Sitting of 13 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Disruptive Pupils (Special Units)
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she proposes to take in the light of the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate report on special units for disruptive pupils.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): Our first aim has been to ensure that local education authorities and other interested bodies know about the report. It has, therefore, been distributed to them free of charge. It is primarily for the local authorities and schools to decide whether the report indicates a need for action on their part, but should public discussion reveal ways in which my Department could continue to be of assistance, we will gladly consider them.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that reply. May I ask whether she read the excellent article by Stuart Froome—a former headmaster and a member of the Bullock committee—published in the Sunday Express on 11 February? In that article Mr. Froome drew attention to the fact that it was probably lack of discipline in schools, trendy and progressive teaching methods in schools and large schools which had resulted in so many disruptive pupils taking to the battleground within the school classroom. Will the hon. Lady, her right hon. Friend and the Government try to instil new discipline into
    244
    education, as I believe that this development will remove the necessity for the provision of"sin-bins"in so many of our schools.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that other hon. Members will not follow that bad example on the first question.
    Miss Jackson: I shall say briefly that I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says on the report that he quoted. I do not accept either the theories or the conclusions of the hon. Gentleman. I should like to draw his attention to a report which accompanied the one to which I have just referred, which was a study by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of those schools which were successful in dealing with behavioural problems. I think he will find that that report does not bear out his comments.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend ask her Department to prepare a special report on disruptive pupils who are excluded from schools in multi-racial areas? Is she aware that very often, when a pupil is excluded for normal reasons in a multi-racial area, it can look as though a racial attitude is being put forward, when in fact it does not exist?
    Miss Jackson: As I think my hon. Friend will know, a special survey is being conducted into the general educational problems affecting, in particular, West Indian children but also other ethnic minorities. I am sure that the kind of situation to which my hon. Friend referred will be considered.
    Mr. William Shelton: Does the Under-Secretary of State know that in certain parts of the Inner London Education Authority area psychiatrists and social workers are recommending that children should be sent to these units although they do not exist?
    Miss Jackson: I was not aware of that. I appreciate that not every authority or school has an associated unit. Indeed, one of the matters that arose in the report to which I referred earlier was that some schools do not wish to have access to such units and would rather deal with the problems themselves. I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman indicating such a degree of ignorance on the part of some of those involved.

    Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with developing in-service training and retraining of teachers.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): A survey carried out by my Department last summer showed that over half of the teaching force in England and Wales undertook some form of in-service training in the school year 1977–78. Over 100,000 teachers were released from some part of their normal classroom duties to undertake training, the total amount of release representing the equivalent of some 4,000 full-time teachers. This figure is expected to rise to about 5,000 in 1978–79, and to 9,000 in 1979–80. Approval has recently been given to institutions to continue to provide retraining courses in certain shortage subjects.
    Mr. Miller: Can the Minister say specifically whether special attention has been given to the possibility of using colleges of education for this purpose, in particular, those colleges threatened with closure as a result of his own report?
    Mr. Oakes: Ideally, initial training and in-service training would continue at the same institution, but this is entirely a matter for the local education authority. Indeed, with regard to North Worcestershire college, I understand that that is under active consideration.
    Mr. Flannery: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether there is any variation within local authorities with regard to in-service training and retraining of teachers? For instance, do those authorities which wish to save money on education tend to have this provision at a low level compared with other authorities?
    Mr. Oakes: I am afraid that there is considerable variation. Although the survey and the answer that I have given show a high level of overall activity and teacher participation, there is disappointing progress in the expansion of opportunities to release teachers to undertake training.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister of State see whether more unemployed teachers can be brought into schools so as to create more opportunities for existing teachers to retrain?
    Mr. Oakes: Under the rate support grant we have successively made provision for more teachers, both for this purpose and because of declining numbers in schools. It is, of course, up to the local education authorities to decide how those resources are spent, but we urge them to consider the importance of in-service training.
    Mr. Spearing: Quite apart from the proper role that colleges of education can play in so-called in-service training, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable for some teachers to go on attachment to successful teachers' departments or schools that are showing outstanding results in adverse conditions? Can he say how far special efforts are being made to enable that to happen?
    Mr. Oakes: The provision of in-service training is varied and flexible. The sort of training that my hon. Friend has suggested is undertaken by certain authorities, and I shall do nothing to discourage it.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many serving teachers think that the best means of in-service training are, first, the improvement of academic qualifications of people inside the teaching profession, and, secondly, the releasing of people from schools to see successful teachers teaching the same subjects at the same level so that they become aware of the possibility of the best methods of teaching and organisation?
    Mr. Oakes: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman. We are the Government who recently brought in the O-level mathematics and English requirements for teachers. That was something that Conservative Members had ample opportunity to do when they complained about standards. As to the academic attainment of teachers, in in-service training it is not only academic attainment that is important, but also the practical skills of teaching.

    Disabled Children
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is

    247
    satisfied with educational provisions for disabled children.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend recognises that improvement is always possible.
    Mr. Ashley: Taking a special point among that category, is my hon. Friend aware that many profoundly deaf children cannot lip read adequately and therefore cannot be taught by teachers who cannot or will not use sign language? They cannot even learn the English language or, if they are Welsh, the Welsh language. Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to require all teachers of deaf children to learn the skills of sign language and use them in teaching profoundly deaf children?
    Miss Jackson: We are continually aware of the need for better training in all aspects of teaching disabled children, and in particular of training teachers of the deaf. There was a study of this problem a couple of years ago. As my hon. Friend will know, all these questions are being dealt with and re-examined in the context of the Warnock report, which I hope will cast some light on the approach that is needed with regard to all disabled children.
    Mr. Hannam: It is important to improve the education of disabled children at the secondary level, but is it not also extremely important to ensure that further education facilities are available at training colleges? Is the hon. Lady aware that in many parts of the country there is a great dearth of such courses, and will she therefore give priority to the use of selective special schools for the provision of these training courses?
    Miss Jackson: The whole question of the facilities that we provide for the disabled, and in particular the use of special schools, is thoroughly covered in the Warnock report, as the hon. Gentleman will know. One of the recommendations is that such schools should act as a kind of centre of expertise for such issues. I think that that is exactly the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman is advocating. We have not received all the replies on the Warnock report, but we hope to have them soon.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Lady give an assurance that the recommendation
    248
    in the Warnock report that the statutory categorisation of handicapped pupils should be abolished will be implemented and that there will be a move towards a more general approach where there can be advice from a multi-disciplinary team to provide a basis of information for the education authorities?
    Miss Jackson: I recognise the attractiveness of the recommendation, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance today. The Government have deliberately decided to wait for reactions from as wide a range of bodies as possible on a recommendation of such fundamental importance before coming to their own conclusion. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although not all the contributions have yet been received, most of those which have come in show support for this idea.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Can my hon. Friend give a date when the Government will be pronouncing on the reactions to the Warnock report? Is she aware that a recent conference revealed that there is great concern among teachers in special schools about the balance between specialised education in separate schools and integrated education? Some special schools are at present running down very rapidly, and there is clearly a need for a decision as soon as we can possibly get it.
    Miss Jackson: Those consulted were asked to reply by the end of last month, but unfortunately a number of important contributions have not yet been received. As soon as they are to hand we hope to lose no time in reaching decisions on this matter.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Has the attention of the Minister and her Department been drawn to the development of the light writer which has been developed by a severely disabled constituent of mine, Mr. Toby Churchill, and which is specifically designed for those incapable of speech? Does she agree that this could have considerable relevance to educational possibilities in the future?
    Miss Jackson: Our attention is constantly being drawn to a number of aids of this kind which are thought to be of benefit to people, but it is the local authorities which decide whether a certain aid should be provided for a particular

