of the action that the Government are taking to ensure that the right to claims made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to these two sets of islands—the Northern Line and Phoenix Islands—which are now within the boundaries of the colony, will accrue to the Government of Kiribati under the principle of rights or claims which pass on independence, or under State succession. I should be very grateful if we could have some reply on that question.
The noble Lord the Minister has covered a vast number of points and I shall try to avoid repeating what he has said, where we are in complete agreement as to the basis of the facts and as to the comments that he has made. The report of the Gilbert Islands constitutional conference, held in London in November and December of last year, has set out—I think very fairly and clearly—some of the difficulties which have faced both the Government and the representatives of the Gilbert Islanders in drawing up a fair and workable Constitution, which will guarantee protection for the individual rights of all citizens of the Gilbert Islands.
Noble Lords will be aware, as we are reminded in the Press today, of action taken by the Banabans on Ocean Island, which undoubtedly reflect the deep-felt reaction of those people to the present Bill. There has been a formidable and widely publicised account on behalf of the rights and aspirations of the Banabans, which undoubtedly reveals—and I think that this was confirmed in the High Court of the United Kingdom—that these people have suffered considerable injury, and, as the Minister himself indicated, most people accept that they have a genuine grievance. But—and there is a "but" —in the terms of Mr. Justice Megarry, in his judgment,
"forceful presentation has been marred by significant omissions of what was true and by intemperate assertions of what was false".
Their land, exploited by the British Phospates Commission with an inadequate financial reward for the mining operations which have contributed to
1608
making a large part of the island uninhabitable, was later devastated by the Japanese in 1942. But it remains for the Banabans the place to which they are, understandably, deeply and passionately attached, to which some of them may wish to return, and, in order to preserve that right, wish to secede from the Gilbert Islands of which they have formed an integral part for the last 60 or more years.
What is of concern to my noble friends is that Britain's honour has been impugned, and it has been suggested that Britain has a moral duty to agree to the present request of the Banabans for the independence of Ocean Island. It is, therefore, necessary to look closely at the facts which, from all the evidence, appear very much in the way that the noble Lord the Minister has presented them to your Lordships' House. However, there are one or two questions which I should like to ask him for clarification, both for the benefit of your Lordships and for those who have great concern over the matter of statistics.
The Chief Minister of the time, in February 1975, wrote a letter to The Times of the United Kingdom and said that of the 336 men who were evacuated from Ocean Island,152 were not Banabans at all, but came from other Gilbert Islands and are now living on Rabi. The Chief Minister also pointed out that of the approximately 2,000 people living on Rabi at that date, some 250 had both parents born on Gilbert Islands other than Ocean; and in paragraph 13 of the paper prepared by the Gilbert Islanders, 65 per cent. had one or both parents born in Gilbert Islands other than Ocean. I should be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister could confirm this or indicate whether it is in any way incorrect, because clearly this matter of statistic, which can be misleading, puts a different gloss on the situation in regard to the composition of the Banabans now living on Rabi.
I have been given to understand by a very learned anthropologist, Professor Strathearn of University College London—and this opinion is, I believe, shared by many other anthropologists of similar standing—that Banabans are Micronesian people of the same race as the other Gilbert Islanders. They share the same gods, the same language and the same

1609
cultural traditions. Also, there has been considerable intermarriage of Banabans with other Gilbert Islanders. Should further evidence of this be needed, I am given to understand that the wife of the present Chief Minister is herself a Banaban. But the genuine grievances of the Banabans have been partly concerned, as the noble Lord indicated, with the important question of compensation, both annual and in capital terms, for the phosphates extracted from Ocean Island and for the destruction of their island.
The more important anxiety undoubtedly stems from the statement of intent of 1947, to which I shall refer shortly. But it is fair to say at this point that the Gilbert Islanders, as a whole, have reason to complain, since Ocean Island is part of the territory of the Gilbert Islands and has been its main source of wealth. In the case brought before the High Court for compensation, it was not within the competence of the court to make an award against Her Majesty's Government, but the outcome was that the British Government offered compensation of something over £6 million which, together with annual revenue, makes the Rabi inhabitants the richest population per capita in the Pacific Islands—and very good luck to them!
It may be that this is still not adequate to restore Ocean Island to a habitable condition, and it may be something which the Government are prepared to look at. In fact, I think that the Minister has already given an indication that they are prepared to do so. We are pleased, once again, to have an undertaking from the Government that they have offered to initiate a scientific survey of the economic prospects of the island, and it is very much hoped that this survey will be agreed to, because it will undoubtedly be of benefit to all the Gilbert Islanders, and, in particular, the Banabans. We believe it essential that in this House we should be satisfied that Ocean Island will be rehabilitated and restored in such a way that the Banabans can, should they wish, return once more to their island.
While considering the legitimate financial concern of the Banabans, I should like to put a question to the Minister. I shall be grateful if he can indicate what conclusions, if any, Her Majesty's Government have come to in regard to the control
1610
of the trust fund set up to protect the Banabans' interests. I should like to know whether the Banabans will have complete freedom to operate that fund themselves. Of even greater importance, apart from that financial matter, is the demand for independence on which the Banabans are now insisting, and to which is being attached the question of Britain's moral responsibility.
As I understand it, the undertakings given by the British Government of the day to the Banabans in 1947, which are known as the statement of intent, never included the question of independence at that time. However, it appears that the distinction between land ownership and right to return, and the question of sovereignty, has been eroded in the argument. But at no time was it then suggested that Ocean Island should pass out of the sovereign territory of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister could comment when he winds up at the end of the debate. However, the statement of intent included an inalienable right to return to Ocean Island, respecting this deep-seated feeling, to which we have already referred, of the Banabans for their land, and covered both the right of ownership and the right of access to the island.
All of these provisions are entrenched in the new Constitution which is set out in the report on the constitutional conference. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they must be among the most generous terms ever provided for a minority, whether on the attainment of independence or in any treaty provisions that I have ever come across concerning minority groups. Gilbert Island nationality has been offered to those who adopted Fiji nationality in 1970. Again I would ask the Minister whether he can give any indication of how many Banabans acquired Fijian nationality. I understand that very few Banabans acquired Fijian nationality, but I should be grateful if an indication of the numbers involved could be given to your Lordships. The Banabans acquired Fijian nationality when Fiji gained her own independence in 1970.
Other provisions of benefit to the Banabans include, as the noble Lord has already indicated, a seat in the House of

1611
Assembly, regardless of Fijian or Kiribatian nationality—again a unique provision—and a right of veto over any change in legislation concerning the Banabans: another unique provision. In my modest opinion, the Gilbert Islanders have shown themselves to be generous and statesmanlike in not only accepting but offering these provisions, made none the easier, as again the noble Lord indicated, by the withdrawal of the Banabans from the relevant discussions.
As has so often been said, Les absents ont toujours tort. I think that it was a great pity that the Banabans were not able to persuade themselves that it would have been both to the benefit of themselves and of the Gilbert Islanders had they managed to remain at that conference. This is no criticism of the action taken by the Banabans; they were justified in taking any action they wished. But it did not help their own case in this difficult situation when so many people were trying to reach a satisfactory solution to what is clearly a very difficult problem. We are concerned as to whether Her Majesty's Government have looked closely enough at the possible consequences of one or two of these provisions in their capacity as still for the time being the colonial power involved.
While dual nationality is allowed in the Gilbert Islands, may I ask the Minister whether or not it is the case that in Fiji it is prohibited by Fijian domestic law? Again, may I ask what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to resolve this question with the Prime Minister of Fiji and his advisers? It is useless to pretend in this case that Her Majesty's Government have done all that they can when this provision is prohibited by domestic law.
Another provision which raises certain queries relates to the steps which the Government envisage will be taken to ensure that when the British Phosphates Commission retire from Ocean Island—which we understand will be shortly—the land will be returned to the landowners, either collectively or individually. Will the Government ensure that there is some form of legally binding instrument which returns these lands to their owners, or, alternatively, will the Minister comment on what is the legal position of the Banabans in relation to their interest in
1612
the land of Ocean Island? Obviously this is a question of deep concern, and possibly the Government will be able to allay the fears of those who are afraid that they will have lost certain rights over their own land.
These are two points which could be raised by Mr. Luard when he goes to the Pacific, an initiative which, as the Minister pointed out, was proposed by my colleagues. We very much welcome and are grateful to the Minister for his response to this proposal. The co-operation of the Prime Minister of Fiji would certainly be invaluable, since the Banabans live on Fiji and Fiji is a nation which plays an important part in the area. Therefore, any contribution that they can make to assist in entrenching still further the safeguards for the Banabans could be in the interests of all parties to this problem.
May I go on record as saying that we on this side of the House also feel very strongly that our friends in the Gilbert Islands should be able to proceed to independence as rapidly as possible. Equally, it must be in their interests, as well as in the interests of the Banabans, the Fijians and the British, to ensure a long-lasting solution to the anxieties of the Banabans concerning Ocean Island. This is why we attach great importance to Mr. Luard's mission to the Pacific. We hope that he will return with an understanding between the parties that will do justice to them all. The Minister will no doubt realise that it will be difficult to make progress with the Bill until we receive a report on Mr. Luard's mission, but on this basis we are prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.55 p.m.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, the beginning is easy. We can all offer a warm welcome to Kiribati, soon to be an independent Republic within the Commonwealth. They have, of course, an absolute right to choose a republican form of Government, if they so desire. After all, some of our best friends are republics, We can all be glad, too, that they will be joining us and so many other friendly countries in the Commonwealth. Their life will be hard, but they are used to that. They will probably remain poor, but they are used to that, too. We all wish them well.

1613
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, needed to apologise for taking time. This is not a straightforward, normal independence Bill. As noble Lords have already seen, it bristles with difficulties. The point is that if the Almighty had never created Ocean Island or if, having submerged it under the sea for hundreds or thousands—or was it millions?—of years, He had never caused its mountain top to re-emerge with its huge guano deposits mysteriously transmuted into phosphate of lime, then this would be a matter of three or four speakers in 40 minutes and the Bill would have passed with general acclaim.
Let me make it clear that I want the Bill to pass. I shall do what little I can to help it to pass, but not in 40 minutes. That would be a discourtesy and an injustice to a fine people, and a most unlucky people, for whom we have been, and still are, responsible and who have suffered grievously over the years at the hands of various agents—ourselves, I think, included.
I suppose that the temptation to quote oneself is one of the nastiest symptoms of approaching senility, and my reckless intention of yielding to it is probably another, but it is only a line or two of Hansard. When in May of last year we were discussing the independence of Tuvalu, I ventured to suggest that:
"… coconuts and fish may well be a safer economic base for a nation of atoll dwellers than, for example, phosphates".—[Official Report; 9/5/78; col. 899.]
I was, of course, thinking of Ocean Island when I said that, and I recall these words only to show that it is not just in the last few weeks that I have become aware of the Banaban story.
However, in the last few weeks, like several other noble Lords, I have been subjected to a veritable megatonnage of propaganda from the organisation called the Justice for the Banabans Campaign. This has met with a limited response from people supporting the point of view of the Gilbertese Government and from Mr. Tabai himself, the Chief Minister. If arguments could be won by sheer weight of paper, it would be a walk-over, but there is such a thing in propaganda as overkill. I freely admit that I have been unable to read everything which has reached me from the campaign. I tried, but I found it impossible.
1614
I am, however, deeply indebted to a remarkable book, one which must certainly be known to many of your Lordships. The title is Treasure Islands and the author is Pearl Binder. This is a finely written, committed work, written frankly and, I would say, justifiably from the Banaban point of view—and written by someone who did not just spend a few days on each island, which is all that most observers have been able to do. This author spent a whole winter, and it cannot have been a very comfortable winter, living on the Banabans' new home of Rabi, learning about their ancient culture and customs, getting to know them and coming to love them. I hope that is a sufficient acknowledgement of my debt to this book, on which I shall draw very heavily. Indeed, I doubt whether any noble Lord who has not read Treasure Islands can easily grasp the full complexity and poignancy of this story. Conversely, I doubt whether any noble Lord who has read the book will disagree with me when I say that it seems to me that this is one of the darkest stains on our past imperial honour; one we have not yet washed out and one that cannot just be left there to haunt us for all future time.
This may be the best place to put in a reference to the news report yesterday of the petrol bomb attacks on mining installations on Ocean Island. I feel that we do not yet know enough for safe comment. The timing of that act is extraordinary. It cannot conceivably do any good to the cause of the Banabans. My only confident comment therefore is that if petrol bombs were thrown by Banabans then they were acting in total conflict with all their traditions and they would certainly be condemned by their own wise leaders. It is completely out of character and I am sure that we do not yet know all the facts.
The Banaban story cannot be told in full. The noble Lord did his best and I may be able to fill in one or two gaps. From that so-called "contract" in 1900 between the company and the then illiterate islanders, negotiations being conducted through a very indifferent interpreter, the company was, for £50 a year, to extract the phosphates for 999 years. When only 13 of those years had passed this deal was already being denounced by our own colonial administrator as iniquitous. Yet out of that shrewd investment of £50 a year, millions

1615
of pounds of profit have been made. The farmers of Australia and New Zealand have enjoyed cheap phosphatic fertilisers and the consumers of their products, which includes everyone in this House, I dare to say, have enjoyed relatively cheap food.
I must hurry over the Banabans' appalling experiences during the Second World War, at the end of which some of them, along with other Gilbertese, were the victims of a massacre, one of the ghastliest of all the Japanese war crimes. There was one survivor on Ocean Island. The remaining Banabans had been scattered by war all over the Pacific. We collected them up and settled them on Rabi—which, as we have heard, they had bought—an island in the Fiji group. It can be argued that this was the best thing to do for them at that time. Indeed their own great leader, Tebuke, said that this was the best thing that the British ever did for them. I suspect that Pastor Tebuke has a certain gift of irony, but that is what he is supposed to have said. What is beyond dispute is that it was exactly what the company wanted us to do. "Get them out of the way and leave us to exploit what is left of the island in peace "was the company attitude.
There they are to this day, 1,400 miles from Ocean Island on their new home of Rabi, where they appear to enjoy mutually satisfactory relations with the Fiji Government which, as I read it, has behaved admirably throughout the whole case. Some young Banabans are attending Suva University. They are making a life for themselves on Rabi but they have a yearning to go home and they have an enduring sense of having been swindled.
This is where I think the Banabans have been badly advised, and in parenthesis I suggest that anyone who takes it upon himself to give professional advice to unsophisticated people about Western ways is accepting a very heavy responsibility. It needs humility and it needs great self-restraint. It must be so easy to tell them what they want to hear and so very difficult to tell them that some aspiration is so impossible of fulfilment that it would be a waste of time and money to pursue it.
1616
I think they have been badly advised to link together their two claims, the territorial and the financial. These should have been kept separate. The effect of linking them together is that insistence on the one impedes progress on the other, and this, no doubt, is how it came to be that, having at first accepted the offer made by our Foreign Secretary—referred to by the noble Lord—of the 10 million Australian dollars, they then changed their minds and turned the offer down; on whose advice I do not know but they turned it down because they would not relinquish their other claim to separate sovereignty over Ocean Island.
This is where I completely part company with the Justice for the Banabans Campaign. This territorial claim seems to me to be in the realm of fantasy: a political and administrative nonsense. It is suggested that Ocean Island, which happens geographically to be in the Gilbertese archipelago, should be said to be in some way in Fiji. This the Gilberts will never agree to and I cannot see why we should expect them to. We do not right the wrongs done to the Banabans by doing another wrong to the Gilbertese. And even if it did not fly in the face of all reason and geography, there is a very practical objection to this strange idea. It is that Ocean Island enjoys fantastic variations in rainfall and in drought years it must have an administration close at hand to call on.
No, my Lords, that cannot be the right answer and yet a right answer must be found. May I tentatively make three suggestions for others, I hope, to improve upon. First—and I know this will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—I suggest that we must pass this Bill. This will bring it painfully but finally home to the Banabans and perhaps to their advisers that Ocean Island is a Gilbert Island and that it is with the Gilbert Island's Government—the Kiribati Government—that they have to negotiate their rights to Ocean Island. It must be said that the Gilbert Islands Government has been, and continues to be, extremely generous and surely, on the basis of their 15-point offer, these two groups can come to some mutually acceptable agreement—these groups which are already, as the noble Baroness pointed out, so heavily intermarrying.

1617
Secondly, would it not be possible and politic for Her Majesty's Government to place the 10 million Australian dollars already offered in a fund where it can appreciate while these problems are being solved? Lastly, what about the island itself? We must remember that the phosphates are virtually worked out and the island, as a result, virtually uninhabitable. It is a gruesome moonscape of deep holes and coral pinnacles. What is to be done with it? "Leave it to the birds", says the company, which has made millions out of it, and indeed there might be something to be said for leaving it as a grim monument to man's inhumanity to man. But that is not what the Banabans want.
So I come to my third and last suggestion, and I am delighted to find that the noble Lord has already half accepted it. In a phrase, I suggest partial and progressive restoration. We are no longer obliged or able to act alone. Whatever we do must be done in co-operation with the other Governments concerned, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Gilbertese and Fiji. Is it too late, I wonder, for this to be on the agenda of the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Might we not be able to tap the resources and the knowledge and in some way act under the aegis of the FAO? We do know how to do it. We have all the necessary machinery.
We could, bit by bit, restore this ravaged island to habitability. Coconuts are undemanding trees, but they must have some soil. If ships can ferry thousands of tons of phosphates out, could they not ferry hundreds of tons of topsoil in? There will be a bill to pay, of course, and if our laws do not enable us to compel the Phosphate Commission to pay the bill then that is our fault for having such inadequate laws, and we must make our contribution. We can be sure the Banabans will make theirs. As I see it, this could be a concerted pilot project, an example which might be followed in many parts of the world. Something like it we must attempt if we are to stop those two words "Ocean Island" being a lasting reproach to our civilisation, and turn them instead into some kind of a symbol of belated justice and of hope.
7.12 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am quite sure that Members of this House on all sides will welcome the prospect that the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands are to have their independence. It is almost a romantic idea that this group of atolls scattered about the Pacific should take their own government into their hands and find some way of harmonising their future with the industrialised world. All of us will wish the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands success as they undertake that great project.
I shall be speaking mostly about the Banabans, but speaking of them I am also thinking of the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because I think it is quite clear that unless some agreement is reached between those respective peoples the future of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands will be made much more difficult. The story of the Banabans is one of the most sorry and tragic in all the history of the colonial régime. I do not propose to repeat it because a description was given of it by the Vice-Chancellor when the Banabans sued for greater finance. That is on record and need not be repeated. But the real tragedy for the Banabans was the discovery of phosphate deposits on their island. This beautiful and fertile island has been destroyed almost as though a bomb had fallen on it. Over the greater part of the island no trees or flowering bushes still remain; the birds departed; it is a dead waste.
The phosphates, exploited by the consortium of which the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments were a part, were directed towards the benefit of the peoples of Britain, Australia and New Zealand and it is they who have enjoyed the fruits of the destruction of that lovely island. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, has referred to an occurrence which has been reported today, that a group of Banabans attempted to destroy one of the mining installations on Ocean Island. I think this is the first time that any violence has occurred, and I deplore it, but I was interested to note that Mr. Ron Elliott, the Ocean Island manager for the Phosphate Commission, said, "I do not think the Banabans meant to harm anyone. Their objective was machinery. "I can understand their intense feeling as

1619
they have seen their island destroyed by the exploitation of the phosphate deposits.
My Lords, I turn to the constitutional issue which is the main subject of our discussion. While the Gilbert and Ellice Islands became a British protectorate as far back as 1892, with the agreement of the representatives of the indigenous peoples of those islands Ocean Island remained a separate autonomous community. It was not made a part of the Protectorate of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. It was only annexed by the British Government in 1900, and annexed quite separately from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because of the discovery of the phosphate deposits. There was no consultation with the Banaban people about their loss of independence. It was just an imposed idea by the British Government, because of the value of the phosphate deposits found upon that island. In November 1915, after their representatives had been consulted and agreed, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands were ceded to the Crown as a colony. That was only after discussions had taken place with the representatives of the people. A few weeks later, in January 1916, without any consultation at all with the people of Ocean Island, with the Banaban community, Ocean Island, by a decree of Britain, was made a part of the colony of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. One of the reasons undoubtedly was that the phosphate wealth would help to finance the new colony without a charge upon the British Exchequer.
The World War began in 1914. The Japanese occupied Ocean Island. They imposed forced labour. There were heroic Banabans who resisted the Japanese administration and there were mass executions of them. Others became refugees and reassembled on the Gilbert Islands after the war, and it was then that the British Government prevailed upon them not to return to Ocean Island—where they would have interrupted the processes of the phosphate exploitation—and secured their consent to moving to the Island of Rabi in Fiji as a second home. The Banabans agreed to remain on Rabi Island only after the British Government had given an undertaking that they would be allowed to return to their own homeland.
1620
Reference has been made already to the statement of intentions which the British Government signed. It is known generally as "The Covenant". That statement of intentions is absolutely central to the issues which we are discussing tonight. It began with the words:
"The Banabans' decision to reside on Rabi Island shall in no way affect any right to lands possessed by the Banabans on Ocean Island".
That was a guarantee by the British Government; it was an agreement with the Banabans. Now, without the consent of the Banabans, it is proposed that that agreement between the British Government and them should be transferred to another sovereign power.
I recognise that the Bill which we are now discussing includes an entrenched clause to maintain that guarantee. I submit that all recent history proves that entrenched clauses in any Constitution do not decide that they will be carried out by subsequent Governments to that which has adopted the Constitution. The Banabans, in addition to their deep determination to a claim of self-determination and independence, have no faith in entrenched clauses. Recent history justifies their view. From the days when Great Britain handed independence to the Afrikaaners in South Africa with entrenched clauses guaranteeing the rights of the African people, to the present time, the world is scattered with Governments—which include in their Constitution the Declaration of Human Rights—to whom those entrenched clauses have become of no value at all.
There is another reason why the Banabans are justified in their scepticism. In the last 20 years, indeed ever since the conclusion of the last World War, history has shown that separate communities have succeeded in gaining their independence from unions to which they previously belonged. Pakistan was an example of separation from the Indian Union in 1947, followed by Bangladesh which also won its independence. There is the case of the Cayman Islands and Jamaica which withdrew and asserted their own independence from the West Indian Federation. And, quite recently, there has been the case of Anguilla which has insisted on independence from its identity with St. Kitts. Therefore, we are finding today that one may build a union or a colony composed of many different territories,

1621
but in fact parts of those territories will insist upon their independence.
I want to conclude, as I always try to do, on a constructive note. Fiji has proposed, as I understand the noble Baroness has proposed, that there should be discussions still between representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Banabans, Fiji and this country, to find a settlement of this problem. Fiji has urged that those further discussions should take place before the Bill is passed.
I should like humbly to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I recognise that in all these discussions he has sought agreement and he has sought to gain the right of people to have self-government and expression. His speech tonight was notably fair in presenting the Bill. He concluded with a proposal which I very much welcome. As I understand it, he suggested that before the Bill becomes law there should be further discussions—discussions including representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Banabans, Fiji and this Government—seeking a solution to the problem.
I venture to make one suggestion. There is this scepticism about entrenched clauses in the Constitution of one Government. May I suggest to the noble Lord that, if he enters into these discussions, a guarantee of the rights of the Banabans should not merely be in the Constitution for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands' indepence. That guarantee, which was first given by Her Majesty's Government, should be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. The Commonwealth might be brought in; Fiji might be brought in. If there could be a guarantee of these rights of the Banabans, as is in the Bill—but arousing scepticism because it is only in this Bill—and if it could also be endorsed by the British Government, which first gave the guarantee, and by the Commonwealth, I think that the further discussion which the noble Lord has proposed might achieve success. I very much hope that he will consider that proposal.
7.32 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by apologising to the Minister for not having been present to hear his opening sentences. I want to join with
1622
previous speakers in welcoming the progress towards independence of the Gilbert Islands. But tonight I wish to speak only on the question of Ocean Island and the Banaban community. Again, I shall limit myself solely to the constitutional side of this and not to the financial side. I submit that it is incumbent upon us and upon Parliament in total to get this issue right. If we are unable to do so, what hope have we in the future when it comes to the questions of the Falkland Islands, Belize and Gibraltar? We are considering a very small community of 2,500 people, about 90 of them on Ocean Island and the remainder on Rabi. It is very important that this small community should not be left with a sense of disillusionment with their treatment by Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has outlined most of the relevant points in history, and I follow him on nearly all of them. I should just like to add that in relation to their numbers the Banaban islanders contributed very large sums to Britain in the course of the two world wars, and even in 1947 they contributed to relief work in Portsmouth and Plymouth, as I think my noble friend Lady Vickers will be mentioning. I believe that one should place very great importance on the 1947 statement of intention by the British Government, which was solemnly reaffirmed on 31st March 1967. That relates, of course, to ownership and access to Ocean Island.
To take all these points together appears to me to constitute a very heavy moral obligations on this country, and an obligation to ensure that however negotiations have proceeded up till now, the Banaban people are not left with a sense of betrayal; for there can be no doubt about their very strong community identity and their very strong wish and desire to return to Ocean Island.
As has been said, the present Bill keeps Ocean Island within the independent Gilbert Islands, and the White Paper sets out safeguards to be entrenched in the future Constitution by Order in Council. Those safeguards have been devised for the Banaban people, but alas! although they were invited to discuss them, they were not actually consulted as to what the safeguards should be. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in asking what, indeed, is the value of entrenched

1623
clauses. The history of similar arrangements elsewhere can only be said to be very discouraging. One might well ask why future administrations in the Gilbert Islands should respect in perpetuity something which at this moment is clearly an obligation falling upon Her Majesty's Government.
A further problem will arise for the Banabans who are now Fijian citizens, as they will be faced with a very difficult choice of citizenship if they wish to return to Ocean Island. I am sorry to say this, but, as it stands, the Bill seems to contain a formula for possible future friction, not only within the newly-independent State, but also between the Gilbert Islands and Fiji. One understands the Government's case when they talk about the integrity of existing boundaries and not allowing secession without the agreement of the majority of the people becoming independent, but has not this case been very seriously weakened by what has already happened to the Ellice Islanders, who have become a sovereign independent group with United Nations approval?
One must cast one's mind back to 1947, the time of the statement of intention, which was precisely the moment when Pakistan was being allowed to leave the Indian Union. It has already been mentioned this evening that there is a great distance between Ocean Island and Rabi Island, but perhaps not too much weight should be attached to that. It is important for both islands to be under one sovereignty and for the Rabi community to have a very positive say and influence in the resettlement and restoration of Ocean Island.
How can that be achieved? I submit that there is a case for autonomy for Ocean Island, provided that it comes in association with Fiji. This is where I must part company with the noble Lord, Lord McNair. It is important to remember that Fiji has accepted association with Ocean Island in principle ever since February 1977. It is perhaps also worth stressing that such an arrangement would not harm Gilbertese interests, as mining royalties in respect of Ocean Island, as we know, cease later this year or at the best early in 1980. It can be no secret that in the past Her Majesty's Government have considered a solution along the lines
1624
I am mentioning, and Her Majesty's Government used to say that they had an open mind. I believe that Parliament should insist on our Government thinking again, and thinking again in the light of the letters from the Prime Minister of Fiji and from the Chairman of the Rabi Council of Leaders, both addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and both received within the last few days. Like other speakers, I welcome the proposed visit to the Islands in March of this year by the noble Lord's colleague, but I hope that the discussions that will tale place then need not be limited to the text, as it stands, of the White Paper and of the Bill.
7.41 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, like other noble Lords I very much welcome the Bill. So far as the Ellice Islands are concerned, we are all very glad that they should have independence, and we welcome them within the Commonwealth. But I should like to say a word about Banaba in addition to those which have already been said. I have never had the good fortune to visit Banaba, but I have read carefully all the evidence both for and against which I have received, and the situation seems to me to be this: the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, mentioned the fact that the safeguards for them are included in the Bill, but the discussions on the Constitution, although attended by 13 representatives of Banaba, seem to produce no consideration of their particular problems.
The 1947 agreement, as your Lordships heard, which gave Banaba Rabi Island as a second home, and which gave them full rights of ownership and residence in both islands is, as the noble Lord has told us, preserved in the Bill. But of course there is one special problem here, and that is the fact that the Fijians do not recognise dual citizenship. A great number, in fact I should say by far the majority of Banabans, are Fijian citizens. If they want to come back to Banaba—and many of them do—they will of course have to face the problem of either retaining their Fijian citizenship, and so remaining for political purposes foreigners in their own country, or they will have to reject their Fijian citizenship and take on that of the Gilbert Islands, which is the last thing on earth that they want to do.