    249
    child. As has been said, what will help one child will not necessarily help all children.
    Mr. Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the overwhelming support that I have had from the Labour Party and from the public at large, repeatedly on Fridays in this House Conservative Members have blocked my Bill to end the caning of handicapped children? [HON. MEMBERS:"Shame."] Will she now undertake to respond to opinion within the Labour Party and in the country by bringing in immediately a ban on the use of the cane in special schools? [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."]
    Miss Jackson: I am not yet in a position to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I have great sympathy with his attitude, and particularly with his dismay at what takes place here on Fridays. I believe that it is a classic example of the triumph of dogma over common sense.
    Mr. Carlisle: Bearing in mind the answer which the hon. Lady gave to her hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), the Warnock report was a major report and a matter of great concern to a group of parents who clearly deserve all the support that they can get from both sides of the House. I appreciate that some time must be given for consultation, but the report was published as long ago as May of last year. Is the hon. Lady now able to give any definite date by which the consultations will be completed?
    Miss Jackson: I am not able to do so because, as I said, a number of bodies have not yet replied. The timing of their response is not within our control. We are anxious to clarify this issue as quickly as possible. The report was published in May of last year, but it advocates a total revision of the way in which we have dealt with these matters in the past and I believe that it would be wrong to rush into action without being sure that what we are doing is right.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the light of recent proposals by Calderdale local education authority to reduce expenditure on education, what steps she
    250
    is taking to prevent a reduction in educational expenditure nationally.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Each local authority determines its own pattern of expenditure. The rate support grant settlement for 1979–80 allows for a 3½ per cent. increase in real terms in expenditure on education nationally in 1979–80 compared with the level achieved in 1977–78.
    Mr. Madden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge cuts in education spending which are proposed by Calderdale, which are bound to hit hardest the poorest children in the most underprivileged areas? Is she also aware that these cuts, coupled with previous ones, are giving rise to concern whether Calderdale can make proper educational provision? Will she look into this matter, ask for a full report and warn the authority if she believes that its policies are endangering proper educational provision?
    Mrs. Williams: My understanding is that the total loss to Calderdale, which the authority alleges is responsible for its proposed substantial cut in education, was £170,000, although it is proposing a cut of £900,000 in education alone. Among other things, that means that it will be cutting back sharply on repairs and maintenance of buildings and on some of the advisory teachers who are very important in improving standards of education. I have no power to order Calderdale to do something, but I hope that that authority will take careful note of what is said in this House this afternoon.
    Mr. Raison: Will the Secretary of State tell us the scale of savings, if any, that she expects to arise from the reduction in the school population over the next few years?
    Mrs. Williams: In respect of teacher employment and non-teaching costs we axe attempting to allow for a real increase of expenditure, taking account of the savings made as a result of the decline. The hon. Gentleman will know that there will be little overall saving from the decline in population over the next three years. The secondary school population and the population in further and higher education will increase, even though the primary school population is beginning to fall dramatically.
    Mr. Torney: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) about the inadequate education provision in Calderdale and to ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is no provision in that area for teaching deaf and partially-hearing children? I have that information from people in the small part of my constituency in that area. That is scandalous. Can my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that provision is made for these unfortuante children?
    Mrs. Williams: There is provision for training teachers for special schools, and provision has been massively stepped up for the in-service training of teachers. We cannot compel a local authority to undertake that training. We make the finances available and send out advice on expenditure of the rate support grant, as we do every spring, but we cannot force the horse to drink as well as provide the water.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will list the number of full-time further education students whose local education authority grants are lower than the social security benefits which they would otherwise receive; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Oakes: Details of the amount of grant paid to individual students by local education authorities are not collected by my Department.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend consider the problem of how many local education authority students are in the position of my constituent, Mr. Pheasant? His discretionary grant from the local education authority is £7 a week less than he would receive for his wife and child if he remained at home on social security. Is it not ridiculous to penalise people who wish to take educational courses in order to free themselves from the misery of the dole?
    Mr. Oakes: I was advised of my hon. Friend's supplementary question only a few moments ago. My Department can find no trace of any correspondence concerning Mr. Pheasant, from the student or from the authority. If my hon. Friend writes to me, I shall look into the matter.
    252
    But if it is a discretionary award, it is at the discretion of the local authority. Although my Department endorses the advice given by the local authority associations to local authorities to pay at the same level as mandatory awards, few do.
    Dr. Hampson: The Minister knows that one can retain supplementary benefit if one is taking a course involving fewer than 21 hours a week, but is he aware that we regard as totally inadequate what his Department is doing to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Security and its local offices give that matter wide publicity? This provision should be used by young people to take marketable qualifications rather than some of the qualifications that these offices encourage them to take.
    Mr. Oakes: We have done our best to publicise the scheme that where an unemployed youngster is available for work, and his course which is the key condition, involves fewer than 21 hours a week, he can still receive supplementary benefit.

    General Teaching Council
    Mr. Raisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she is making in her discussions with teachers' unions and others towards the establishment of a general teaching council.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to a question from the hon. Member for Brain-tree (Mr. Newton) on 6 February.
    Mr. Raison: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be no progress without strong personal commitment on her part, and does she have such commitment?
    Mrs. Williams: I have a personal commitment, and I have raised that matter at teachers' conferences and elsewhere. There have been great differences of opinion between the teachers' organisations. Initiatives were taken in 1976 and 1978 to bring the parties together. These broke down because of differences of opinion. Of all people in the House, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it requires two to make an agreement.
    Mr. Christopher Price: If there were a general teachers' council, might it not

    253
    be able to make a better job of manpower planning and the general flow of people into the profession than the Department has done over the past decade? If it were set up, would not the general regulation of employment and unemployment in the profession be one of its jobs?
    Mrs. Williams: A professional council of teachers could make a useful contribution, but I point out that in the past year there has been a reduction in teacher unemployment from 11,460 to 9,786. That constitutes 1·6 per cent. of the total teaching profession. Many other professions and trades would be grateful for such a low level of unemployment.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Is not the lesson of the two abortive attempts to form the council that unless and until a Minister takes a positive initiative the council will not be formed and the teaching profession will not be self-governing and self-disciplining, as it should be?
    Mrs. Williams: That is a fair comment, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that since 1970, when the Weaver report on a teaching council was published, more than one Minister has attempted to take an initiative. Lord Glenamara, as he now is, took such an initiative as did the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and on more than one occasion I have spoken along these lines to teachers' organisations. The problem is the kind of initiative to take, and clearly a substantial degree of pressure will be required.

    Careers Education
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the current provision of careers education; and what proposals she has for improving it.
    Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that provision for careers education is at present satisfactory in all secondary schools. The Department's circular 14/77, on local education authority arrangements for the school curriculum, asked authorities to report on steps taken to improve preparation for working life. Further action will be considered in the light of consultations on the report on authorities' responses, which will be published soon, and the findings of Her Majesty's inspectors' survey of secondary
    254
    education in England, which will be published later in the year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does the Department have no view on how careers education might be improved? If there is to be a meaningful improvement in careers education, should not the responsibility be vested in the careers service, with perhaps a careers officer seconded to each school, with sole responsibility for the guidance of secondary school children therein?
    Mr. Oakes: The careers service has an important role to play, but it is different from that of careers teachers. The role of my Department is purely to advise, guide and encourage. As long ago as 1973, in survey No. 18"Careers Education in Secondary Schools ", we reported to local authorities on the deficiencies in the provision of careers education. But the local authorities have to determine the amount of careers education that they provide.
    Mr. Ward: Will my hon. Friend impress upon local authorities that they have a special duty to the nation to allow careers officers to create close contacts with manufacturing industry? Will he encourage them particularly to give careers officers access at least to a telephone so that they can develop these contacts?
    Mr. Oakes: I hope that my hon. Friend means careers teachers. Careers officers are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The more links that careers teachers have with industry, particularly local industry, the better.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister encourage industrialists and others to visit schools and colleges and point out the attraction of careers in industry and commerce, which is vital for the country's future?
    Mr. Oakes: We encourage visits to schools by industrialists and trade unions, and there is a strong link between individual schools and firms. The more links there are, the better it will be for the entire community and education.
    Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that many children do not go into industry because their fathers have had a long experience of bad conditions and low wages? Will he tell the career advisers

    255
    to talk more to parents to stop the situation arising in which they advise bright children to choose the safety of the town hall, building society or bank?
    Mr. Oakes: I agree that industry must do a lot to improve its image. In the past there has been a tendency on the part of schools to underrate commerce and industry, as distinct from other more glamorous professions. However, there has been a massive increase in the number of people now taking science, applied science and engineering courses.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is the Minister satisfied that the links between schools and local industry are adequate? What support are the Government giving to the scheme entitled"Understanding British Industry"which is being promoted at present?
    Mr. Oakes: We are giving support to a number of schemes such as"Understanding British Industry ", and in the Education Bill which is now before the House we are making provision for community governors to be on the governing bodies of schools. I should like to see this go much further. I should like to see schemes similar to that operating in Essex, whereby, each term, local industrialists and trade unionists meet the senior staff and the head of the school to discuss these matters.

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the pending pay claim of teachers.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The teachers' panel first presented its claim at a meeting of the Burnham Committee on 7 March. In view of the Prime Minister's anouncement, on the same afternoon, of the establishment of a Standing Commission to consider comparability issues, the Committee agreed to resume discussion on 21 March.
    Mr. Marten: Are all the members of this panel united in the claim, or do they take different views about it? If the claim is eventually referred to the comparability Commission, with whom are the teachers likely to be compared, particularly in view of their holidays?
    Mrs. Williams: I notice that a number of answers have been given from
    256
    behind the Front Bench to the hon. Member's last point, to the effect that teachers might be compared with Members of Parliament. On the first part of the hon. Member's question, he will have seen from the press, particularly the education press, that there are certain differences of emphasis within the teachers' panel over the claim. On the point about the claim being referred to the comparability Commission, this would be a matter for both sides to agree. My understanding is that the management and the teachers are both now examining that possibility. I cannot yet say with whom the teachers will be compared. That is a matter for the comparability Commission, not the Government.
    Mr. Grocott: I recognise that teachers generally have not done too badly since the Government came into office, and particularly since the Houghton award. However, will my right hon. Friend use her influence to see that in any future major award there is a move towards a lessening of differentials in the teaching profession? This would be an example to the rest of the country. Will she ensure that, in future, substantial increases go to new entrants to the profession and to the lower graded teachers, and that less goes to directors of polytechnics and others, who are pretty well provided for already?
    Mrs. Williams: It would be for the management and teaching sides to take note of that. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are great differences of opinion on the matter within the teachers' panel itself. Over the last few years the teachers' argument has been that there has been some erosion of the Houghton comparability. That has been made a major element of their claim.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the provision of nursery education in England and Wales.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend will not be satisfied until nursery education is available for all three- and four-year-olds whose parents want them to have it. At present about 18 per cent. of all three- and four-year-olds are in nursery schools and classes, and a further 19 per cent. of the age