1625
We talk a great deal about our democratic system as we know it here. It has many faults. Indeed, I have myself commented on them once or twice. But it has one great advantage, and that is that it gives the people the right to choose the Government they want. They may afterwards come to regret it very much, but none the less they have had the choice. Now this Bill is imposing on the Banabans a Government that not one single one of them wants. They want independence: independence and self-government in association with Fiji.
They claim that they are a different race from the Gilbertese. As to the truth of that, of course I cannot vouch, but one must remember that nationality is not merely a biological question. For instance, I suppose from a biological point of view we come from the same stem as the Germans, but I do not think that there are any of us who would wish to feel that there was no difference in nationality between the two. Of course, geographically again Banaba is one of the group of Gilbert Islands. But geographic position also means nothing. Geographically, for instance, Wales and England are one, but I hardly think that the noble Lord would agree that Wales and England are one country. Also, nationality is what you feel like. It is where you feel your own loyalty rests. In the light of everything that we have heard, and in the light of the fact there has been such a great campaign on their part to preserve their own independence and their own individuality, I hope that the Government will give this problem of Banaba a second thought. The last thing on earth that we want to do is to add another mistake to the already formidable list of those made by the noble Lord's right honourable friend.
7.46 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I hope that I shall not spoil a debate which, up to now, in my humble view has been a very successful one indeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will not think me patronising if I venture to say that I thought his own contribution was of quite exceptional value and extremely well done, and a model of a speech that should be made in a situation like this. The noble Lord made some reference to a paragraph in a newspaper this morning, or a few
1626
words on television last night. There does seem to have been an unpleasant incident on Banaba, to say the least. I have heard from the organisation of which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, slightly disapproved. Frankly, I should have thought that it is almost a model of a pressure group. A "pressure group" is a recognised parliamentary term. Very often you have to rush around at a moment's notice to try to get friends and allies. This group has sent out a lot of paper, but no one can really criticise for being supplied with all the relevant information.
I come back to the telex message. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has the fullest information. However, he did not refer to it, and I can well understand why he did not. I do not profess to do more than give just a brief sentence to the House, because anything further would point the finger at one Party or another. It seems from the telex that there were groups of Banabans involved. It said that they moved on to six target areas, and within an hour or two flames lit up the sky. A person connected with the Phosphate Commission said that he had never seen anything like it before, and was palpably upset. Two Banabans were hurt, and I am told that eight Banabans were jailed—presumably detained awaiting further trial; I do not know. Among them, unfortunately, were the deputy chairman of the Banaban Council of Leaders, the Reverend Kaitangare Kaburoro, and Council Member Mr. Tekaie Tabuariki, and the Council's assistant secretary.
Everyone will say, of course quite rightly, that this is not the best way of helping their cause. They have tried pretty hard. I would say that never before in the history of our jurisprudence has a small and lonely island people been able to occupy our courts with a case which was of such an historic nature; and for once I must tell my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for whom I have profound and deep personal respect, that I thought he was less than full today in some of the observations he made.
As I understand the history of what is now called the Ocean Island, it was the home of the Banabans for many centuries. This is not a case of a discovery in 1900

1627
or even 1800, because there are historic records going back to the 15th century. It was occupied by them long before there were any records of the occupation of any of the Gilbert atoll. It was their home. Experts will, of course, argue about the anthropological history. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her excellent speech said they shared the same god as the Gilberts; but I will not wander into the difficulties of theology with religious wars being fought in half the countries of the world, and frequently between people who worship the same god, ostentatiously very often.
The Banabans were being advised by a lawyer of very great distinction, a man well known in this House and now disqualified for participating in litigation, a man whose name seems to me to bear some connection with the book to which Lord McNair referred, and I would expect it to be. They brought a case which they virtually knew they were bound to lose, substantially on technicalities.
The history of his case goes back to somebody asking someone to make a mark on a bit of paper for a 99 year lease on the island. The history of this case has some pages so ugly that one wants to suppress them because they do little good to our national reputation. The Vice-Chancellor, while saying he was a court of law and not of equity, went out of his way to make observations showing clearly what his view might have been had it been a court of equity—I think he used those words—and told, in a judgment lasting five and a half days, a story of trickery and deception which made it incumbent on a nation like ours to step in and say, "We will double, treble, quadruple the amount of compensation previously offered".
My problem about this—it is, of course, my own problem—is that I am getting a very old man, my mind is not as good as it was and my memory is not so clear. Nevertheless, I do not understand to this moment certain matters which surely are of supreme importance if we are to approach negotiations. First, to whom does this compensation go, and who administers it? Secondly, what would happen if the Banabans were able to reoccupy Ocean Island? We are told that their present island was bought in
1628
the open market, I think during the last war, out of funds which were being administered by one of our officials for the benefit of the Banabans and which presumably belonged to them. So what happens to the territory of the island if they leave it? Thirdly, if they could be persuaded on any terms, and if it were respectable for them, to reoccupy Ocean Island, would it not be their locus pœnitentiœ until they found out whether it was admirable and capable now, after all the destruction, of providing subsistence?
One of the reasons for the demonstrations is undoubtedly the deep-seated belief that there has been unfairness all along, that they have been kept out of their homeland and that it was intended to keep them out of their homeland while the phosphate operations were going on. Lord Goronwy-Roberts talked about a 30-year story. That is so, but it is a 30-year story which happens to end at the precise moment when they are no longer of any value to anyone else at all, when the phosphates have all been gathered together and when no one would say the place has any future industrial value or prospects, and where the only prospects for subsistence seem to be to live on fishing and possibly some ground. Lord McNair said he thought that could be done with outside aid. With all the skill of the Australians, for example—and they could afford to be generous—it might be put right, it is said.
But what happens in the meantime? Lord Goronwy-Roberts has made another offer, but an offer of a further conference is almost a snare and delusion, and it is with care that I use those words to my noble friend, whose integrity is beyond doubt. Unless there is a road which shows some hope of leading somewhere, another conference is not much use. While demonstrations of anger and intransigence are still being brought to some form of justice, and while tempers seem to be more roused than before, it is not a very good climate.
I recall the case of St. Kitts Nevis. At the time there was a good deal of criticism about St. Kitts. Of the islands concerned one was under heavy criticism and receiving heavy defence. There was the position in which a Minister went to Anguilla from London to attend a formal reception, with greetings prepared in his

1629
honour, and he was chased off the island to the security of a British ship. That is not an incident that we want to see or to encourage. We want to assure the Banabans that everything is being done, and that it is our passionate desire that they should be treated fairly. I think that the committee could go a long way, having won their confidence, in giving them those assurances. Before the next conference there ought to be some real hope that a result will be produced. Another failure would be a sad end.
Finally, I have heard no mention of Nauru in this connection. The Banabans sent their telex message from Nauru over this weekend. Nauru, I know, is a full member of the Commonwealth. It is in a position perhaps to render some help. The noble Baroness said that the Prime Minister of Fiji had shown goodwill, statesmanship, and understanding, and might still render great service. He himself has said that he is now placed in a position where he can no longer arbitrate betwen the two sides because his own position puts him on the one side. I would not have thought, in the circumstances, that that was an overwhelming objection, and I am certain that he might render a further contribution towards solving a situation which has become one of great difficulty.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate. I say this particularly because I have before me a copy of a document dated 15th March 1947 stating,
"The Banabans' gift to Plymouth—food valued at £500. All races joined in".
The food gifts were given to Plymouth and to Portsmouth, and they were sent to be allocated fairly to the two cities through centres of the Ministry of Food. We were intensely grateful, to them particularly at that time, Plymouth having been so severely bombed, and I should like now to put on record our sincere thanks. I should also like to remind the House that they gave £1,000 to the National Relief Fund. That was in the first world war, and early in the last war they gave £12,500 for anti-aircraft guns. There could not be more loyal gestures than those.
1630
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for the interesting details he gave us. I have studied over the weekend and previously the excellent document produced by Sir Bernard Braine and his committee, as well as a summary sent to me by the chief officer of Fiji. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. He may not be able to answer them now, and I do not want to repeat what other speakers have said, but I shall just put these points to him, and if he cannot reply now perhaps he will write to me.
I should like to know whether appeals will continue to lie from the High Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in future, particularly in respect of any question of infringement of the specific provisions in the Constitution relating to the Banabans. It would be very helpful if we could know this, and it would also be helpful to the Banabans themselves.
I also wish to raise a point in regard to a statement made in June 1975, when the then Chief Minister of the Gilbert Islands made some generous offers. I should like to know whether these are still in force, and, in particular, what it means to be a "belonger". Part of the offer reads:
"to provide for all Banabans who so wish to be granted 'belonger' status in the Gilbert Islands".
It went on to say:
"to provide for a seat in the House of Assembly for a representative of Banaba and to provide that all Banabans granted 'belonger' status and subsequently citizenship may on certain conditions"—
perhaps the noble Lord will let me know what the "certain conditions" are—
"participate in the election of the representative of Banaba".
It would be very helpful if I could know about that. It was also proposed:
"to provide for a Banaba Island Council to be elected by the Banabans and to provide that Council with the same rights and privileges as any other island council".
What are these rights and privileges? What can they do? Is the situation similar to that of a local government authority in this country? It would be a great safeguard if one knew what could be done by this council.

1631
The offers also included:
"to ensure that any benefits arising from greater indigenous involvement in the operations of the phosphate industry are shared between the Government and the Banaban landowners in the present proportions".
This, I presume, will be ceasing quite shortly, and I should like to know what is to happen regarding the land at present belonging to landowners. It was also proposed:
"to guarantee that the Banaban landowners' income from phosphate is free of tax within the Gilbert Islands".
That would be very favourably received.
Here, I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said, because I am rather disturbed about what has happened over the last two or three days. This has not been mentioned by the Minister at all. I understand that 30 special constables had to be called in to reinforce the island's 10-man police force, and as many as 300 additional men were hurriedly recruited after the Banaban sabotage attempts. It is very fortunate that a Minister will be going out, and I should like to know tonight whether it is possible for him to go out sooner than was planned. Alternatively, perhaps the noble Lord will send a message to the Government, if he has not already done so, stating that someone is coming. I see from the report I have had that the people are becoming very angry. Councillors and about 200 Banabans living on the island marched to the BPC offices on Wednesday, carrying placards bearing the slogans: "British Justice Stinks", "Hands Off Banaba", and "Return Stolen Property". I am sure the noble Lord will agree that this was very unfortunate, but I hope that something will be done quickly so that the people will know that the question of their rights is to be looked into again, and perhaps a more detailed explanation can be given so that they really understand what the Government intend to do. I understand that Mr. Caine, a member of the Fiji Parliament, and councillors burnt a copy of the White Paper setting out the terms of independence for the Gilberts. This, too, I think, is unfortunate; I hope they read it in detail. But, still more, I gather that they are now in detention as political prisoners. This was stated by Mr. Caine. So, perhaps, when he winds
1632
up, the noble Lord might like to say a few things about the points I have raised. It would be very helpful to me and, I think, to others as well.
8.10 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, on the very painstaking way in which he has spoken about this Bill. I completely agree that, of course, from the point of view of tidiness it makes sense that Ocean Island should be incorporated in the new Constitution to be given to the Gilbertese. As I say, it is far tidier. Ocean Island will be near the administrative centre; and if there is a drought—and as we have heard you get great vagaries of climate—it will be far easier to cope with that if she is in the Gilbertese Constitution. But I also agree that the entrenched clauses, the safeguards that she is being offered in the Constitution, could hardly be fairer. In fact, I doubt whether there are many Constitutions in which the minority has been so very well looked after in theory. But as we have heard today, if we look round the many countries, even subcontinents, for whom we have drawn up independence Constitutions, I can think of hardly any that have remained in the form in which we drew them up, and quite a few have been completely abandoned.
I want to speak for two or three minutes about the moral side of this Bill. I do not understand because, apart from the entrenched clauses and the safeguards, we have also heard that the financial arrangements for the Banabans are generous. I understand that over five years they are going to get £15,500,000 and they are going to get 10 million Australian dollars to commence with. It seems generous, and they deserve it, but taking these very fair safeguards in the Constitution and the financial help that has been promised, why is it that the Banabans do not appear to be at all happy with joining the Gilbertese in the Kiribati Constitution? It does not matter how tidy you make a Constitution, if a minority is forced—perhaps "forced" is too strong a word, but are advised to join it against their will, that will not be a happy state of affairs.
Particularly in the Pacific we need to create stability wherever it is within our

1633
power. We must look with every consideration at the great attachment—the love, if you like to call it that—they have for their homeland. It may seem rather odd for an island which appears to have been to all intents and purposes, from what we have heard today, ruined; nevertheless, it appears to be there, this great love for their homeland. We must take great care of that and ensure that, no matter how small the minority is—I think the smaller the minority the more important it is in many ways—we have regard to their emotions. This is the only point that really worries me.
Talking of islands—although one cannot compare the two, of course—I remember St. Kilda. In 1930 (or was it 1928) the St. Kildans were removed by the then British Government from their homeland. The British Government had some very good reasons for doing that because, for every form of economic reason, and to assist the standard of living, it was the correct thing to do. A lot of these St. Kildans were settled opposite my home in Scotland and they were not happy. They always wanted to go back to St. Kilda. There is an example of something that appears to be tidy, but in humane terms it failed. I am all for tidiness. The Civil Service like tidiness. I quite agree it is essential, but I cannot say that it has been all that successful in the new form of local government in the regions, but that is beside the point. However, we must take regard of these emotions and this attachment, this great love of the Banabans for Ocean Island.
What I should like to see is something that has been mentioned today, I think, although I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned it. Could not the Government along with the Gilbertese guarantee the 1947 safeguards in the Constitution? Could they not guarantee the entrenched clauses, the safeguards, so that if by any chance the Gilbertese—I am told they are very charming people, but a lot of odd things happen in the world—let the Banabans down, that guarantee would exist? I feel that if the British Government were able to do that, perhaps the Banabans might be happier. I do not think they will be completely happy, but personally I cannot understand it. When we take an island such as the Caymans (I knew all those islands well) it is a tiny island which was allowed its independence;
1634
it used to be tied to Jamaica, of course, and it was allowed its independence. It appears to be getting on all right. I agree that there are other reasons, since it is a tax-haven for, I understand, quite a lot of people—not me! I agree it is in a different position from Ocean Island, but it shows that these very small islands can be independent.
Of course, I think they must be in a loose association with the United Kingdom—or I suppose that Ocean Island would have to be in association with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. But I hope that the Government will not be too hasty in bringing this Constitution into being and in forcing (or, as I said, advising) the Banabans to join with the Gilbertese, and if it appeared to be against their will I hope they will again attempt to explain to them the great benefits they will get. Apparently they walked out of the last conference here, which I think was rather foolish of them. My Lords, I will end by saying that the date which is given for independence is July. Could we not delay it somewhat to be sure whether the Banabans will be happier to join in Kiribati: and if they are completely adamant against so doing, we ought to think again.
8.20 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the tone and content of this debate. I think that every participant has agreed that this is an extremely difficult problem to resolve. On the one hand, you have the very deep feelings of the Banaban community about Ocean Island, and, on the other hand, you have the equally deep convictions among the Gilbertese elements of this territory. When my noble friend Lord Hale says that it is perhaps inutilitous to attempt to have further discussions between them unless a result is obtained, I wonder whether he means "unless a result that one or the other insists upon having is obtained".
Lord HALE: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I did not say that. I said: unless there is some light or opening to be seen ahead.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, knowing him as I do, I was proceeding to make exactly that interpretation

1635
of what my noble friend said. Yes, certainly. Another attempt to get them together, with the full blessing, I might add, of the Fiji Prime Minister, Ratu Mara, is worth undertaking—and I have given the undertaking this evening that that will be done—so that an agreement, an arrangement, an acceptance of a strengthened agreement can possibly be extracted from such a discussion. What I am saying is that, having regard for the absolutist attitude of both sides—and I have had to deal with this for something like two years—I do not think that a solution rests in deciding totally in favour of one over the other. The durable solution rests in somehow strengthening the common ground so that the Gilbert Islands, as now constituted, can go forward on the basis of the fullest possible safeguards, guaranteed—and I have listened carefully to the suggestions on this—to the fullest possible and most effective extent. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Brockway that the history of entrenched clauses in many but not all parts of the world is not a very encouraging one. If we can do that and then, after a period of trying out this accommodation, have a report on the situation, on how it has worked out, and consider any recommendations that are made, I am convinced that this is the way we ought to proceed.
This is a good Bill to meet a very difficult situation. It ought to be given a trial, with a supervision of how provisions in it relating to this particular island and this particular community work out. Then, under impartial supervision and study, a report, with recommendations, should be returned as to how it has worked out. In fact, it is in the report of the conference that that is how it shall be done. I would appeal to my Banaban friends to accept these arrangements, these safeguards, and to work the arrangements for a period of time under the supervision of the sort of body which can be put together to the satisfaction of all concerned. The Commonwealth itself has been mentioned. Fiji has been mentioned. I do not wish to intrude too much into a prescription of how this should be supervised. A body that is acceptable to all—a commission, as I have described it—should examine it as it develops and, at the end of the period, report. This is provided for in the con-
1636
ference report and will be implemented. It is a matter of detail how such a commission is put together.
My Lords, I was asked a number of important questions by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. In particular, she referred to the position of the Phoenix and Line groups. That is one of the points she made. We have, of course, amicable and constructive discussions with the United States who have a view and an interest in two of these islands. I am confident that a successful outcome can be reached within the next few months. Our American friends are well aware of our attitude. We regard these islands, all 33 of them, as forming the territory upon which we hope, with the approval of Parliament, to confer independence and sovereignty.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that if by chance there is no satisfactory arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom before 12th July, any rights or claims which may lie with the present Government would pass to Kiribati? Or would the claim go by default?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is our intention that sovereign independence should be conferred upon what used to be known as the Gilbert Islands (namely Kiribati) and that the territory comprises the 33 islands which in turn includes the islands and all the sovereignty and rights that attach thereto. That is the British view. Our American friends understand this. We are discussing with them, on that basis, what the future should hold.
The noble Baroness asked about control of the trust fund set up out of the monies agreed between the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, namely, the 10 million Australian dollars. We have no wish to prescribe how this fund should be set up or to exercise control as to how it is spent. Discussions with the Banaban legal advisers were in train before the end of last year, when they were instructed to discontinue them. The offer has been made, together with an offer to discuss how best to set up a fund—which will include answers to the questions put to me by my noble friend Lord Hale

1637
as to who receives this—and we stand ready not only to hand over the money but to assist in constructing the best possible, most acceptable machinery for the disposal of this money. I hope that they will come back soon and discuss with us as good friends how this should be done. The money is there. We have been able to add to it the accumulated interest since the offer was made which amounts to another 1½million dollars. So that in every possible way, having regard to the fact, as I have said, in another age with other standards and other capacities of vision, mistakes may have been made—and not all the actions in this area were entirely mistakes by the way—we have been working as hard as possible in a practical way, financial and otherwise, to compensate for those mistakes in an ex-gratia sense.
The noble Baroness asked a question about dual nationality. Yes, my Lords, it is our understanding that Fiji law does not admit of dual citizenship; but it is for the Fiji Government to interpret their own law. I say this because although that is statutory fact in Fiji, in practice the Fiji Government have exercised more than marginal administrative tolerance which, while not exactly extending dual citizenship, certainly has created facilities for the Banabans on Rabi Island to travel, for instance, on Fiji passports. There may be there a possibility that the Fiji Government—itself a sovereign independent Government—may of their own accord look at the position and perhaps indicate that they will continue to interpret their law in such a way as to continue what I call the tolerant facilities that they have been able to extend to the Banabans. We are ready to discuss this with the Fiji Government. Indeed, I hope this will be one of the points that my honourable friend will discuss with them.
As to the future of the land, yes, I can give the assurance that the land leased from the Banaban landowners will be returned at the end of phosphate mining, which is some time this year, in accordance with the terms of the leases. Any land held by the Gilbert Islands Government, which was formerly Banaban land, will be returned to the former landowners after mining has ceased, in accordance with the Independence Constitution. This is provided for in paragraph 64 of the conference report.
1638
Regarding the figures she gave about the population of Rabi and the fact that it is not entirely Banaban—however we define that—it would take some little research, as she herself conceded, to answer and to confirm the exact figures. But I can tell the noble Baroness that her figures are broadly right. The Kiribati community is a community where there has been a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing and a romantic initiative from time to time, so that part of the charm of all these communities which form the larger community arises from the inventiveness of human relationships as indeed of some of the arts.
How many Banabans acquired Fiji nationality? The precise numbers are not known. All those born in Fiji acquired Fiji citizenship; but since Fiji does not now permit dual nationality, dual citizens lose their Fiji citizenship on their 22nd birthday unless they have renounced their non-Fiji citizenship by that date. If I have omitted any of the points—and, if I may say so without presumption, they are always appropriate ones that the noble Baroness makes from the Opposition Front Bench—then I shall communicate with her in another way.
If I may now refer to the incidents of the past few days, I do not think that we should make too much of them. These are people to whom violence and destruction is totally foreign, it is not the Pacific way. Frankly, I wonder where this particular activity came from. I very much hesitate to believe that it is of Banaban or indeed Pacific instigation. They are not that type of people. The facts, so far as I have been able to gather them today, are that a Banaban party of about 15 persons, led by the deputy chairman of the Rabi Council, including one Press representative, arrived in Banaba last week, on the 13th, and they requested the BPC to cease mining on the island, otherwise they threatened to obstruct mining operations. After some argument, 36 hours later they threw some petrol bombs damaging some equipment, excavators, a crusher motor and a conveyor system. This again is very foreign to this community and to the individuals that one knows. I find it very hard to believe, and it is certainly not natural to them.
Some of the protestors were taken into custody. Their leader, the deputy chairman of the Council, subsequently asked

1639
the remainder of the group to desist from further active protest, and they did so. The island has now returned to normal; the damaged equipment is being repaired and the Banaban party have had discussions with two Gilbertese Ministers visiting the island. Of course we all deplore this use of violence, by the Banabans or anybody else. It is wrong in itself, and also, as I have said, totally out of keeping with the Pacific tradition. On the question of damage to machinery, it is of course the intention of the Commission not only to hand over the land according to the proper way, but also to make over to Banabans on the island itself and to the Gilbertese Government most, if not all, of this equipment. Some of it is very valuable indeed and could be of the utmost help in the kind of restoration that more than one noble Lord has urged should be undertaken on the island. It is really a counterproductive form of protest to destroy some of the machinery which may well in the next few years be the means of restoring this island.
My noble friend Lord Brockway made a speech which I very much appreciate. He is of course intensely anxious that any minority should be properly treated. There are minorities everywhere, and perhaps particularly in the Pacific. We have minorities in this country; the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the minority to which I belong. Well, there is a minority within that minority, and one or two islands are concerned. Are we, in the third quarter of this century, perhaps losing sight of the need not only to safeguard minority interests but also to pay due regard to stability and consolidation?
I have to listen to everybody and there is a widespread feeling, particularly in the Pacific, that constant fragmentation holds for that area real dangers and hazards for the future. I simply indicate what must have occurred to many noble Lords apart from me, that we can go too far in slicing down sovereignty, so that the friends of democracy find that they have been atomised politically with a danger that that might lead to their being treated in the same way more literally. I pay my respects to my noble friend: of course I always listen to every word that he says.
1640
I have sat at his feet and learned a great deal from him about what I like to call humane politics.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in a very helpful speech, put a number of questions to me. Even more helpfully, she said that she would be content with having the answers at a later date, and I propose to adopt that course. I regard that as a very helpful speech indeed to any Minister. But I can answer one or two questions at once. Will Banaban income from phosphates be free of tax as they move with their neighbours into an independent Kiribas? Yes. Not everybody knows that their income from phosphates revenues is tax-free and will continue to be so. Some islands are fortunate. That is referred to in paragraph 67 of the conference report. The noble Baroness raised the question of the Chief Minister's generous offer in relation to "belonger" status. Does this still stand? Is it a reference to the 15 points? The constitution provides for Kiribas citizenship for Banabans wherever they live: that goes somewhat further than "belongership", I think. I shall be writing to the noble Baroness on the other points she raised and, if she feels they can be brought out a little more clearly by means of a Written Answer, I shall be happy to co-operate in every way.
I was particularly appreciative of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. He made a number of suggestions. He said, "Let us pass this Bill", and he is absolutely right. It will be a signal to the Pacific that we are passing an excellent Bill, a very generous one in terms of financial aid to the new Government and specifically to the Banaban community, although of course that is not part of the Bill. From the basis of the Second Reading of this Bill we can go on to its further stages. It will take a couple of months, and very early in that period my honourable friend will, I hope, have visited Tarawa and Suva and will have talked to all concerned. In fact, I shall be very much surprised if he is not armed, among other documents, with the Official Report of this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for instance, brought out a number of extremely important points and I am sure that I and my honourable friend will be