    257
    group are in reception classes in infant schools. Future projections for England and Wales provide for 50 per cent. of all three- and four-year-olds to be in education by 1983, of whom about 28 per cent. are expected to be in nursery schools and classes.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Conservative-controlled Gloucestershire authority has an abysmal record of no expenditure on nursery education recently and no plans to engage in it in the future? If the Government are determined to see equality of nursery education provision, it will be necessary for them to find means of dealing with authorities such as Gloucestershire so that the children of that county can benefit.
    Miss Jackson: I am aware of Gloucestershire's appalling record on this score. There is little doubt that many local authorities are not helping themselves if they wish to avoid any further change in central Government control over programmes of this kind. Last year about 60 per cent. of Tory-controlled education authorities made no bid for the nursery education programme.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the Minister approach this matter with a little caution? Is she aware that the projected expenditure in Hampshire on nursery education for the coming year will amount to £1,600 a year for each child? If half the children of qualifying age in Hampshire were to exercise the option, should it be available to them for such education, it would cost the county £92 million. On that basis, generalising for the whole country, one is talking of a figure of about half the public sector borrowing requirement.
    Miss Jackson: I did not follow the hon. Member's arithmetic closely enough to be sure that it was accurate. We are aware that Hampshire has a good reputation in this matter. Perhaps it could send emissaries to Gloucestershire.
    Mr. Fernyhough: As one who represents a local authority which has done a magnificent job in this respect, may I ask whether it would be possible for my right hon. Friend to publish in Hansard a list of the authorities that have done well, and a list of those that have done nothing? In such an event, those that have done
    258
    nothing will be stirred into doing something.
    Miss Jackson: We publish such lists from time to time. Sadly, they do not always have the effect that we would wish.
    Mr. Forman: Since it is recognised on both sides of the House that the first five years of a child's development are vital, and since at least one in four of all preschool age children have no provision at all that might be suitable for their needs, will the Minister consider urgently the possibility of introducing specific grants for such purposes, particularly for those families which would otherwise not be motivated or could not afford such provision?
    Miss Jackson: We have had discussions with the local authorities during the last couple of years about the general question of specific grants. It was precisely these discussions that I had in mind when I said that local authorities which resist root and branch the imposition of specific grants are not helping their case by not using money given to them for this purpose.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the educational disadvantages suffered by children born in the late spring and early summer, who normally enjoy only two years in infant schools? Apart from the expansion in nursery education, would it not be helpful to have a more liberal policy on the admission of rising-fives to school? When will my hon. Friend relax the guidelines issued on employing staff to make this possible?
    Miss Jackson: There has already been a relaxation of guidelines on the admission of rising fives. As with many other things in this field, this is a matter for the local authority. However, falling numbers of births will soon solve that problem anyway.

    Literacy (Bullock Report)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps she is taking to implement the Bullock report on literacy.
    Miss Margaret Jackson: As I have previously advised the hon. Member, the recommendations of the Bullock report

    259
    were addressed to the education service as a whole. Replies from local education authorities to my Department's circular 14/77 on their curricular arrangements have indicated active programmes of work in this field, supported by the Inspectorate. The recently published survey of primary education in England also contained encouraging evidence of the priority given to language skills and of a continued improvement in reading standards. The possibility of further action will be considered in the light of consultations based on a report on authorities' replies to circular 14/77 which is now in preparation.
    Mr. Goodhart: Has the Minister read recent articles in the education supplement of The Guardian which draw attention to the sharply declining provision of school books? Is she also aware that four and a half years ago the Bullock committee made a central recommendation in its report about the appointment of a committee to advise on capitation allowances and the provision of school books? As the Minister told me last June that she was actively considering implementing this recommendation, why has nothing happened?
    Miss Jackson: I did tell the hon. Member that, and we have not closed our minds to the possibility of setting up such a working party. We are examining the demands that would be made on manpower by a number of inquiries, of which this is one. The National Book League has established a working party, which is expected to report early next year. We want to take that report into account as well in making our decision.
    Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the Bullock report was far more reassuring on the question of literacy than Conservative Members, particularly those on the Front Bench, would have the country believe?
    Miss Jackson: Not only do I say that, but I add that the reassuring statements made by the Bullock report have been more than borne out by the recent primary survey, which has revealed a similar picture.
    Dr. Boyson: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that although she is quoting from the Bullock report, the House has not yet debated it? At some time in the
    260
    dying hours of this Government may we have a debate on that report? In that debate, will the Government recommend what, within the rate support grant—not a separate grant—would be reasonable expenditure per primary school child and per secondary school child on books and tools of learning in any school?
    Miss Jackson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's observations, although I doubt whether his friends in the local authorities will thank him for them. The amount of money made available for capitation to local authorities has been substantially increased. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first observation, it is not a matter for me when a debate should be held. I suggest that he approaches his right hon. Friend and asks for time from his own side.

    Assessment of Performance Unit
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if she will make a statement regarding the progress made by the Assessment of Performance Unit.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The unit conducted its first surveys of performance in mathematics in 1978 and expects to publish its first report, on primary mathematics, towards the middle of this year. Plans are well advanced for surveys in mathematics and English language at primary and secondary level in 1979. Surveys of performance in science are expected to start in 1980 and assessment in foreign languages will follow.
    Miss Fookes: Is it intended that the unit should liaise with the committee of inquiry into mathematics, set up by the right hon. Lady? If so, could the right hon. Lady provide the House with information about that?
    Mrs. Williams: The Cockcroft committee of inquiry into the teaching of mathematics is now in operation. Its report will be available to the Assessment of Performance Unit in time for the later mathematics studies. The primary mathematics survey is being conducted at the moment. That material will also be available to the Cockcroft committee.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the report by the director of education for the London borough of

    261
    Merton, a Conservative-controlled authority which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) used to represent? That report was published in the recent issue of"Education ". In the report, the director examined the performance of comprehensive schools since the borough went over to the comprehensive system in 1969. Overall, he found that O-level and A-level passes had increased by nearly 100 per cent. and, in English and mathematics, by nearly 50 per cent.
    Mrs. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to put on record some of the remarkable achievements of comprehensively organised authorities. In Merton, the number of O-level passes in 1978 was twice as many as would have been the case if every grammar school pupil had passed O-levels. Many of them failed to do so. A study of Hertfordshire, another Conservative-controlled authority, showed that the total number of passes in O-level, since the area of Welwyn and Hatfield became comprehensive, increased over the period 1968 to 1975 by 95 per cent., against an increase of about 24 per cent. in the age group. Similar information has come from Sheffield, Leicestershire, East Sussex and many other authorities. I am sick and tired of the fact that none of this information is published.
    Dr. Hampson: If the Secretary of State returns to the question about the role of the Assessment and Performance Unit, may I ask her to encourage local authorities to adopt the tests used by the unit? In that way, once there is a national yardstick, local authorities will have the means of gauging how they fare in their schools.
    Mrs. Williams: The APU test materials will not be avaialable to individual local authorities but the National Foundation for Educational Research is drawing up a group of tests comparable to those used by the APU and these can be employed by local authorities that wish to use them. That will be with the co-operation of the local authorities.
    Mr. Flannery: In assessing performance and reading results, should we not take note of the statement from the Conservative Party that if it is elected to power it will destroy the 1976 Act which has
    262
    brought about more comprehensive education and has resulted in some magnificent performances?
    Mrs. Williams: That is fair comment. One of the great advantages of the comprehensive system is that it provides opportunities for boys and girls who would otherwise never have them in secondary modern schools. I hope that some Conservative authorities, for example, Bromley and Kingston upon Thames, will consider seriously whether they are wise to close off those opportunities to so many of their children.
    Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Lady quoted the O-level and A-level passes in certain Conservative-controlled authorities. Will she now quote similar results in the inner-city Labour-controlled areas?
    Mrs. Williams: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened, he would have noticed that I quoted Sheffield. I could quote the passes in the Inner London Education Authority area and in a number of others. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, no doubt, bear in mind the somewhat contentious comparison between Tameside and Manchester, which leaves out of account the fact that Manchester has many more families below the supplementary benefit level, many more families dependent upon benefits and many more ethnic minority families. A comparison on that basis is highly dubious by any statistical method.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION ACT 1975
  Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to propose amendments to section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In my right hon. Friend's absence at a meeting of the European Council, I have been asked to reply.
  The Government, at present, have no plans to propose amendments to section 2 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
  Dr. Marshall: As that section relates to the number of Ministers who sit in the House, is my right hon. Friend aware

  263
  that on the Opposition Front Bench there are fewer than 19 years of Cabinet experience, whereas the corresponding figure for the Treasury Bench will reach 105 years tomorrow? Is it not clear that the Opposition lack anything like sufficient experience to provide an alternative responsible Government?
  Mr. Foot: I listened with great fascination to the statistical comparisons made by my hon. Friend, but I would not have thought it necessary to go to those lengths to prove the simple proposition that the Opposition are unfit to govern.
  Mr. Michael Latham: Are not the 95 Ministers in the Commons for which section 2 of the Act provides more than enough? Are there not already too many Ministers, too many civil servants and too many quangos in this over-governed and over-taxed country?
  Mr. Foot: The full quota of Ministers under the Act has not been taken up. Therefore, I suppose that all Ministers now in office are entitled to a productivity deal.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION ACT 1975

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13 March.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    Today my right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council in Paris.
    Mr. Whitehead: As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House no doubt have the matter of devolution very much in their minds, will my right hon. Friend take it from those of us who remain convinced devolutionists that we should like to see the Scotland Act remain on the statute book? Nevertheless, when the orders are brought before the House, it would be better for the reputation of the House to have a free vote. That is more important than the result of the Government or Opposition recommendation on annulment.
    Mr. Foot: These matters will be taken into account, as the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House a few days ago. I have nothing to add to his remarks.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time today to consider the highly important matter of rates, so that he may advise his right hon. Friend on his return? Less than four months ago the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the Government were determined to keep rate increases within single figures. However, last night the Under-Secretary of State confirmed that rate increases would average nearly 18 per cent. Does not that miscalculation demonstrate the full extent of the Government's failure, and, as a result, the crushing burden that will be placed on the hard-pressed ratepayers?
    Mr. Foot: It is not a condemnation of the Government. It is a situation which arises from economic circumstances, pay settlements and other factors. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the rest of the House that it would be wiser to await the full figures. That was the indication given by my hon. Friend when he spoke in yesterday's debate.
    I thought at first that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) wanted to come to the Dispatch Box to congratulate the Prime Minister on the excellent speech that he made in Paris yesterday, but apparently that sticks in the throat of the Opposition.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I might bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the question that he is supposed to answer. It concerned rates, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to put us off by saying that what has happened is not the Government's fault. In fact, it is entirely the fault of the Government in their handling of the economy and the way that they pressurised local authority associations over the local government pay settlement. What is more, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to look at local authorities, let him consider the average proposed rate increases in some of the Labour-held areas and compare those with the proposed increases in Conservative areas. He will find that it is a very bad comparison for the Labour authorities.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman said that I ought to return to the question on the Order Paper, but that is exactly what I did. It was he who strayed from it. I am interested to hear that the hon.