1641
studying what he said, as indeed we shall be studying what has been said generally in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, suggested that the 10 million Australian dollars might well be, as it were, put on one side and allowed to fructify—which was the Churchillian way of describing accumulated interest in, I believe, one of his Budgets. Certainly we would welcome resumption of discussions with the Banaban leaders and their advisers to organise this fund, if they wish it, on that basis. I think the noble Lord made an extremely useful suggestion. It is not for me to decide: it is for my Government to discuss with them how to do it, and I do hope that the Banban leaders will pay careful attention to what the noble Lord said on this point.
As to rehabilitation—yes, indeed. As I said in my opening speech, one of the number of—I will not say concessions but points of assistance—to the Banaban community that I am personally very keen on is that we in this country should fund a thorough-going survey of Ocean Island to see how productively restoration for industrial and agricultural purposes could be undertaken. I cannot guarantee what such a survey would report, but certainly I can guarantee that we are ready to undertake it and to pay for it, and to do the job thoroughly. As I said earlier, I should be very surprised if any Government in Britain would look upon this survey as something to be shot down. They would welcome the survey and look in it for possibilities for the advance of redevelopment and restoration of this island, which would meet the point which was properly made by a number of noble Lords. This community does have a feeling for this island.
My Lords, I think I have said enough this evening to show that we have safeguarded the Banabans' land ownership and their access to their island. If anything more can be done, most certainly we are prepared to talk with them and with the Gilbertese and also with the Fijian Prime Minister, whose counsel in these matters we greatly value. We shall do that as well; and, on the basis of the best possible accommodation between two pretty irreconcilable views of where Ocean Island should be, move forward in the next few years with Britain continuing to accord generous aid and technical assistance, together with exceptional bud-
1642
getary assistance, to the new Kiribas Government. On that basis, we will move forward to implement the new arrangement, under supervision to be chosen by them. I hope that my honourable friend will be able to get them to agree on this and that at the end of that period we shall be able to look at this and ask: "How has this worked?" and on the basis of conclusions reached after the end of what I should call a trial period, decide what changes, if any, should be made.
I am grateful to the House: I think the House is entirely right, if I may say so, to give this excellent Bill a Second Reading. Then, during the succeeding stages—which cannot and must not be held up—we can examine whatever suggestions and possibilities my honourable friend is able to bring back with him from his visit to the area.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why cannot the Government guarantee the entrenched clauses for a certain period: say, 10, 20 or 30 years? Why can they not guarantee that?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said about the further strengthening of what are known as "guarantees". I cannot from this Box immediately say that I accept any one of the suggestions. As I said, I think it is right for my honourable friend to arm himself with a copy of the Official Report and that part of it which has been subscribed by the noble Viscount will have a special fascination for him, so that when he goes out to the area he can say: "This was said; this suggestion was made about this procedural commission". There was the suggestion that perhaps the Commonwealth might be brought in, with the Commonwealth Secretariat. The noble Viscount mentioned the possibility of Britain coming in, as did others. Let us leave it at that. Let him bring up these various points. This is really an attempt to gild the lily. The safeguards and guarantees are there, but if there are genuinely-held reservations then a Ministerial visit will be made to the area and all these possibilities for further strengthening will be gone into with the parties.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
8.49 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a modest one. It is concerned with the reorganisation of a number of bodies—six statutory and three non-statutory—currently responsible for the training and the governance of the nursing professions into a new unified structure which can look at training needs across the board, assess priorities and consider not only the training for entry into nursing, midwifery and health visiting, but also further training in all three fields. In short, it establishes a new framework for formulating the policy on education and training for these professions for the future. The Bill itself does not say what that future education and training should be, nor indeed whether any change from the present arrangements is necessary. It is limited to the creation of the framework within which those decisions will be made; and, as I have said, it is a very modest measure.
I think that it is important to emphasise this last point about changes in training, because I believe that many of the anxieties and reservations felt by certain groups within the professions, notably midwives and health visitors, spring not from what is actually in the Bill, but from what they fear it may contain, or perhaps, to be more accurate, what it may lead to. I shall want to speak more fully about their worries later, but I cannot stress enough that the Bill is concerned with organisation and structure, and not with the content of training.
Some of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that the provisions of the Bill derive from recommendations of the report of the Committee on Nursing, published in 1972, which was under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, a report which was much preoccupied with changes in the pattern of education and training for the nursing professions. It may therefore be convenient to look briefly at some of the key proposals of that report, and at the way in which they have influenced the
1644
provisions of the Bill before us today. I am sure that I speak not only for myself but for all of your Lordships in saying that we are delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, here tonight. We look forward with pleasant anticipation to the maiden speech which he is due to make later.
The Briggs Committee on Nursing was set up in March 1970 by the late Richard Crossman with a broad remit:
"To review the role of the nurse and the midwife in the hospital and the community and the education and training required for that role, so that the best use is made of available manpower to meet present needs and those of an integrated health service".
I am sure that the last phrase is the crucial one. There have been many reports before on aspects of nursing and nurse training, but never before had there been an attempt to look at the role of the nursing professions in the context of an integrated Health Service; that is, within a Health Service that comprised not only the hospital sector, but also the community and the important preventive aspects of health care. An integration is in many senses the keynote of the report which was published in October 1972; integration not only between hospital and community care, but integration between the various kinds and levels of nurse.
The report recommended an entirely new approach to nurse training. In future, it suggested, there should be a common point of entry into training for all nurses and midwives. For the first 18 months, there would be one basic course for all entrants, comprising a number of separate modules of training in different fields, which should include some experience in psychiatric nursing and work in the community. The course would lead to a common "certificate of nursing practice" which would then become the basic, first-level, qualification. At that stage, the individual could choose whether to start work or whether to continue in training to a more advanced level. Or perhaps an individual nurse would choose to work for a number of years and then, later in her career, choose to pursue her professional training further. After the first common course, there would be a further 18-month course, leading to a level comparable to the present registration level in nursing. During this period, the individual would specialise in a particular

1645
area of nursing care—for example, mental illness nursing—and this would become her "preferred field" for work on completion of training. For the more highly specialised fields of care—for example, theatre nursing—there would be specialist courses leading to what were to be known as "higher certificates", which could be taken either concurrently with the second 18-month period of training or as separate six-month courses thereafter.
The idea was to create a continuum of education, where the individuals could progress at their own pace and pursue their own particular interests. Because everyone would have undergone the same common core of training, if later in their career they wished to change direction and enter into a very different sphere of specialisation, they would have received the necessary basic grounding and all that would be needed would be to build on that existing core of knowledge. Thus, the nurse whose preferred field was in general medicine could change relatively easily to work in the mental illness field, because her basic training had included a grounding in psychiatric nursing. This would seem a more flexible structure and one which would allow the individual nurse to adapt to the changing needs of the service, and also to develop her own interests rather more easily than the present arrangements allow.
I have gone into some detail about the plan of education and training which was recommended, because I feel that it is important to see what is in the Bill against that background. It was in the context of this integrated approach to training—and, as I have said, integrated not only in terms of areas to be covered but also in terms of the continuum of education and training—that the Committee considered the arrangements for control of training; that is, the setting and maintaining of standards. And here they found the present arrangements the very opposite of integrated. Although one can have nothing but praise for the work which the present six statutory and three non-statutory training bodies do, it cannot be denied that by compartmentalising training into separate areas there is a fragmentation of the whole approach to the general issues which underlie training in a specific field. As the report itself put it:
1646
"At present there is a wide range of bodies concerned with nursing and midwifery education and directly or indirectly, therefore, with the future of the professions. … We have been impressed by the quality of the evidence each one of them has presented to us and with the care and sense of public responsibility with which the evidence was compiled, in some cases after a comprehensive review. It is in no sense because we fail to recognise the achievements of these bodies that we recommend that in the interests of the profession there should be one single central statutory organisation to supervise training and education and to safeguard and, when possible, to raise professional standards".
The report went on to recommend the creation of a central council, responsible for the formulation of the broad lines of education policy and for the registration and discipline of the professions, and of four national boards, one for each country of the United Kingdom, to be responsible for the administration of training within that country.
The concept of an integrated statutory framework flows logically from the concept of integrated training. However, when one comes to making changes, it is necessary to have the structural changes first. That is what this Bill is all about. It makes those structural changes and establishes the central council and the national boards which the Briggs Report recommended. It does not tackle the question of the detailed changes in training recommended by the report; these are for the new bodies, once they are established. And this, I think, would seem to be perfectly right. It is now some years since the Briggs recommendations were formulated and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, would be the first to admit that things have changed since then. We have a reorganised and integrated Health Service. We are members of the European Economic Community, and the whole climate within the nursing professions has changed radically.
I am sure the new bodies, when they get down to looking at education and training needs and the question of changes, will consider very carefully what was said in the Briggs Report; it was, and is, a very impressive document. But I think they will wish to look again at some of the detailed proposals and to look at their feasibility in a somewhat changed Health Service. However, the point is that the Bill of itself does not mean that there will be changes in training, and it certainly does not mean that the pattern of training

1647
proposed by the Briggs Report will be introduced overnight.
I should like now to turn to what is contained in the Bill. Its main purpose is to establish a United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and four national boards. The central council is to prepare and maintain a central register of qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors; and to determine by means of rules, education and training requirements and other conditions for admission to the register. The new bodies will, as I have explained, replace all the existing statutory bodies; namely, the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, the General Nursing Council for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Council for Nursing and Midwifery, the Central Midwives Board for England and Wales, the Central Midwives Board for Scotland and the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors. They will also take over the functions of the three non-statutory bodies; namely, the Joint Board for Clinical Nursing Studies, the Committee for Clinical Nursing Studies (its Scottish equivalent) and the Panel of Assessors for District Nurse Training. All those concerned with education and training for nurses, mid-wives and health visitors will be brought together so that the full range of education and training issues can be looked at together and the concept of education as a continuum throughout the individual's career can be fostered.
There is also another important aspect to the Bill; it is fundamentally concerned with the governance of the professions, through the requirement that nurses, midwives and health visitors shall be registered for practice in their profession, and by the enforcement of standards of professional conduct through the disciplinary process. These provisions, vital as part of the protection of the public, ensure that those who care for us are in all respects well qualified to do so.
I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes a new United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Its detailed membership will be prescribed by Ministers, but the crucial feature is the high degree of cross-membership with the four national boards, each of which will
1648
nominate, in equal numbers, members to the council. Those nominated by national boards will form the majority on the council, and that majority will comprise nurses, midwives and health visitors. Though it is right that the professions themselves have the major say in governing their own affairs and in setting standards of education and training, others have an important contribution to make. For example, there is a close relationship, as we all know, between the nursing professions and medicine. Also, those skilled in the field of education have an important part to play in formulating the way in which the professions' kind and standard of training are determined. There will therefore be members representing both fields on the council.
Clause 2 deals with the council's functions. As a new governing body for the professions, responsible for registration and discipline as well as setting standards of education and training, it will have the power to formulate rules on these subjects. Clause 3 deals with specialist standing committees of the Council. These will be established by order. In particular, there is a requirement to constitute a Midwifery Committee and a Finance Committee. There is power to establish other specialist committees, including committees for district and mental nursing, for clinical nursing studies—which may cover the whole range of post-basic specialties such as intensive care, renal nursing, theatre nursing—and occupational health nursing. And in time there may well be others.
Clause 4 deals with the council's Midwifery Committee in some detail. The majority of members of the committee are required to be practising midwives, and the council is to consult the committee on all matters relating to midwifery and may assign functions to that committee which, if the council so authorises, the committee can deal with finally without further reference to the council. In recognition of the special position of midwives, the only group whose practice is controlled by rules, there is a special provision requiring the council to assign to the committee all matters relating to the preparation and the making of rules on practice. Because this is very much an area for experts, rules on practice may not be approved unless they are framed in accordance with the recommendations of

1649
the committee. This is a very important recognition of the need for expert advice in this area, which is so vital to the protection of the vulnerable mother and child.
Clause 5 establishes the national boards, one each for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As with the central council, detailed membership is to be prescribed by order. The majority will be members of the professions and, after the initial term, will be directly elected by the professions themselves. This will enable the professions to have a greater say in the control of their own affairs. Though there are elections at present to the General Nursing Councils, this will be the first time that midwives and health visitors have been able to have a direct involvement in the governance of their own professions.
Clause 6 deals with the functions of the national boards. Each board is charged with providing, or arranging for others to provide, courses of training for those seeking registration and courses of further training for those already registered. The boards are required to ensure that the content and standard of the courses meets the requirements of the Central Council. Indeed, the national boards are specifically charged with collaborating with the council in promoting improvements in education and training. They will also have a responsibility for investigating cases of alleged misconduct. Clause 7 deals with the standing committees of the national boards. Clause 8 deals with joint standing committees—that is, committees serving both the council and the boards. There is a requirement to establish a health visiting joint committee which the council and boards are to consult on all matters relating to health visiting and which will discharge functions assigned to it. Clause 9 deals with local training committees. This enables Ministers to establish training committees of the national boards which will assist boards in carrying out their training functions.
Clause 10 is in a sense the practical kernel of the Bill. This clause requires the council to prepare and maintain a professional register of qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors. In order to distinguish different qualifications and different kinds and standards of training, the register is to be divided into parts
1650
which Ministers will prescribe by order after consulting the council. Clause 11 deals with admission to the register and Clause 12 deals with the circumstances in which and the means by which a person may be removed from the register. Clause 13 deals with the procedures for appeals for anybody aggrieved by decisions of the council to remove them from the register. Clause 14 provides for offences and penalties for falsely claiming to be qualified as a nurse, midwife or health visitor. Clauses 15–17 restate in relation to the council and boards provisions from existing legislation concerning the practice of midwifery. In particular they require the council to make rules covering midwifery practice and restate the provisions establishing local supervising authorities. The presence of this group of clauses is again a recognition of the separate characteristics of midwifery and the need in order to protect the public to have adequate control over the way in which midwives operate. Clause 18 is also a restatement of existing provisions in the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951 which exempts midwives from jury service. Similar provisions for midwives in other parts of the United Kingdom already exist in other legislation. Clause 19 deals with the finances of the council and boards, and Clause 20 deals with the accounts of the council and boards. The remaining clauses are all of a technical nature.
The Bill has eight Schedules. Schedules 1 and 2 are concerned with the constitution of council and boards respectively, setting out in some detail their procedures and methods of working. Schedule 3 deals with disciplinary proceedings before council and boards. Schedule 4 deals with the qualifications of auditors. Schedule 5 contains transitional provisions relating to the transfer of staff, property, et cetera, from the existing to the new bodies. Schedule 6 contains the adaptations required for Northern Ireland and its national board. The constitutional position in Northern Ireland is different from that elsewhere in the United Kingdom and it is therefore necessary to adapt United Kingdom legislation to take account of this. Schedule 7 contains Amendments to other Acts. Schedule 8 deals with Acts to be repealed.
My Lords, I do not want to spend much more time this evening on aspects

1651
of the Bill, because we are not unmindful of some of the difficulties that certain people are experiencing. But may I just say this about the problems. There has been a great deal of debate about the position within the Bill of minority groups, especially midwives and health visitors. Obviously, your Lordships will want to deal with this matter when we reach the Committee stage, probably in some detail.
The main concern has been that their separate indentity and distinctive training will be lost because their interests will be given scant regard by bodies dominated by the numerically stronger nurses. For this reason, there has been a desire to build in greater protection and safeguards by giving definite responsibilities to the specialist standing committees for both the midwives and health visitors. Indeed, Clause 4, introduced during Committee in another place, was designed for just this purpose: to indicate clearly and put beyond doubt the remit of the experts on the midwifery Committee in relation to the rules of midwifery practice. We believe this has gone a long way to removing the midwives' fears.
There remains, however, a difficulty over health visitors. The problem in essence is quite simple; it is, if I may say so, a matter of balance. On the one hand, there is a need to reassure health visitors that their committee will have a real say in matters wholly or mainly affecting health visitors, and, on the other, there is the need to preserve the position of the council, and boards, and their ability to take the broad view and make decisions on all aspects of training for the professions. The crux of the problem has been to find a middle way between these two laudable objectives. So far I have to confess no middle position has been found. A number of proposals have been put forward, but all have involved a degree of delegation—in some cases amounting to virtual autonomy—to the health visiting joint committee which would, if carried through, vitiate the whole purpose of the Bill.
We are, however, still trying to find that middle road. My right honourable friend, the Minister of State for Health, has given an undertaking that if the various groups involved come forward
1652
with a better agreed solution the Government will write it into the Bill. A meeting has been arranged with the various groups to be held very soon, to see whether anything has been or indeed can be agreed. If agreement is forthcoming, I would move Amendments either at Committee, or, if necessary, at Report. I think this is a fair undertaking and one which the various groups representing the professions should take very seriously.
We believe that there is a good deal of unanimity about the ends to be attained. The dispute is wholly about the means to attain them. We want nurses, midwives and health visitors to work together in the new structure, and we believe that by doing so they will be promoting the best interests of their professions. Their ability to move forward and introduce changes in training will be severely restricted if there are people within the professions who are unhappy about the way decisions are made. That is why we are anxious to see an agreed solution to which everybody can put their name.
My Lords, I started out by saying that I think this Bill could be described as a modest one; it is, but it is also a worthwhile and useful measure. Over one-third of all National Health Service revenue is spent on nursing. I think that we have a duty to ensure that that money is being wisely spent for the benefit of the patient. Patients will benefit most from a well-trained workforce of nurses, mid-wives and health visitors who are well prepared for their roles. It is my belief that the new bodies to be established by the Bill present a tremendous opportunity for a review of training so that we can do what is best for the Service and, of course, for our nurses, midwives and health visitors. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Wells-Pestell)
9.20 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell for introducing the Bill this evening and for explaining it all so clearly and carefully. May I say at the outset how delighted we are on this side of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, is making his Maiden speech on the Bill. We shall all look forward to

1653
hearing what he has to say. One of the great benefits in the House of Lords is that we make it possible for the chairmen of such important committees to be able to speak to their report and for us to hear at first hand their views upon it.
The Bill was introduced in another place as a non-controversial measure, and so it might well appear from its title. We can all agree on thanking the nursing profession not only for what they do in the ordinary course of their duties, but particularly for all the extra work that they have taken on during these past weeks of industrial unrest in the Hospital Service. What is non-controversial is that we must all look after the nursing profession to which we all owe so much. In saying that, we must also look after the other professions—the midwives and the health visitors—with whom we are concerned in the Bill. There is, I think, a particular reason for that. Not only are we grateful for what they do, but the trend in medicine today is towards community care and that means an ever-greater dependence upon midwives and particularly upon health visitors. We have an ageing population and health visitors play an increasingly important role in the care of the aged. That role and that of midwives is also extremely important in the world of preventive medicine to which we are all increasingly turning.
However, that said, to describe the Bill as a non-controversial measure would, I think, be not quite correct. From the moment of its Second Reading in another place it has, in fact, proved to be controversial, not particularly in a party political sense, but, judging from the number of letters that I have received, it is difficult to see that it is anything but still controversial and that the controversies will not easily be resolved.
If the main principle of the Bill is right—namely, the establishment of a United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors—then what I may describe as the "minority professions" are bound to fear that their views will be overruled by those of the majority. If, on the other hand, too much is given to the minority professions, then the majority will feel that their needs are being watered down. I cannot help wondering, in view of all the discussions
1654
and letters that I have had, whether enough preparatory work to see if it was not possible to reach agreement between the different professions was done before the Bill was ever introduced.
I feel sure from looking at the list of speakers this evening that other noble Lords and Baronesses will refer in particular to the question of the health visitors. I have considerable sympathy with their fears that, as the smallest profession, they will lose out in the new arrangements and that their particular needs in education will not be catered for. That is something to which we shall certainly return in Committee. I was, therefore, particularly glad to note what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on that very point and may I say that, if it is possible to reach an agreement between all the professions, we on this side of the House would be very glad to support it. My understanding at present is that there is no agreement and I think that that is something to which we need to turn our attention during the Committee stage.
I believe that there is a more general criticism. As I understand it, the Bill was originally based on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs. Of course, we greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say. However, having read his very interesting report, the essence of it is really education, manpower in the nursing professions, the career structure for nurses as well as the conditions of work for the nursing professions. The actual statutory framework is, in fact, the smallest part of the report. I would suggest that this Bill can only be a beginning.
Therefore, it is disappointing that, as the Financial Memorandum makes clear, there cannot be any changes in education and training in the nursing professions until more funds are available nationally. In that way, those bodies that were so keen to see this Bill on the Statute Book may well be disappointed. I should not like to be taking part in yet another Bill on which we all labour and which we all think is, in principle, a good Bill, but find at the end of the day that because there is no money to support it, the Bill is in fact a dead letter.
As recently as 10 days ago we debated the International Year of the Child. It

1655
is, indeed, most disappointing that four years on we have still not been able fully to implement the Children Act 1975 because funds have not been available. I make this point now because nothing brings Parliament into disrepute more than passing legislation for which there is not adequate money, because hopes are raised which, in fact, are not fulfilled.
Under this Bill we have the structure, the framework, as the Briggs Report makes out, but we are without the money to carry out its purpose. Without wishing to be in any way unfair, we have a Bill which does nothing about education and training and nothing about conditions of work. It is a Bill that will not produce more nurses or midwives or health visitors.
At no point in the Bill are the interests of consumers—or should we in this case say patients—mentioned at all, except in Clause 4(1), where I assume that the two members of the midwifery committee who are to be members of the public are representing patients' interests. If in fact that is not the case, I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would say so. But if it is the case, I should like to ask two questions.
If it is thought desirable to have patients' interests represented on this committee, why are they not represented on every committee? Secondly, how will these two representatives be chosen? Will they come from organisations representing patients' interests? Will they come from among women who have had their babies brought into the world by midwives? How will they be chosen? Again, this is a matter to which we can return at the Committee stage.
Another cause for concern arises under Clause 12. It has been expressed to me by the Royal College of Midwives. This is a matter to which others may well refer in the course of the debate. I believe that there is a fear on the part of midwives—and it should be an equal fear on the part of nurses and health visitors—about what will happen if mistakes are made by one of them as a consequence of an industrial dispute when they are short-staffed, short-handed or having to work long hours. I understand that midwives have a "no strike"
1656
agreement. Therefore, they are put at risk by strike actions on the part of others. Under Clause 12, what happens to them if they make a mistake?
Furthermore, it is just worth considering whether, should one of the members of these professions be brought before the disciplinary committee, it is right that the proceedings should be heard in public. It has been said to me—and there seems to be some force in the argument—that when members of other professions are brought before their disciplinary committees, the proceedings are not held in public. I can understand the arguments for holding the proceedings in public, but, on the other hand, from the point of view of the person who is accused, there is always the danger that, at the end of the day when they are proved to be not guilty but completely innocent, someone will say, "There's no smoke without a fire", and their professional reputation will inevitably be damaged by prejudiced people. I think that this is a point one should look at in the course of our Committee proceedings.
The Bill gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State. Initially, he will appoint the chairman of the Council itself. He will constitute the standing committees of the council, and the midwifery and finance committees. He has further powers under Clauses 7, 8 and 10, and under these he will constitute by order the committees of the boards and the joint committees serving both the councils and the boards. All this would appear to be an enormously weighty structure.
As I understand the situation, those in the nursing profession who were most keen to have this Bill, as they wanted action on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, may well prove to be disappointed. It is, after all, six years since the publication of that report, and now, inevitably, they are not getting a Bill which deals with the substance of that report but only with its framework. It is a structure without any provision for the real bones of the report that support the structure.
Before concluding, may I raise one other concern of my own. It does not arise directly from the Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in intro-

1657
ducing the Bill commented at length about the proposals on education: that is, the proposal that there should be one basic 18-month course for all three professions. This may well be right. But does it mean that we are about to establish a new figure—the generic nurse? The concept of the generic social worker has in fact been a disaster in the social work world, and I very much hope that we shall not repeat it in the nursing world. I myself am a believer in specialisation, for we live in a specialist world, and I would not wish to see expertise neglected or denigrated. I am of course pleased to read Clause 3(3), which makes provision for consultation with the specialisms within nursing. However, I note that it is not a mandatory consultation as in subsection (1) but is permissive. Above all, let us learn the lessons of the reforms which led to social service committees and the training of social workers, and, where there have been mistakes, let us not repeat them in the nursing profession.
This is a Bill that we shall want thoroughly to examine in Committee. I cannot pretend that it is one that we on this side of the House are particularly enthusiastic about, and I certainly cannot accept that it is at present a non-controversial measure. One of the many advantages of your Lordships' House is that we have time fully to consider all the many problems that still arise upon it. We on this side of the House shall not oppose it at Second Reading, but we shall want time thoroughly to examine it as it proceeds through your Lordships' House.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, may I join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his introduction of the Bill in front of us. I shall be short in my remarks because, like all noble Lords present in the House at the moment, I am looking forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, and his understanding of the Bill and his views on the changed situation that now exists in a unified National Health Service since his report was originally published.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that this Bill is about organisation and structure. He expressed the view
1658
that the fears of the various sections of the profession that have been voiced are perhaps unnecessary fears when it comes to this Bill; that they are fears of a changing educational and training pattern and not exactly fears of the organisation itself. I believe there is a bit of both in the problems that the Bill has come up against. I personally welcome the Bill in the way that it sets out a framework for establishing a central council and national boards. It will obviate much of the fragmentation that has taken place in the past and I believe it will help some of the funding arrangements as they presently stand.
This fragmentation in nurse and midwife training and education, it is not realised, has created enormous problems for nurse managers and educationists in the Health Service over the years, and for that reason I welcome the establishment of a proper structure for the profession. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I regret that there is no money available for implementing a real restructuring of the education of nurses, midwives and health visitors in the Health Service.
The Bill has had several Amendments made to it in another place and we should pay tribute to what has been done there. To a great extent the Bill has been improved, but some points still worry me. As has been said that it is difficult to get the various arms of the professions to meet, and I was therefore greatly reassured when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that if agreement could be obtained from the three arms of the Service he would introduce the relevant provision either in Committee or on Report. We on this side of the House will be happy to support it. An example of what happens in the desire to safeguard their position may be mentioned here in relation to Amendments being made to the Bill in another place. Noble Lords will remember that an Amendment was introduced in Committee to enable the midwifery committees of the national board to communicate direct with the midwifery committee of the national council. That was, to me, a dangerous move because it could take away from the statutory board its proper relationship with its subordinate committees, and I was therefore concerned about that. Later, on Report, that position was reversed, and now I believe the structure is better. Nevertheless, the

1659
midwives are concerned about their voice being properly heard through their national boards, and they have put it to me that they would like something put in the Bill to obligate the national boards to forward the views of the national midwifery committees. I do not know whether that is possible, but it is something we in this House should consider.
The other problem that worries me is that to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred; namely the Amendment introduced to the effect that there shall be two members of the general public, at least one of whom must be a woman, on the midwifery committee. As a woman, I am absolutely against the "statutory woman". I do not believe it is correct that we should always be harping about one person being a woman. Other noble Lords will speak about the composition and membership of these committee sand I agree it is desperately important that members of the medical profession should be on these committees, but I do not think it is necessary for there to be a woman as such representing the consumer. This provision has crept in because people have misunderstood the purpose of the midwifery committee. They feel that it governs, for instance, the provisions of facilities for home confinement; it does not. I personally should prefer not to see the statutory woman as such on the midwifery committee.
Like all of us in the House, I am fully aware of the difficult position in which the health visitors find themselves, being by far the smallest body, and anything that we can do to reassure them that under the new structure their case will be heard will be welcome. Another point that concerns me about the debate as it took place in the other House is that it seems that we are going too far in many ways in establishing committees at the national board level. We have agreed that there are certain committees that must be set up at central council level, but I am concerned about what appears to be the desire to set up statutory committees at national board level, because the national boards must vary, depending on the structure as it is at the moment. In Northern Ireland, for instance, there is currently a joint statutory body, and specialist separate committees are not wanted. The national boards should be left with freedom to set up the
1660
committees that they themselves consider necessary in the particular context of the country in which they function. I believe this to be desperately important.
I also want to refer to the disciplinary action. Here again, I am afraid that I am very much on the same lines as the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am tremendously concerned about what happens to midwives, nurses or health visitors (who will also come under the umbrella by the time they are part of the statutory body) if, through no fault of their own, they make a mistake because there is a shortage of staff due to industrial action. Perhaps this is such a big subject that it cannot be dealt with only under the Bill. It is a problem which, in our present industrial situation, exists in many walks of life; but in this particular case, because there is a disciplinary committee set up under the central council, these people will be very vulnerable. I believe that we would do well in this House to devote quite a bit of our time to seeing that they are safeguarded, as they are among those who have agreed not to take industrial action because they are interested in the life of the patient. I hope that we shall be able to spend some time discussing that point in Committee.
9.44 p.m.
Lord BRIGGS: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for talking at this stage in the discussion of a Bill which to me has a very long pre-history. It was on a grey afternoon in December 1969 that the then Secretary of State asked me, as a matter of urgency, whether I would chair a committee to look into the role of the nurse, the education, training, and conditions of work of nurses, and the most effective use in the future of manpower within an integrated National Health Service. When I accepted the invitation to chair the committee I did so because I believed that there was an urgent need for action. The committee was duly appointed in March, 1970, and we completed our report within the time which was scheduled for us, by the summer of 1972. Those of us who were concerned with the committee and who felt the sense of urgency at that time have since been most disappointed at the very slow rate of progress in dealing with what seemed to us at the time, and what still seems to me at this time, to be urgent matters.