    265
    Gentleman was against the local government pay settlement. He talked about the Government using pressure to try to get a settlement. I should have thought that the House welcomed the settlement. I am certain that the country does so.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to persuade the Prime Minister to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the best method of making up the shortfall in retirement pension increases which has come about as a result of the difficulty of anticipating the level of wage increases? I appreciate that Conservative Members have never wanted to relate pensions to wage increases, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that a Labour Government are duty bound to honour that commitment?
    Mr. Foot: I am sure my hon. Friend acknowledges that we have carried out our obligations in this matter in past years. I cannot make any further statement on the general subject today, and I do not think my hon. Friend would expect that it could be done by question and answer.
    Mr. Reid: What was the Government's role in the deals done behind closed doors at the Perth conference of the Labour Party over the weekend? What persuasion went into getting the trade unions to withdraw their emergency resolution that the ordinary people of Scotland had decided and that an Assembly should be set up? Why do not the Government get on with that?
    Mr. Foot: I shall not comment on what may have happened behind closed doors or elsewhere at Perth. The resolution passed at the conference was a very good one. It indicated the general way in which the people of Scotland and the Labour Party in Scotland think we should proceed in this matter.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: When my right hon. Friend has the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister when he gets back from his most valuable work in Paris, will he try to impress on him that, although it is by no means the only factor involved in the recent referendum, the main factor is the 52 per cent. of the Scottish people voted"Yes ", against 48 per cent. who voted"No "? [HON. MEMBERS:"Of those who voted ".] Indeed,
    266
    of those who voted—and that is the usual way in which elections are conducted in this country. Will my right hon. Friend indicate to the Prime Minister that that is a clear majority of the Scottish people?
    Mr. Foot: On the first part of the question, I am grateful that an hon. Member from this side of the House has stressed the importance of the Prime Minister's speech in Paris yesterday. I do not know why the Opposition are laughing. The Prime Minister spoke for British interests. I hope that the Opposition will have recovered their equilibrium by tomorrow when the Prime Minister makes a statement on the matter to the House.
    On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, what he said is perfectly true. A majority of the votes cast were in favour of the establishment of an Assembly. I know that some, including the Leader of the Liberal Party, have said that it was a small vote, but it was a larger total vote in Scotland than the vote in the Common Market referendum.
    Mr. Crouch: Does not the Leader of the House think it strange that 29 hon. Members want to know where the Prime Minister is today? Does it not stir even the right hon. Gentleman's slumbering conscience that we have still not done something about the farce of the procedure of Prime Minister's questions? When are we to have another debate and a decision about the procedure recommendations that we debated recently?
    Mr. Foot: As the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, we can look at the matter to see whether an alteration is necessary. The earlier alteration was made to meet representations from various parts of the House, but if the House wishes to have the matter referred to the Procedure Committee again, I do not think that the Prime Minister would object.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13 March.
    Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us on the Labour Benches have been preparing not a neutral but an election-winning Budget? Will he convey these items to the Prime Minister, when he returns, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and urge on them the need to raise personal allowances in order to take 3 million low-paid workers and pensioners out of the tax bracket, to abolish the television licence, to introduce school grants for sixth formers—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make his Budget speech now. He must ask a question, not give information.
    Mr. Skinner: If my right hon. Friend is not out of breath, will he also tell the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we feel that there should be free travel for pensioners, the disabled and children going to and from school? If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor ask where the money is to come from, will he tell them that we shall start with an effective tax on people such as the Duke of Westminster and that we shall also—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not being fair. The minutes are ticking away and his supplementary question will fill a column of Hansard.
    Mr. Skinner: We shall also stop the rake's progress in the Common Market.
    Mr. Foot: On the last point, I think that my hon. Friend was seeking to agree with the Prime Minister's speech in Paris yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend was cut short in the rest of his speech and we cannot expect to anticipate his Budget Statement today.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the total rejection of the Wales Act by the people of Wales, will the Lord President find a moment to telephone the Prime Minister today to suggest that five minutes is all that is required to table the motion to repeal the Act?
    Mr. Foot: It is true that there was a majority against in Wales, but I notice that some of those who emphasise that fact most strongly do not take into acount the similar fact, that in Scotland the vote went the other way. That fact must also
    268
    be taken into account. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will lay the order, as has already been indicated. [HON. MEMBERS:"When? "] I cannot give any date, but I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will have many other excellent reflections to make on the matter at the same time.
    Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the Prime Minister that, although we welcome his speech yesterday, there is a majority on the Government side that believes that Common Market membership has been an unmitigated disaster for the British people and that he should say that unless the common agricultural policy is scrapped Britain will withdraw from the Common Market within 12 months?
    Mr. Foot: I believe that what the country will want to do—and what I hope the Opposition Front Bench will come round to doing eventually—is to study carefully what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He made a most important declaration. He was standing up for British interests, and it is especially difficult for a British Prime Minister to do so because when he goes to many such gatherings he has to suffer the awkwardness of having behind him the Quisling newspapers which will never support the advocacy of British interests. That must be taken into account, too. Tomorrow the whole House will welcome what the Prime Minister has to report. It will command general assent on this side of the House.
    Mr. Marten: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Prime Minister's effort to cut our net contribution to the Community budget, which is far too high, must have the support of the Opposition as it would cut Government expenditure?
    Mr. Foot: I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. He puts the point so skilfully and softly that I am sure it must have penetrated the skulls on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the Prime Minister is absent on Common Market business. The Leader of the Opposition is also absent. As the right hon. Lady draws a salary—it is approximately £80 per week more than any

    269
    Back Bencher—for doing her job, is it in order to raise during the Consolidated Fund debate on Thursday the scrounging on public funds that is going on?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may raise on the Consolidated Fund only those items to which I referred last week and which are covered by the Estimates.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise with you a matter that I raised with your predecessor on a number of occasions, and which I touched on with the Leader of the House this afternoon? I refer to the manner and style in which questions are put down to the Prime Minister. I was given some encouragement by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, in pursuing this point some years ago. May I ask whether you would feel ready to give me further encouragement in the pursuit of trying to make Question Time more relative to the events that concern hon. Members, rather than their having to put down fictitious questions in order to pursue their points?
    Mr. Speaker: The House is aware that this radical change in our practice has taken place in this Parliament, for the first time. Earlier I expressed opinions on the matter, but the House indicated quite strongly to me that it wished to continue with the open questions. I much prefer substantive questions so that I may ensure that the supplementary questions are related to them.

TRADE UNIONS (ALLOCATION OF POLITICAL FUNDS)
3.33 p.m.
Mr. Richard Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Trade Union Act 1913 in relation to the application of funds for certain political purposes to enable any member of the union to nominate a political party of his own choice to receive the political proportion of his individual trade union levy; and for connected purposes.
In essence, this amending Bill will allow an individual to choose to which political party the proportion of his political levy is donated.
I move the introduction of this Bill for the second time not only because it was defeated in the last Session by literally a handful of votes but, mainly, because there has been a definite change in the relationship between the trade union movement and the political parties.
In the past we have all too often been subjected to the myth that only the Labour Party could work with the unions. As we look back over this our winter of discontent, where industrial unrest and strikes were—and are—the norm, as unions one by one move into line for conflict with the Labour Government, we see the destruction of that myth. We also see the necessity for a complete rethink by the trade union movement of its relationship with political parties. The Bill attempts to make a small, tentative step towards that reappraisal.
We must not be surprised by this period of conflict between Government and the unions. As the Labour Party moves further and further to the Left, with more centralisation and State control, each in turn threatens the independence and existence of the other. A union can work and survive only in a democracy. It needs no imagination to realise just how long our trade union movement could survive in a country such as the USSR.
The object of the Bill is based on two simple reasons. The first is the fundamental right, in this still democratic country, for an individual to have freedom of choice—in this case freedom to choose the direction of the political proportion of his subscription. The second

271
is to bring about a greater flow of understanding between the political parties, the trade union movement, and, perhaps even more important, the grass roots of the trade union movement.
Under the law, political funds must be kept separate from union funds. Naturally, only those contributing to those funds may have the right to vote upon them. In practice that means the union leadership and not the rank and file.
Originally, when I moved the Bill in the previous Session, I was attracted to the line of thought that trade unions should have no political levy but should act solely and simply in their members' interests. With one-fifth of the trade union movement already opting out of the political levy, that practice, if continued, will become a reality, which brings with it the narrowing of decision bases within a trade union. That means, in turn, a move away from the trade union movement's greatest asset—unity.
It has been all too obvious over the past few months that there was a lack of liaison or good feeling between the leaders of some unions and their grass roots membership, as unofficial strikes were hastily made official. Surely, if the opportunity were given to the individual to choose a political party for the receipt of his contribution it would lead to a far greater involvement and interest within the trade union movement. Participation, leading to unity of action between officials and the rank and file, is the strength of the trade union movement.
Naturally, not all of the political levy is distributed direct to the political parties. A proportion is retained inside the trade union movement. However, the percentage distributed should be in accordance with the wishes of the union membership.
All trade unions must reach agreements and bargains not only with employers but with political parties of various persuasions. What better indicator could there be to politicians and trade union leaders of the individual trade union member's view than where he chooses to place his contribution, and not where he is told it will be placed?
Greater influence and understanding between those two sections will result if there is a genuine understanding of the composite views of individual members.
272
As more and more members join the trade union movement it is vital that it should have independence of thought and action and should truly reflect the views of its members. The Bill seeks to achieve that. I trust that it will have the support of the House.
3.39 p.m.
Mr. J. W. Rooker Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the motion?
Mr. Rooker: I do, Mr. Speaker.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has again brought this motion before the House. On 9 May last year he moved exactly the same motion which was thrown out. His speech was the same. I, too, might fall into the trap of making the same speech, as I opposed the Bill on that occasion.
The hon. Member sought leave to amend the Trade Union Act 1913. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that there was no freedom of choice. The 1913 Act provides that a trade union's fund cannot be used for any political objective unless there has been a ballot by members to approve those objectives, but where such political objectives have been approved, any money made available must come from that fund alone. The rules of trade union funds were approved by the former Registrar of Friendly Societies and are now approved by the certification officer, who is independent. Any trade union member may contract out of making the political levy. There is no specific form to sign; only a letter is required. There is no con, and there are no secret forms that people cannot obtain. As I shall show, people contract out in their thousands.
Any member who is aggrieved over the use of the political fund can complain to the certification officer, the independent person set up by this Labour Government—not by a Tory Government. In the last two years there have been only 21 complaints to the certification officer about trade union political funds.
Why does the hon. Gentleman seek to change the 1913 Act only in respect of trade unions when the very same section in the 1913 Act also covers political funds of employers' organisations? He has not

273
come forward with a proposal to change the rules relating to employers' organisations, which have considerable political funds in this country, amounting at present to about £250,000. There are only four employers' organisations with political funds. There are 81 trade unions with political funds.
In some trade unions the number of people paying the political levy is so small that it is embarrassing to tell the House about it. In my own trade union, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff, only 37 per cent. pay the levy. That cannot be evidence that people cannot contract out, or that the present Act does not work satisfactorily. In the Transport and General Workers' Union, on the other hand, 96 per cent. of the members pay the levy—and why not?
As I said last year, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, the reason why trade unions had to set up political funds initially was that they wished to use the constitutional process in this country. That is why the Labour Party was created. The trade unions did not want to take to the streets. They wanted to put people into this place so that they could change the laws. They found that they could not do it, because the judges stopped them. That was why they had to set up their political funds.
It is a total error to believe that all this money comes to the Labour Party. If a trade union wants to hold a weekend school for its members in order to explain to them, for example, the legal process in this country, or what the machinery of democracy is about, it has to use its political funds to fund that school. That money does not come to the Labour Party; it is money spent in the cause of democracy. I do not see any problem about that.
The hon. Gentleman has given no good reason why there ought to be a change in the existing rules. He has not brought forward proposals to deal with the employers' organisations. I mentioned last year the 83,000 shareholders of GKN who cannot get into the annual general meeting. It is not held in a big enough place, in case everyone turns up. It is well known that, due to apathy, people will not turn up. It is the same apathy that causes the
274
shareholders not to put pressure on companies to stop sending money to the Tory Party.
Why should my constituents have to pay more for their goods because companies send contributions to the Tory Party? Members of trade unions pay the political levy knowingly, in a free democracy, and with a right of choice to do so. They pay that money knowing that it goes to the Labour Party and to their trade union. When they spend money in the supermarket or the pub, why should they be forced to pay money to the Tory Party? They cannot opt out of that payment, whereas they can opt out of paying the political levy. No one can opt out of paying money in that way to the Tory Party.
This is where my hon. Friends and I are falling short. We should be introducing Ten-Minute Bills. We should be putting down amendments, approved by the Government, to the Companies Bill in Standing Committee, to corral the companies and make them opt out of paying to the Tory Party the money that our constituents spend in supermarkets, pubs and so on.
I ask my hon. Friends to throw out this Private Member's Bill. It is an attempt to distort the law in an unfair and dishonest manner, which was not even tried by the Tories in their Industrial Relations Bill in 1971.
The Donovan Commission examined the question of the allocation of political funds, and all the evidence indicated that no change was required. In fact, since the Labour Government came into office in 1974 it has been made easier to contract out of the political levy. That is why in ASTMS so many members contract out of the political levy. That is why members of other trade unions also contract out.
People already have freedom of choice, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is not required. I call on my hon. Friends, and on anyone else who is interested in good industrial relations, to throw it out.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 200.

Division No. 89]

AYES

[3.45 p.m.

Adley. Robert

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Nelson, Anthony

Alison, Michael

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Neubert, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Page, John (Harrow West)

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Hannam, John

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Banks, Robert

Haselhurst, Alan

Parkinson, Cecil

Beith, A. J.

Hawkins, Paul

Pattie, Geoffrey

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Hayhoe, Barney

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Henderson, Douglas

Prior, Rt Hon James

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hicks, Robert

Raison, Timothy

Biggs-Davison, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Rathbone, Tim

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Holland, Philip

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Bottomley, Peter

Hooson, Emlyn

Reid, George

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rhodes James, R.

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Brittan, Leon

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Brotherton, Michael

James, David

Ridsdale, Julian

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

Rifkind, Malcolm

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Carlisle, Mark

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Kershaw, Anthony

Sainsbury, Tim

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Clegg, Walter

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Shepherd, Colin

Cope, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Costain, A. P.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Silvester, Fred

Crawford, Douglas

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sims, Roger

Critchley, Julian

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Crouch, David

Lloyd, Ian

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Luce, Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

MacCormick, lain

Stanley, John

Durant, Tony

McCrindle, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

Dykes, Hugh

Macfarlane, Neil

Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stokes, John

Eyre, Reginald

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tapsell, Peter

Farr, John

Marten, Neil

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mates, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Mather, Carol

Thompson, George

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maude, Angus

Townsend, Cyril D.

Forman, Nigel

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Waddington, David

Fox, Marcus

Mayhew, Patrick

Watt, Hamish

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Freud, Clement

Mills, Peter

Whitney, Raymond

Fry, Peter

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wiggin, Jerry

Glyn, Dr Alan

Monro, Hector

Winterton, Nicholas

Goodhart, Philip

Montgomery, Fergus

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Goodlad, Alastair

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Younger, Hon George

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gray, Hamish

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Mr. Andrew MacKay and

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Neave, Airey

Mr. Tim Smith.

Grist, Ian

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Allaun, Frank

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Anderson, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Buchanan, Richard

Cryer, Bob

Armstrong, Ernest

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Ashley, Jack

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ian

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Canavan, Dennis

Deakins, Eric

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

Cant, R. B.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Carmichael, Neil

Dempsey, James

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dewar, Donald

Bates, Alf

Cartwright, John

Dormand, J. D.

Bean, R. E.

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Clemitson, Ivor

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Eadie, Alex

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Stanley

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Coleman, Donald

English, Michael

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Conlan, Bernard

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Corbett, Robin

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Bradley, Tom

Cowans, Harry

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Evans, John (Newton)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sandelson, Neville

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McCartney, Hugh

Sedgemore, Brian

Faulds, Andrew

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Selby, Harry

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McElhone, Frank

Sever, John

Flannery, Martin

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Ford, Ben

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Forrester, John

McNamara, Kevin

Silverman, Julius

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Madden, Max

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Marks, Kenneth

Snape, Peter

George, Bruce

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Spearing, Nigel

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Spriggs, Leslie

Ginsburg, David

Maynard, Miss Joan

Stallard, A. W.

Golding, John

Meacher, Michael

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Graham, Ted

Mikardo, Ian

Stoddart, David

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Stott, Roger

Grocott, Bruce

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Strang, Gavin

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Morton, George

Tierney, Sydney

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Tilley, John

Home Robertson, John

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Tinn, James

Hooley, Frank

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Tomlinson, John

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Newens, Stanley

Tuck, Raphael

Huckfield, Les

Noble, Mike

Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Oakes, Gordon

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Hunter, Adam

Ogden, Eric

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

O'Halloran, Michael

Ward, Michael

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Orbach, Maurice

Watkins, David

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wellbeloved, James

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ovenden, John

White, Frank R. (Bury)

John, Brynmor

Palmer, Arthur

White, James (Pollok)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Park, George

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Parker, John

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Parry, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Judd, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Radice, Giles

Woodall, Alec

Kinnock, Neil

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Lambie, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lamond, James

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Leadbitter, Ted

Rooker, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Roper, John

Mr, Russell Kerr and

Litterick, Tom

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Mr. Stan Thorne.