1661
There are in fact six aspects of the report which still seem to me to retain their basic importance. First, there was the attempt to set out clearer rules and understandings about recruitment into the nursing profession. Conditions of recruitment vary very much from one place to another. It seemed to us at the time that all kinds of obstacles were being placed in the way of nurse recruitment, and we attached the utmost importance to the whole of that range of issues. Secondly, we looked at the nature of the training and educational system in relation to nursing, and we noted again that there was in fact no system. There was a great variety of different forms of education, some very good, some not at all good; and we attached a great deal of importance to an urgent action programme to increase and improve the supply of nurse tutors. That was one of the most important points in the educational proposals.
But, my Lords, we also envisaged the nursing profession in terms of continuing nurse education to develop the best opportunities for each individual nurse and to give the nurse within the profession choice of the various kinds of specialisation which the nurse in question could most effectively develop. There was no suggestion whatsoever—I say this in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of a generic nurse. We believed that it was essential to give the right kind of basic nursing education, so that the specialised forms of nursing education could be developed on the basis of that initial education. We also wanted some of the ideas which were at work in the educational world as a whole about methods of learning to be taken into the nursing profession.
The third point in the report was a study of the conditions of work. We felt, as indeed I still feel, that the conditions of work in relation to the nursing profession required, and continue to require, regular scrutiny. When we consider the difficulties that the National Health Service has faced during the course of these last few weeks or months, I yield to none in my admiration for the work of nurses at this difficult time—and they are working in extremely difficult conditions. In our report we tried to lay down some of what seemed to us to be the essential conditions if one was going to have a nursing pro-
1662
fession consisting, not only of people who cared but of people who were cared for by the community.
Fourthly, in the report we attached a great deal of importance to community nursing. At the beginning of the day, when the report was being discussed, I regretted that some suspicion was then expressed by health visitors about features of the report. It was the only suspicion, I think, which was registered at that particular time. There were midwives on my committee, and they played a most important part. I heard no suspicions registered by midwives at that particular stage in the story, but there were some suspicions which were expressed by health visitors. I did my best at the time to allay them, because if one bothers to read the report with care one finds that it lays a tremendous amount of importance on community care, on primary care, on trying to ensure that everyone within the nursing profession who is concerned with hospitals understands the relationship between hospital care and community care. It was that notion of integration, the integration between community care and hospital care, which seemed to me to be the point to bring out in our report.
The next point in the report was an emphasis upon the need for continuing research to identify nursing needs, and an attempt to ensure that these would be met with the proper degrees of priority within the National Health Service. Lastly, we emphasised the importance of a unified profession and of the development of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called a framework which would enable that unified profession itself to make some of the key decisions about the future of nursing.
My Lords, in all the work I have done in my life I have never found any committee more rewarding than the nursing committee which was composed of a majority of nurses. The ideas which were discussed in that committee were ideas which had been discussed for years previously within the nursing profession. They were not new ideas. What the report did was to try to bring the ideas together and put them in some kind of logical, coherent form and to take account of the relationship between nurses and the medical profession, a key relationship;

1663
but to take account also of the relationship between the nurses and paramedicals and the ancillaries in the National Health Service. The importance of those groups has grown considerably since the report was published.
My committee had a very broad remit, but the measure which we are considering is, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has said, a modest Bill. It deals entirely with machinery; and to those who like me are concerned with objectives there is an element of disappointment in this. Machinery, however important, is merely instrumental. A great deal depends not only on the structures which have been devised but on the goodwill which is applied to the application of the structures when they come into existence.
I welcome very much the notion of a common council which will deal with the problems of the nursing profession as a whole. I believe that the creation of such a council is in the interests of the nursing profession and that it will give the profession a chance to work out its own destiny more effectively than it has ever been able to do in the past. I welcome very much the possibility of further discussions, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has said, between the health visitors, who remain deeply concerned about aspects of the measure, and the nursing profession. I sincerely hope that those discussions will be fruitful.
In my view, it would be a tragedy if we were to fail to make progress after 10 years in this field because we cannot at the moment get the feeling that behind the necessary measures we have a united profession. I can understand the reasons for some of the worries. I hope that at the Committee stage it will be possible to hammer out some of the problems. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken that there are aspects of some of the Amendments which I do not like. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss these very fully indeed at a later stage. But if it were possible for agreement to be reached between the health visitors and the nursing profession as a whole before that stage it would be a great encouragement to us all.
My Lords, in conclusion, may I say that while I regard machinery as being instrumental—and the sections on the
1664
framework in the report are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, brief in relation to the content of the report—nevertheless the framework is important and it is essential that we get it right. I hope that it will be possible for an atmosphere of trust to be built up if we are going to make the new machinery work right from the start. But unless we make a start with the machinery, we will never be able to get any further in relation to securing the objects which, I think, are shared by most people in the nursing profession.
Those objects are objects which are all bound up with the ideas which are set out in the report. Times have changed; there is a different social situation and a different situation in the National Health Service itself as compared with 1972. Yet that report was seeking to look to the future of nursing towards the end of this century. If one misses an opportunity in relation to the future of a profession for whatever reasons, it may be very difficult indeed to find another moment when it will be possible to have the same opportunity.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, on his maiden speech. It must really be wonderful to be able to make a maiden speech which carries with it such knowledge and concern for the service in which the noble Lord has been so interested, so far as I know, all his life. Today our House is very lucky to have had a maiden speech from the noble Lord on this subject. Making maiden speeches is always a problem and always rather difficult. I do not think that we often get a maiden speech on a topic which over the years we have all learned to acknowledge, covering aspects which we try to put into operation. We know how able the noble Lord is and how much study he has given to the profession which he more than adequately, and indeed wonderfully, represents. In congratulating him we know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who moved the Second Reading, will be able to get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, and gain the benefit of his experience and knowledge. We have been delighted to have been here tonight to hear the maiden speech of

1665
Lord Briggs and we sincerely hope that he will often attend this House and contribute on a matter about which we are all, whatever our Party, very anxious. I should like to thank the noble Lord very much indeed and I am delighted to have had the honour of congratulating him on a wonderful maiden speech.
May I now turn to one or two points that I should like to make, having listened with very great interest and respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. For many years now I have been a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. I have always enjoyed this very much indeed and it has helped me to do the very little that I have been able to do for the nursing profession. I am very pleased with the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, this evening. It starts us off on something quite new which ought to be of great benefit to the nursing profession, the midwives and the health visitors.
I was not quite so pleased with the speech made by my noble friend Lady Young. I do not know how much knowledge she has of the nursing profession and how it works; but I know from the Royal College of Nursing that, as they have already indicated to me, they want one small amendment to be made to the Bill. They have forwarded this amendment to me and when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to accept it. That indicates to me that, although there is a lot of worries, I understand, among certain sections which are covered by this Bill, there are not quite so many worries as my noble friend Lady Young seeks to point out.
There is one point in particular I should like to make because, as I say, the Royal College of Nursing has played a very important part in the nursing profession and I have always been very proud to be associated with them. I should like to read to your Lordships a passage from a letter I have received from Mr. D. H. Rye, Director of Professional Activities in the Royal College of Nursing. I think this will indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the feeling of the Royal College:
"I would just make one point: that the Royal College of Nursing sees this"—
1666
that is, the new Bill we are now discussing—
"as enabling the creation of a new statutory framework to develop the training and education of the nurses, midwives and health visitors, and it must be seen as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Much more work will have to be done by the new statutory body to implement the educational recommendations made in the report of the Briggs Committee. I hope that this information will be sufficient for your purposes".
That is really a very important letter I have from the Royal College of Nursing. Of course, a lot of people may not necessarily support the Royal College of Nursing. We in this country like all sorts of things that we do not always support in detail, but the Royal College of Nursing has done an immense amount in helping the nurses, the midwives and the health visitors. Therefore, I was very pleased to get this note from Mr. Rye. As he says, the Bill enables the creation of a new statutory framework to develop the training of nurses, midwives and health visitors and it is something that "must be seen as a means to an end, not as an end in itself".
When we come to the Committee stage of the Bill I think that everybody will be able to make a contribution from their own knowledge. That is tremendously important; I am a great believer in experience. I sometimes think that the nursing profession, with the midwives and the health visitors, have never really had all the support and help they needed from either Government—going back a long way. Here is a new opportunity and I shall look forward to the Committee stage. At the same time, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for thinking out this new idea which he has put forward in this Bill today. I am sure he will be wanting to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech: it was a wonderful speech that he made. Of course, if there are certain points I do not agree with, when the Committee stage comes along I shall try to make him alter his mind. But, in the meantime, it is quite right that he should be congratulated on coming forward with this great scheme, which I hope will do all that he hopes for those people we want to serve, and serve well.
I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time but I should just like to say again, "Thank you for the Bill". I think it was wonderfully developed and

1667
I hope that my Party, together with the Liberal Party, will be able to do whatever is possible to make absolutely certain that everybody benefits from this proposal. I think it is a very good one and I again congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward this Bill.
I have nothing further to say, except that I have always been proud of the nursing profession, and of the midwives and health visitors, as have we all. We
1668
have a wonderful number of them in this country, and when we are discussing what I call the political terms of this Bill we also have to remember what they would like and what will help them. So I am delighted to be here tonight and to pay my tribute. I hope that the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced, and which is supported by so many people in the country, will have a profound effect upon our services to nurses, to midwives and to health visitors. So thank you very much indeed.
10.6 p.m.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, may I first be allowed to apologise to the House for the fact that, due to the arrival in London this evening of a distinguished American surgeon, long arranged, for whom I have some responsibilities, I shall not be able to stay, as I should like, to the end of the debate. I should also like to say how very much I enjoyed the most elegant and informative maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs. I am sure that we have all benefited greatly from hearing his description of the history behind the report of his committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said, behind the Bill lies the setting and the maintaining of standards. How good it is to be able to support the pursuit of excellence at a time when it is so widely assumed that in health matters the only moral objective is equality! As has already been said, there are certain anxieties that were aroused by the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Briggs; but of course these anxieties do not stem from the Bill itself, and whether they turn out to be justified will be dependent on the way in which these new bodies do their jobs. That, in turn, will depend to a certain degree upon their constitution, and it is about one aspect of the constitution that I want to speak very briefly this evening.
In regard to the constitution of both the central council and the national boards, there is one anxiety that I have. As a consultant in a large hospital, I have myself taken part in teaching nurses for over 30 years in the lecture room, in the operating theatre and at the bedside. Indeed, I have always regarded it as a duty of doctors in hospital to assist directly in training nurses, but also, at times, to give advice as to how the curriculum might best contribute to the total care of the sick. As the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, has said, this is a key relationship of the two professions.
It seemed to me that this was so self-evident that, when I received the text of this Bill, I looked to see how it was suggested that the help of doctors could be used to best advantage on these important bodies, the council and the boards in particular. It was with some surprise that I saw that the statutory
1670
representation of the medical profession was to be nil, and that, as has already been mentioned this evening, an Amendment had been passed in another place which, by Statute, put two members of the general public on to the midwifery committee, but not, by Statute, an obstetrician. The Secretary of State has the power, if he should so wish—and I am sure that he will—to use the services of doctors on these bodies. Indeed, it is stated that the Secretary of State's appointments:
"shall be made from among persons who are either nurses, midwives or health visitors or have such qualifications and experience in education, medicine or other fields as in the Secretary of State's opinion will be of value to the Council in the performance of its functions".
The same is true of the boards. However, the power to include must imply the power not to include.
Although the present Secretary of State may very well feel just as convinced as I am of the necessity to have the proper amount of advice and help from the medical profession, I think it is reasonable to ask whether this Bill should leave it to the discretion of all future Secretaries of State to decide whether or not there shall be any medical representation upon these important bodies.
I am quite sure that no doctors would want to make a kind of take-over bid to look after the affairs of the nursing and other professions, but surely all doctors will want the objectives of this Bill to succeed. They will want the work of the council and of the boards to succeed. They will also want the traditional help which the medical profession has always given in the training of nurses to continue.
Surely the nursing of patients cannot be organised in isolation but only as a part of total medical care. By adding a few words, this House can amend the Bill so that adequate medical representation is provided for by Statute. I hope very much indeed that, when the time comes, the House will decide to do so.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, it is rather embarrassing to have to speak after two such distinguished contributors to our debate. I should like to add my

1671
congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, on his maiden speech. May I also say that we are very glad to hear again the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who made his maiden speech only a short while ago. I am sure that he will be very helpful on this Bill.
As their vice-president, I must declare my interest in health visitors. I noticed with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, was a little worried about their future. As he will know, since 1962 the training of health visitors has been of a special type. Furthermore, the same kind of training is given in every part of the United Kingdom. Consequently, health visitors are a little in advance of certain other professions. They have to be able to assess the health and the health needs of people, provide information on health matters and give such service to families and individuals as they may need. I think that it will be agreed that this is rather different from the training that is given to nurses.
It appears that general nursing courses do not emphasise the importance of communication with patients and others, nor do they emphasise the knowledge of social and emotional factors which affect health and illness. Such knowledge and skills, I suggest, are becoming increasingly important, in view of the following changes: the change in the pattern of disease from short-term acute to long-term, chronic and handicapping conditions; the emphasis on the promotion of health and preventive medicine as well as curative medicine, with the need for public knowledge and involvement if health habits are to be changed—and health habits still need to be changed—and also the increasing awareness of emotional and psychological factors in illness. The Court Report paid particular tribute to the health visitors and the committee thought there should be a distinct group of these nurses. At one time it suggested that they might just be called "health nurses". The Snowdon Committee also reported how helpful they were with the disabled, and the Hearing Impaired Persons Committee also recommended that they keep their same standards. Then there was the Select Committee on Violence in the Family in 1976–77, which underlined the need for health visitors because of their special training.
1672
Those important reports seem to support the fact that the health visitors should have a better role under this Bill. We expect to have an increase in the number of elderly people in the population and we are all agreed that there should be more care in the community instead of people going into institutions. Like others, health visitors are aware that improvements are needed, but they feel that what is contained in this Bill at the moment will not satisfy their wants.
The United Kingdom National Standing Conference of Health Visitor Tutors is—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, would understand this, too—understandably anxious that whatever educational standards have been achieved at the present time should be safeguarded and their anxiety arises because, while there are other post-basic nursing training specialisms, only health visiting, together with midwifery, has existing statutory autonomy and a well-developed educational syllabus. Health visiting has evolved a different pattern of education, better fitted to its work in the community, as the different scope requires different methods. What the health visitors consider to be the danger is a fragmenting of the existing United Kingdom education—as I mentioned previously they have the same syllabus throughout the United Kingdom—and they feel there is a danger that health education may become less uniform throughout the United Kingdom than it is at present. This would be ironic since the Bill is supposed to ensure United Kingdom uniformity for nurse education. Health visiting is the only existing training that is uniform throughout the United Kingdom. Of all the professions, this is the only one that has this training; it does not apply to the nursing or midwifery.
The health visitors consider that the danger also arises because the national boards will have the function of initiating and approving courses and institutions and holding qualifying examinations. They will have to ensure that the courses meet the central council requirements as to content and standard. This would appear to ensure United Kingdom uniformity. However, this depends on the relative powers as between the central council and the national boards. Prior to this Bill, the stated intention was to give the finance for the nursing education directly