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
SUPPLY
[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

SCOTLAND (COURTS)
3.57 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: The matter that we are debating today, namely, the operation of the courts in Scotland, may at first sight appear to be peculiarly Scottish and of no interest to English, Irish or Welsh Members of the British House of Commons, but it is important to understand that this is a major constitutional issue, in which a British trade union has taken the decision to use the senior and less senior staff of the Scottish courts in order to advance its claim and the claim of ⅓ million trade unionists in the Society of Civil and Public Servants who have nothing to do with the courts of Scotland.
It is true to say—I say it with immense regret—that it is unique in the history of our democracy that recourse to law is presently denied to the citizens of a part of the kingdom. Not since King James V granted the charter to the Court of Session in 1532 have the citizens of Scotland had no recourse to law and been denied their civil rights and the rights of the public in the criminal law. We have never before achieved a situation in this country where justice was silent and mercy was gagged. We have never before had a situation in which such a fundamental constitutional effect has been achieved by the Government. That is the charge that we make against the Government today.
One arm of the constitution is in suspense. Of all the arms of the constitution, it is probably the most important. It is a matter of fundamental interest to hon. Members wherever they sit in this House, whether they wear the badge of civil rights on their sleeve or are interested in the sovereign constitution of the United Kingdom. The fact cannot
280
be escaped that as a result of Government policy and the Government's actions or inaction, the operation of the courts of justice is in abeyance.
Let us consider what, in practice, the effect is in Scotland. Let us remember, in passing, that a British trade union has chosen to use the courts in Scotland because of our superior procedures and because it can finance the strike for longer and therefore do more damage and make it more obvious. Had the Scotland Act been in effect, this major constitutional situation in the United Kingdom could not have been raised in the British House of Commons, as Scottish law would have been a devolved matter.
Let us consider the effect. Hundreds of summary cases are in suspense because the papers cannot be obtained and cannot be serviced. Every day, literally thousands of motions throughout Scotland, at all levels in civil law, to adjust rights and obtain the remedies of citizens, are without effect. Every week in Scotland 200 or 300 persons seek the remedy of divorce, more often than not to obtain the benefit of remarriage. At the moment they cannot obtain that remedy. There are those who may seek to legitimise the children of a relationship or to marry a person to legitimise their relationship before their death. Those rights are in suspense.
In the criminal law, matters are even more serious. The extent of that seriousness is underlined by the fact that before the strike began the Lord Advocate obtained in 39 cases an extension of the 110 days provision under section 101 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
In Scotland, when a man has been committed to prison for trial he must be tried within 110 days or for ever set free from all pains of law in respect of the alleged offence. That is intended to protect the individual from unwarrantable imprisonment in anticipation of trial while he is presumed to be innocent. It is not intended to protect the interests of the Crown.
The Law Officers are members of a Government who have brought to pass the suspension of justice. The court granted the applications, and that means that those concerned will serve the equivalent of six months without remission and may be

281
acquitted. That is one of the worst effects of the strike for which the Government are responsible, namely, the sweeping aside without justification of the great protection of the innocent citizen in section 101.
For what period are the Government willing to imprison people without trial in Scotland? What do they regard as a reasonable time? Will they make further application when the 60 days that they obtained in the 37 cases, and the 30 days in two other cases, come to an end? Alternatively, will they think it proper to use section 35 of the Act to release on bail those charged with murder or to keep in prison indefinitely people on charges of murder? These are questions that the Government must answer today.
I have referred to the effect, but what is the cause? The strike is having an effect, in myriad ways, on many more than those who are denied justice. It has an effect on the practitioners. It has an effect on their staff, who have had to be laid off. It has an effect on those who service the courts, on those who provide food, and on those who have been made redundant or unemployed. It has an enormous effect on many people, and I find it rather ill that the union concerned claims that its action is designed to hit the Government machine and not to hurt the public. I can think of no action that has hurt, more centrally, the interests of the public in Scotland and the constitution in Britain.
What is the cause of the action? The cause is that under the Priestly Commission of 1953 to 1955 a procedure was introduced for raising civil servants' pay by a system of comparability. It was provided that the Pay Research Unit should compare the pay of those in the Civil Service with those outside it, to obtain what appeared to be a just comparison for equivalent work. Whether that is a right principle or a wrong principle, it was the agreed procedure. Although it was renegotiated in various ways and in various years, it was only in the first pay pause in 1975 that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), suspended the operation of the agreement and subjected the Civil Service unions to the rigid requirement of statutory rises.
282
As the Prime Minister told us in July 1977, there is to be no statutory norm. Therefore, the procedure should revert to the previous position. At a meeting of trade unionists the other day the Prime Minister said:
" The proper way forward is to press on with agreed procedures."
The complaint of the union is that the agreed procedures, which are clear, have been abandoned. The procedures are that there is a report by the Pay Research Unit in mid February and negotiation until the award is made on 1 April. That cannot be reciprocal unless it is remitted to arbitration. All that the Government need to do to return justice to Scotland is to agree to abide by the procedures and by the injunction that the Prime Minister gave to trade unionists.
Working in the courts of Scotland, I never believed that those who have been chosen to be the shock troops of the union would ever descend to attempt to deny justice to others supposedly to obtain justice for themselves.
The gravity of the charge against the Government is that they have made trusworthy men mistrust the word of the Government. They have made loyal men descend to disloyalty. They have made men who have served the course of justice faithfully and honourably for all their lives, or part of their lives, scrap justice and throw mud in its face because they do not believe that they can trust the Government's word. The gravity of the charge is not that they have offended gravediggers and caused them not to bury the dead; it is that they have enabled their policy to reach the stage when men of such trust and responsibility have been driven along the same course, by the same policy, to take the law of mob rule into their own hands.
That is the extent of the constitutional crisis that the Government have created. I do not condone the taking of such action by those persons of integrity and responsibility. I urge them to return to the service of justice, to which they have a fiduciary responsibility as servants of the law. I sincerely hope that they will serve justice by their return. The Government, equally, have a duty to remove the obstacle and to make it possible for them to return with honour.

283
One of the characteristics of society under this Government is the predominance of mob rule, mob decision and mob will. It might be said that those who are now on strike are in contempt of court; it might be said that they are part of a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. But, of course, the law is suspended.
The Deputy Keeper of the Signet, who is responsible for the signeting of actions, removed the signet so that actions can timeously be begun, because there is in Scotland, as I imagine there is in England, a prescription of time within which one must commence an action.
Mr. Bonar, branch secretary of the Society of Civil and Public Servants, wrote to the Deputy Keeper of the Signet on 8 March 1979 and said:
" While I can appreciate the concern of the legal profession over the current situation and their desire to protect the interests of their clients,"—
a fairly condescending appreciation—
" I am sure that you can understand our position, which is that as summonses are normally signeted by members of my branch, this work should not be handled by anyone else during the industrial action….Nevertheless, my branch is prepared to countenance the signeting of actions which involve the expiry of a triennium "—
that is the prescriptive period—
" within one month of the signeting date, but I must ask you to advise "—
here is the anarchic warning—
" any solicitor who requests the signeting of any other action, other than the aforementioned, of the strong possibility that this could lead to the blacking of such action following the cessation of the industrial action ".
That is the threat, and I look forward to seeing the SCPS blacking the action taken by members of the National Union of Mineworkers against the National Coal Board if a solicitor signets such a summons the month before the triennium is up. I hope that the Government and the Lord Advocate will confirm my view that if such action were to be taken by any person after this deplorable situation has ended it would amount to a contempt of court, at least, and, furthermore, to a conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. It would mean that if any action had been handled in the meantime justice would be denied for ever to the parties to that cause.
I cannot believe that there has been a more serious and a more anarchic threat made in this country, and I trust that
284
those who are responsible for the sending of that dictatorial edict will entirely understand its implications. I bitterly regret the fact that these men have begun this action, and I regret even more the fact that they were selected by a trade union to do the dirty work. I therefore appeal to them to return.
Whose fault is it that even the SCPS has decided to take such action? Whose fault is it that it has decided to descend to the point at which it says"To hell with society, to hell with the effect. I will do anything, use any force, descend to any level and resort to any trick, in order to obtain what I want "?
It is the Government's fault, for two reasons. First, it is their fault because they have a doctrinal devotion to the trade unions and to the rule of mob will. If the Government allow one group to act in this way they cannot complain when another group acts in the same way. Secondly, it is the Government's fault because they have consistenly appeased the bully and betrayed the tolerant. Those who are tolerant, and who are now betrayed, feel most bitter and can resort only to the same atavistic behaviour themselves.
It is entirely the Government's fault. They are responsible for sowing the seeds of the belief that the mob will win. They are responsible for ignoring those who did not join the mob. The Government are responsible for those, of whatever integrity, who have learned the lesson that mob rule, pushing one's way to what one wants, and the law of the highwayman always works. The Government are responsible for urging the highwayman to go and rob and for urging the passengers to hand over their goods.
What have the Government done about this? They have done almost nothing. I do not make that charge against the Secretary of State for Scotland or, indeed, the Lord Advocate. I make it against the Prime Minister, and I regret that he is not here today, though for a good reason. I brought to his attention the fact that the courts of Scotland were on strike. I wrote to him on 26 February, when the strike was firmly entrenched. It is the intention and belief of the union that its funds will enable it, if necessary, to carry on this strike indefinitely.

285
Certainly, it has a fund that could paralyse the courts of Scotland for six months.
In my letter to the Prime Minister I spoke of the unique constitutional nature of this action and urged him to recall Parliament. He was unable to find time to reply to that request. No doubt he was canvassing in Cardiff, South-East during those 10 days, which demonstrated his pellucid understanding of Welsh feeling.
I received a reply on 7 March from the Lord President of the Council, shortly after Parliament had returned from the week's recess. He said:
" Had there been any necessity to recall Parliament last week I can assure you the Government would not have hesistated to do so. But as you will know from Bruce Millan's statement in the House on Monday, the situation is being kept under constant review. The position is of course extremely serious, but to describe it as ' anarchy ' is, I hope on reflection you will agree, entirely unwarranted. I do not think that a debate on this subject would be helpful at the moment."
No doubt the Lord President of the Council had in mind his abominable words to the Post Office workers on 15 May 1977, when he said:
" If the freedom of the people of this country, and especially the rights of Trade Unionists, if these precious things of the past had been left to the good sense and fair-mindedness of the Judges we would have had few freedoms in this country at all."
We have no freedoms in Scotland at all when we are deprived of recourse to the law.
What has the Prime Minister done? In July last year I asked him a question when he was introducing us to the concept of consensus. I asked him what would happen if one side or the other did not consent. He told me that that would not happen. He said:
" You do neither. You win people over."—[Official Report, 20 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 1620.]
But it has happened. The Prime Minister has not talked anybody round, or even tried to. That is the charge that we make against the Government.
If the English courts had been on strike the Prime Minister would not have been indolent. If the Old Bailey had been on strike he would not have been indolent. If only he would understand that it is not more government, in an Assembly, that the Scottish people want. They want to be treated with exactly the same concern and
286
urgency as they would be treated if they were closer to home.
If the Prime Minister had understood the situation, I do not believe that the paralysis of justice—one of the pillars of the constitution—would have been allowed to drift on into the state to which it has drifted in Scotland.
What can the Government do? First, they must say either that they will keep to the agreed procedure or that they will not. They must make that clear to the union. Secondly, if the Government decide not to keep to that procedure, they must say what they propose to do. If the Government propose to stick to that policy, they must make certain that justice is not wounded and that it is returned to the people who live in Scotland. They must introduce emergency legislation to prevent rights being conscripted. If necessary, they must suspend trial by jury—a serious step. They must ensure some form of justice. The alternative is either that those who should be tried are not, or that they are kept indefinitely in prison.
The Lord Advocate has told me that about 1,300 cases due to be heard in the sheriff court in Glasgow have not been called, and that 110 of those who should have been tried have been declared"No-pro"and are free for ever.
Of the 870 people awaiting trial in Edinburgh, 120 have gone free. That is fundamentally unfair to those who are tried. It is fundamentally unfair to those whom they wronged, if they did wrong them.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we should suspend trial by jury. I am a layman in these matters. I do not think that one of the cases to which he referred involves trial by jury. The most appalling of the many appalling statements that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made is to suggest that we should suspend trial by jury. In what way is that likely to restore justice to Scotland?
Mr. Fairbairn: Trial by jury is already suspended. People will languish in prison, people on murder charges will walk the streets, or they will be tried by a single judge rather than by a jury. That is the seriousness of the position, and the Government must face it.

287
The Government must protect rights by introducing emergency legislation. They must protect the interests of justice. The first duty of any Government is to protect the interests of justice.
The charge that we make against the Government is that as a result of their pay policy, having dressed up inflexibility as strength, and weakness and surrender as consensus, they cannot honour an agreement. They have made the most trustworthy members of society resort to primitive and childish behaviour. Mob rule, the rule of force—that is all it is. The Government have caused the ordinary person to believe that by forcing others to suffer he can obtain what he wants for himself. By their policy the Government have inevitably, steadily and constantly created that atmosphere. The lesson that they have learnt is that that attitude will always work.
The Government have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. They have been weighed in the balance of justice and found guilty. They have been weighed in the balance of honesty and found out.
If they will not restore that supreme element to the constitution to Scotland today, it is time they allowed the electorate to pass sentence and remove them from office. If they will not restore the constitution, let them make way for somebody who will.
4.26 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I agree that the present situation in the courts in Scotland is deplorable. But I was not absolutely clear whether the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was condemning or condoning the action of the staff. Whether he was condemning or condoning the action, I am afraid that his account of where we stand on the pay negotiations was not accurate.
The action in the Scottish courts is part of a wider dispute between the Government and two of the Civil Service unions, the Society of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association. Those unions have decided to take selective action.
Negotiations on Civil Service pay are carried out at national level. The Government have given assurances that the
288
pay research settlements negotiated with the unions will be implemented and that the settlements will be staged—though the staging will be subject to negotiation The Government have already said that the staging will be completed by no later Chan 1 April 1980. Not all of the civil servants concerned seem to be aware that this commitment has already been entered into by the Government.
Any dispute on the amount of the pay research-based settlement will be negotiable under the terms of the Civil Service arbitration agreement. The settlement will be subject to staging.
The joint processing of the pay research data, which covers about 450 separate studies, is continuing with all possible speed. Civil Service Department officials have begun discussions with the national staff side aimed at clearing the ground for subsequent decisions. It is the firm intention of both sides to reach a settlement before 1 April.
I emphasise that the settlement date is 1 April. There is no question of our having gone past the settlement date. In that respect this dispute is entirely different from the dispute which has affected the National Health Service ancillary workers and the local government manual workers, whose settlement dates were in November and December last year.
In this case the settlement date has not yet been reached, and yet industrial action is being taken. In my view, strikes which start six weeks before the settlement date and where there is a process of negotiation cannot be justified.
Mr. John Ovenden: My right hon. Friend was talking about the operative date for the settlements. Will he tell the House what happens to the operative date if no agreement is reached by 1 April? In an agreement is not reached until the end of April or later, from when does that settlement date?
Mr. Millan: There is no question but that the settlement will date from 1 April, even if the settlement is not reached until after 1 April. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I have checked on that particular matter. Therefore, the argument that the strike is necessary before 1 April to avoid a delay in the payment being made is not a

289
good one. In any case, it is the intention of the Government to reach a settlement before 1 April.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: I hope my right hon. Friend will take advice from the Minister of State to make this point quite clear on the record, because many of the civil servants who have been to see me certainly labour under the impression that it cannot be back-dated to 1 April because of changes introduced by the Government in the course of the 1975 negotiations, which were introduced unilaterally by the Government specifically to prevent back-dating.
If my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that any settlement will be back-dated to 1 April, that will be very valuable, but I hope that it is the correct assurance.
Mr. Millan: I can confirm what I have just said. I do not think it is a particularly useful function to carry on negotiations on the Floor of the House. In any case, one is dealing with a hypothetical situation, because it is certainly the intention of the Government that a settlement will be reached before 1 April. In my view, however, if the negotiations go beyond 1 April, there is no reason why the settlement should not be back-dated to 1 April. That is a matter for negotiation. If my hon. Friend is worried because he feels that that will not happen, I must tell him that I do not believe it is necessary for him to be concerned about it.
Of course there have been contacts between Government and the trade unions concerned, both on general and particular problems. I should say to the House that, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, I met senior representatives of the unions concerned this morning. I pointed out to them that the action of their members was causing hardship to many members of the public in Scotland, who for the first time in generations were being denied access to the courts. I told them that I believed the cumulative effect of the strike would be a blow to the very fabric of society. Therefore, I asked them on that basis to call off their action. I have regretfully to tell the House that they have refused to do so and therefore the action is to continue.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of the national dispute, in view of the urgency of the whole situation, as illustrated by this debate, can he tell us how soon the Government expect to be able to bring forward a firm figure for the offer and firm dates for the closing of that offer?
Mr. Millan: We are in the middle of that process at the moment. Figures have already been spoken about. These figures have been prepared by the PRU system. We have already given a pledge that the figures that are brought out from that system of comparisons will be implemented. There is no question of that. There is an argument about the staging, but we have given a pledge on the figures themselves and we have also given a pledge, as I have already said, that the figures can be subjected to arbitration if they are not ultimately agreed.
Mr. J. Grimond rose—
Mr. Millan: I hope that I shall be allowed to proceed with the rest of my speech, because I want to turn to the Scottish courts in a minute. The point that I am making at the moment is that negotiations have continued and have made substantial progress.
Mr. Grimond: I am obliged to the Secretary of State for giving way and for what he has said. Is he able to tell us what, for instance, is the present salary of sheriff clerks?
Mr. Millan: There is a variety, depending on the particular rank. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at Hansard of yesterday's date, when I gave the figures in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). The full details are there. It goes without saying that the courts can function normally only if the staff return.
With respect to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, it is no use calling on the Government, as a number of Opposition Members have done, to get the courts working unless at the same time he takes a view about what the Government should do about the settlement concerned. It is a matter for negotiation. I do not wish