1673
to the national boards, but Mr. Moyle, the Minister in the other place, referred during the Committee stage to the central council as the co-ordinating body, though, despite his subsequent points about the quality of leadership required for successful coordination, it is far from clear that the central council will be the authority and the power in practice.
Given the inbuilt majority on the central council and the national boards of those whose experience has been of basic nursing training or training in hospital nursing only, there is a danger that this will be seen as the only pattern. That is one of the fears of the health visitors. Basic nursing training and much of other post-basic nursing education has always taken place in schools of nursing, away from the mainstream of general further education, although I think there are exceptions within the basic nursing training—there have been schemes which involved state registration and district nursing or health visiting which have been established in some educational establishments.
In many cases health visitor courses have pioneered the way for nursing courses in further education. There is a danger that health visiting education, which is the only one totally within further and higher education, may be removed and taken into colleges of nursing, which as monotechnic institutions would not be able to provide the depth of education needed. I think this would be a retrograde step for health visitor education and for prospects of a nurse's education more suited than the present one to future needs.
Health visitors are a very small group compared to the hospital nurses, and they fear that they will be outvoted unless they are given a major say at least in organising their own very different form of education and training. This fear has been amply justified by experience gained while the co-ordinating committee was meeting, when the council's representatives made the following points. They said an alternative plan for federation should be examined, and this is in line with the council's original response to the Briggs report. Before such radical changes take place, a feasibility study should be undertaken. A White Paper should have been issued for all interested parties to see in
1674
advance of the Bill, and this regrettably did not happen. The council made it clear in February 1978, and repeated in November 1978, that it could not support proposals for this legislation as they stood.
Whether this is accurate or not I do not know, but I have been told that in the case of points put forward by this minority group every one has been overruled. So I hope that if this Bill becomes law the health visitors will be conceded more than any other group in the interests of the whole. It is the responsibility of this council, and surely no more than common justice, to ensure proper provision for the future health visitor's education and training. So I shall be submitting to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, some Amendments which I hope may do away with the fears of the health visitors, which he will perhaps be able to accept. In any case, he has been gracious enough to say that he was looking forward to discussing this Bill thoroughly, and I hope it will turn out satisfactorily in the end.
10.22 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, it is late and I do not intend to keep your Lordships very long. I must say that it is unfortunate—and I am sure this is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who is as enthusiastic about this subject as anyone in your Lordships' House—that this Bill has been put on so late in the day. This is one of the most important subjects we could discuss. I am sure both noble Lords opposite feel the same. It is unfortunate that we should be speaking to totally empty Benches when we have just had the most marvellous maiden speech from Lord Briggs. This report has been in the hands of Governments—not only this one, but others—since 1972, and this debate should have been a great occasion upon which we should have been able to get everybody to join in. I know that time is a difficulty, but it is a pity that we could not have had this debate when more Members of your Lordships' House were here to listen, anyway, if to nobody else, to the noble Lord, Lord Briggs.
I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for this profession. Like the noble Baroness,

1675
Lady Ward, I am also a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing; and having been married to a doctor, I know what the nursing profession means in the life of professionals. I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his suggestion that some of the medical profession should at least be involved in the setting up of these new committees. I hope very much that these committees will be a success; but I have had a lot of experience recently of reorganisation and I have become a little sceptical about it.
I was involved in reorganisation of local government, and I cannot honestly say I think our efforts, although they were quite genuine, have been as successful as some of us thought they would be. I feel a little nervous when people talk about reorganisation rather than about putting in a new framework, or of sticking to the old framework and simply having some small alterations. Local government was certainly one example; so also, to some extent, was the Health Service, although again no one Party was responsible for that. My Party was as responsible as anyone else. I cannot say that I think that all the reorganisation of the Health Service has been as successful as we anticipated. I do not want to be a Jonah and say that no reorganisation is a success, because I hope that this reorganisation will be successful. However, I am a little sceptical because I have seen so much reorganisation that has not resulted in improvement.
If the Bill follows—as I believe it does—some of the recommendations of the Briggs Report, then I feel sure that we shall be able to carry out some of these provisions. I wish that, instead of just reorganisation, it had been possible to adopt some of the proposals of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, which have been waiting some eight years to be implemented. There are other matters, besides just setting up committees, which are of great importance in the report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has spoken about health visitors. I too have had letters from, and have met, members of that admirable part of the nursing profession and I hope that we shall be able to do something to help them. I also would support the district
1676
nurses because they too have a great part to play. Although they may be included under the Royal College of Nursing umbrella, as indeed are almost all nurses, I should like the district nurses also to have a status and standard in the set-up because they do a wonderful job in the community. I had planned to say something about health visitors, but the noble Baroness has said it all and therefore I shall leave them. However, I make it clear that I support all that she has said and I think that they are of very great importance.
It has been suggested in one of the meetings that we had with different groups that it would have been a great help if, say a year ago, before the Bill was brought out and discussed in another place, we had had a White Paper. This could have been discussed by all the interests in the profession before the Bill was founded. I do not know whether that was suggested by any of the Governments concerned—after all, there have been several Governments since the Briggs Report was inaugurated—but it certainly would have been a help. I understand that it was quite difficult for some of the groups to get in touch with the Department as regards the planning of the Bill and it would have been good if there had been a little more consideration. In most Acts of Parliament of this kind one has a Green or a White Paper put forward and discussed by all the interests. This is brought in before the introduction of the Bill and thus there is a better background from which to work. Perhaps that was not possible but it is a pity that it was not done.
I hope that we shall have—and here I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and to the Deputy Chief Whip—a good deal of time to discuss the matter in Committee. Today we have had a very late debate. There are very few people present but some admirable speeches have been made, all of which could with great benefit have been heard by a larger audience. I hope that when the plans for the Committee and Report stages are made the Government will ensure that there is more time and that a more propitious hour than half-past ten at night will be set aside to discuss this matter. In the meantime, I have listened with great interest to what has been said

1677
and I shall do my best from these Benches to help in any way I can to improve the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that it is the wish of your Lordships that I should not keep you too long. However, there are a number of points which have been raised tonight by noble Lords and which I must try to deal with rather briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew attention to the fact that here was yet another Bill for the implementation of which there would not be any money. The noble Baroness really must look at the paragraph headed "Financial Effects of the Bill" in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That says very clearly that:
"In any case it is unlikely that the new bodies would be in a position to recommend changes before 1982/3 at the earliest. There will be some additional cost during the handover period … before the new bodies take on the functions of the old. It is proposed to adjust existing programmes to accommodate this particular item of expenditure."
I accept that money will not be available—unless, of course, authority is given for it—to effect any changes in the training programme. But this is not primarily a training Bill, but one which seeks to bring about a certain number of organisational changes. With great respect, I do not think that there is any real validity in the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has put forward.
The noble Baroness also drew attention to the question of misconduct and said how unfair it would be if a nurse, a midwife or a health visitor was charged with misconduct when it was someone else's fault or due to some series of happenings which prevented the person from carrying out his or her responsibilities properly. Nobody can be charged with misconduct and found guilty of misconduct if it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that it was due to the fault or the intervention of someone else.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, with all due respect, it could be due to exhaustion or tiredness. That is a very difficult thing to prove.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not so sure that it would be difficult
1678
to prove. Over a good many years there are any number of members of the medical profession who have appeared before disciplinary boards and have been accused of some quite serious offences. But they have been acquitted because there has been proof to the contrary. This is very much a red herring and it is a great pity that we should suggest that the Bill as at present worded will give rise to serious miscarriages of justice. There is no justification for implying that sort of thing.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that? I am sure that it was not the intention of my noble friend Lady Young to suggest that. She was suggesting something rather different—namely, that proceedings should take place in private. She did not make particular reference to this, but we shall make reference to it again later: further proceedings will be much more in line with those of the General Medical Council Act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord had contained his soul in patience for a little longer, I should have got round to dealing with that. The noble Baroness referred to Clause 12. That clause restates existing legislation. The problem of industrial action needs to be looked into in the wider context and also as to its effect upon the professions. The noble Baroness raised the point about hearings in public. Clause 12(4), which deals with this, is a parallel provision to the provisions in the Medical Act. If it had not been, there would have been criticisms because we were adopting an entirely different kind of procedure.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall not give way any more. This is the last time I propose to give way.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, this is quite an important point. If I understand the Minister aright, he is suggesting that the nurses should go through the sort of experience that the doctors go through when the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council is dealing with complaints against them.

1679
May I ask him to bear in mind that many of the complaints that may be made against nurses may be suggesting incompetence, carelessness, the wrong sort of attitude, and that these things heard in public, even though the result may be an acquittal, can have a detrimental effect on the nurses' future career? Therefore, what the noble Baroness was saying is something of great substance.
Other professions have disciplinary procedures, but they have their disciplinary hearing in private. The most you ever read is about a barrister being suspended for six months; you do not hear the details of the charge brought against him. It is only in the medical profession that you get that sort of detail. I take it that what the noble Baroness was suggesting was that we should not subject nurses to the sort of treatment to which doctors are now subjected. I cannot understand why my noble friend will not accept this and take it on board.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, all I want to say on that point is that I think we have to look at what is the legal meaning of misconduct. It is something that is basically serious, and very serious. I do not think for one moment that the instances which my noble friend Lord Pitt has given would in point of fact amount to misconduct. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Vickers and Lady Elliot, suggested that there had been an element of undue haste in bringing this Bill before Parliament. It was suggested that there had not been enough consultation. It was suggested that some of the people involved in this whole matter had not really been consulted. It was even suggested that there should be a White Paper. But let us look at the facts. There has been extensive consultation ever since the Briggs Report was published. For some years there has been consultation between the various groups that we are talking about and everybody involved. There was a Briggs Co-ordinating Committee which, to the best of my knowledge, was set up in 1977 to help in the preparation of legislation, and the proposals which are before your Lordships tonight in the Bill were considered.
I think it is right to say that representatives of all the statutory and non-
1680
statutory bodies were represented: the Royal College of Nurses; the Royal College of Midwives; the health visitors; the unions, NUPE, COHSE, NALGO, and the Association of Nurse Administrators, and representatives from the professions in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I think it would have been extremely difficult to get a more comprehensive group of people together to discuss this matter. I should have said that the Briggs Co-ordinating Committee more than discharged its responsibility in consulting over the widest possible field all the interests reflected in this Bill.
There was a comment about the general public. The Amendments to provide for members of the general public on the midwifery committee were introduced in another place by the Opposition. The Government did not like it, and had there been time I would have been only too pleased to give the Government's reason for it, but this was something that was imposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the question of medical membership of the various committees. My understanding is that the Bill provides for medical membership on the council and boards, but the detailed membership will be prescribed by order; that is, it will be enshrined in a Statutory Instrument. It has been accepted that medical representation on the council, boards and their committees should happen; but, as I say, the details will have to wait until discussions have taken place and the various orders setting up the new bodies are prepared, but that has been conceded all along.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, referred to district nurses, and I apologise if I misunderstood her on this. The Minister of State gave an undertaking in another place to use the powers in Clause 8 to establish a district nursing joint committee, and that has been welcomed by the district nurses. As I say, we have given that undertaking. In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, there has been some debate on the lines of communication between the council's midwifery committee and those of the national boards. Some midwives want to see direct and formal links between the midwifery committee at each level, with-

1681
out reference to the parent bodies. Though no doubt there will be extensive informal contact between them, the final links must be between the parent bodies if the committees are not to acquire a degree of autonomy which is counter to the basic unifying intent of the Bill.
If the council and boards are to make sensible decisions which affect midwives, they must be aware of the problems facing midwives and understand their unique position and needs. That they cannot do if the midwifery committees are hived off as virtually a separate enterprise. The Bill is drafted so as to allow for maximum consultation between levels, but also to preserve the constitutional niceties of relationships between the parent bodies and their subordinate committees. That is a matter to which a great deal of thought has been given, and I should have thought that this was the best way of serving the midwifery interests.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and I have tried to deal with the questions they have raised. I, too, wish to add my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, for coming here today because he made, as the whole House will agree, a most balanced contribution in which we on the Government side came in for a little criticism, as did noble Lords opposite. We are grateful to him. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, for her contribution. It is a joy for me not to be on the receiving end of what she says; I am the one she is usually taking to task and it is rather nice to see her direct her attentions to Lady Young.
The question of timing was raised. It was a matter of concern to a number of us that this subject came on so late in the day. We had reason to believe that we should have begun two or more hours earlier, but there were, as the noble Baroness will know, four local Bills before the House, and we thought they would take a short time. If she reads tomorrow's Hansard she will see that she will have to take some of the Members of her own Party to task for spending so long on those matters, which should have gone through the House in perhaps one-third of the time. Had they not done so, we should have been home long since.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  INCOME TAX AGE ALLOWANCE
  INCOME TAX AGE ALLOWANCE
  CAR SEAT BELTS: RESEARCH
  CAR SEAT BELTS: RESEARCH
  NORTHERN IRELAND AND SCOTTISH GAS GRID
  NORTHERN IRELAND AND SCOTTISH GAS GRID
  HARRIER SALES TO CHINA
  HARRIER SALES TO CHINA
  ARAB BOYCOTT AND NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  ARAB BOYCOTT AND NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  ARAB BOYCOTT: STATEMENT OF POLICY
  ARAB BOYCOTT: STATEMENT OF POLICY