291
this dispute to go on for any longer than it has done already, but those who are on strike are not furthering their cause, because the Government have no intention of being intimidated by this industrial action into making settlements beyond a level that they consider to be reasonable. Therefore, the strike itself will not produce additional benefits for the trade unions concerned.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: When the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no way in which the courts can reopen before the pay dispute is settled, is he saying that the Government have given no thought to trying to reopen the courts before the settlement is reached by taking the sort of action that he took at the time of the firemen's strike to ensure that essential services are provided by whomsoever might be available to provide them?
Mr. Millan: We are already doing that at the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman has some bright ideas about that and is called during the debate we shall listen with great interest to what he says we ought to be doing that we are not doing at the moment. I shall come in a minute to what we are doing.
The extent of the industrial action is substantial. It involves the High Court of Justiciary, the Court of Session and the sheriff courts in Scotland, and the bulk of the staff both in the Supreme Court and in the sheriff courts are on strike at the moment in Scotland. The effect on the administration of justice is very substantial indeed.
The present position, as I reported it to the House on Monday 5 March, is that the Lord President of the Court of Session has made rules of court suspending normal sittings in the High Court, the Court of Session and the sheriff courts, except for certain categories of business, and also suspending procedural time limits laid down by the courts. These suspensions can be varied by the Lord President or by the sheriffs principal within their sheriffdoms, wherever it is possible and desirable to do so, either by allowing specific courts to carry on normally or by allowing specific classes of business to be done in courts which otherwise could be subject to suspension.
In the results, 12 sheriff courts are functioning normally, but these are in the
292
main single sheriff courts with a small administrative staff and where sufficient members of the staff have decided to remain on duty. The main sheriff courts in Scotland are not functioning at present to their full extent. In other courts, certain classes of business not covered by the general exceptions are being undertaken, again for the same reason, that sufficient administrative staff are available to enable it to be done.
All courts are dealing with very urgent matters—for example, interim interdicts and committals of persons charged with serious offences—so I hope that the House will understand that, although business has been dislocated, it has not ground completely to a halt and that, with the co-operation of the courts themselves, we are giving priority to urgent business. For example, in no case—and there is a civil liberties point here—is a person being denied the opportunity to apply for bail. The High Court is still sitting to deal with bail appeals.
If I may look at the present situation from two, as it were, contradictory points of view, first from that of law and order and then from that of civil liberties, on the law and order aspect I assure the House that no one charged with a serious criminal offence is getting off scot free, although, as the Lord Advocate has already indicated in the answer he gave yesterday, some minor cases have been dropped. I am sorry to say that that is inevitable in the circumstances. But we are talking here about a comparatively small number of minor cases, and I understand that virtually all of these are road traffic offences. Certainly there is no question of dropping serious charges.
The procurator fiscal continues to serve complaints. What happens at the moment is that the complaint is served on the person informing him that the case will fall on a particular day in a particular court. If the fiscal anticipates that the court will still be affected by strike action on that day, he will write to the person advising him not to come to court on the date originally given. He will be advised not to destroy the complaint and to await further notice, because the case will be called later. The procedure I describe is a standard one, but it is not necessarily followed in every court, because some courts are functioning normally and,

293
therefore, the practice will take account of local circumstances.
It is not true, as some commentators in the press and elsewhere have suggested, that a large number of people who have committed serious offences in Scotland are not being proceeded against. We are safeguarding that situation. Equally, it is not true that we are detaining in custody any person for longer than the public interest requires. I shall come later to what we are doing with regard to the 110-days rule.
The House will know from my recent statement that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate petitioned to the High Court with regard to a certain number of cases affected by the 110-days rule, so that the persons concerned have been or will be kept in custody beyond the 110-days period. There are a number of other cases where persons who would have been affected by the 110-days rule have been released. In these cases, it has been judged that there is no serious danger to the public. May I make it absolutely clear that by releasing these persons the operation of the 110-days rule is suspended, which means that those persons will come to trial. Any person who is judged to be a danger to the public is being detained. In other cases, the person may be released. In the former cases there is no question but that the person concerned will come to trial. We are not keeping people in prison for any longer than we have to in the necessity of the case. Equally, we are not releasing people from prison so that they do not stand trial.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not true that not one criminal jury trial is being held anywhere in Scotland? Surely that amounts to much more than mere dislocation?
Mr. Millan: I am informed that that is not completely accurate, but I have already said that there is a serious situation. I am not sure what the hon. Member's contribution has added.
To sum up, we have taken action to keep the situation under control. Even if the courts restart tomorrow, next Monday or whenever, there will be a backlog of cases which will cause considerable difficulties for some time to come. I am
294
in no way under-rating the seriousness of the situation. Those of us who are familiar with the problems of Glasgow at sheriff court level will not relish any action which causes an even greater backlog there. A delay in administering justice can often mean that justice is denied, and I accept that absolutely. There is no question of being complacent about this. We have tried to deal with the difficulties as best we can with the co-operation of the Lord President of the Court of Session and the courts.
I had hoped that the dispute would have been settled before now and that the courts would again have started to function. As I told the House, I was keeping the necessity for emergency legislation under review. I have now to tell the House that I believe emergency legislation is required to deal with certain matters. We cannot carry on without legislation. I have tried to act with the convenience of the House in mind. I intend that the Bill with the necessary provisions will be published on Thursday of this week. It is in draft, but I am willing to listen to today's debate to see whether I need to amend it in any respect. That will still give time to publish the Bill on Thursday. We shall have to talk through the usual channels about progressing the Bill through the House.
It would be useful if I were to tell the House what the Bill covers as we have it at the moment. First, provision will be made to enable time limits to be extended so that anything which should have been done during the period of industrial action can be done during the period of one month after the end of the industrial action. This will cover such matters as the three-year period within which claims for damages for personal injuries must be raised. It covers civil as well as criminal matters. On that last matter, a trade union has told me that it has workmen's compensation claims—I am not sure whether that is the modern term; they are claims for injuries at work—which are almost reaching the three-year limit. We must protect these cases and every other kind of civil case where there is a time limit, and the Bill will do that. It will suspend the operation of the time limit for the period of the industrial dispute and give a leeway at the end so that we can ensure that the courts are properly

295
functioning again before the time limit expires.
Secondly, we shall take power to enable the maximum period of 110 days during which an unconvicted prisoner may be detained in custody to be extended to take account of the period when the courts are affected by industrial action, so that it will not be necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to make individual petitions. The Bill will automatically take care of and extend the 110-days period.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Secretary of State enlarge on that? Is that without limit of time? Does it mean that if the strike were to last for six months, six months would be added to the 110 days?
Mr. Millan: The limit of time will be extended basically by the period of the industrial action plus a bit extra at the end. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. Civil liberties issues are involved here, which is why I mentioned earlier that, where my right hon. and learned Friend does not believe it is absolutely necessary to retain a person in custody, that person is being released, not to go scot-free, but to be tried later. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are some dangerous characters around—not only in this place—and that situation will be protected. There is nothing here that is absolutely satisfactory, but we must do what we think best in all the circumstances.
Thirdly, provision will be made to take account of the fact that certain procedural requirements in criminal proceedings which may not be able to be complied with will be complied with, for example, to ensure that criminal proceedings do not fall because the diet is not held. Again, the problem is that we do not wish proceedings to come to an end simply because there is a delay in reaching trial. There will be a general provision to cover that.
Fourthly, provision will be made to enable a judge of any court to do anything during the period of industrial action in relation to the business of the courts which would otherwise have to be done by a clerk of court, sheriff clerk or the officer of court, and may authorise any person to do any of these things. That picks up part of the point made by the
296
hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). That is a facility that enables certain things to be done by the judge himself rather than by an officer of the court.
Finally, the court will be empowered to accept copies of documents in place of principal documents when this will enable progress to be made in appropriate cases. I hope that when we produce the Bill we shall have the co-operation of the House in passing it quickly.
None of these measures will ensure the return of the staff to the courts, but I hope they will assure hon. Members that the general public interest and the interests of litigants will not be lost. I must pay tribute to the fact that the courts have been and are still dealing with emergency business, and I gladly pay tribute to all those who are dealing with that business. I am very grateful to them, but before we can extricate ourselves from this extremely unfortunate situation it is necessary for those who are now on strike to return to work.
In view of what I have said today, and given the widespread public concern in Scotland about the present situation, I hope that even now, despite the unsatisfactory nature of the meeting I had with the unions this morning, they will recommend their members to return to work.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I believe that the House will support the Secretary of State for Scotland in his decision to introduce emergency legislation. I leave it to those more expert in the law to debate whether this legislation, as he has outlined it, will cover the points at issue. He has outlined five major points which certainly seem to deal with some of the anxieties already expressed, but whether they will cover the ground I do not know.
As has been said by the previous speakers, the mere fact that emergency legislation is introduced shows the serious state to which the law in Scotland has been reduced. Necessary as it may be—as the Secretary of State indeed agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—this does not obviate the delay and injustice that will be caused to certain people because of this strike.

297
I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, but I would put a rather different emphasis on where the blame lies. I believe that the Government's policy is indeed responsible for some of the strikes from which we are suffering. However, I do not for one moment think that that excuses the strikers—particularly strikers of the type who are now on strike in the courts of Scotland—from the action they have taken.
I believe that there is a dangerous tendency to blame the Government for anything and everything. Any Government will suffer from this, and I strongly suspect that a Conservative Government will suffer from it even more than the Labour Government. It is up to this House to say that people who go on strike are personally responsible for their actions and they cannot ride off that responsibility on to the Government, on orders from their union or shop stewards or whatever.
I find it most shameful that people of the categories who are on strike in Scotland—who are not badly paid and who are meant to be professional people with high responsibility—have taken this action. They are by no means the only ones. For instance, people in my constituency and others are complaining about a strike by computer operators which is preventing farmers from receiving payment. Here again I must tell them that, in the first place, they must lay the blame for that upon the computer operators. People may have their views about Government policies, but the Government cannot be held responsible for every strike that takes place.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland dealt with the history of this matter, he pointed out that negotiations are going forward and that he hoped to complete them by 1 April. He made out a case for saying that this strike was not only shameful but highly premature. Previously I have criticised the Government for their slowness in dealing with grievances. I still feel that that is a serious feature of negotiations. However, I am glad it is on record that it is hoped that a settlement in accordance with agreed procedures will be reached by 1 April, and that if it is not reached by that date
298
there is every possibility of any settlement being backdated to 1 April. I should have thought that that would remove the last possible excuse for this strike.
I am critical of the Government's policy and I do not believe that it is possible to deal satisfactorily with pay and salary decisions when we have such an enormous public sector. I simply do not believe that even if the Archangel Gabriel was in charge of all the computers in the world he could produce comparable schedules of pay throughout the whole public sector—the nationalised industries, quangos, the Civil Service, local government services, advisory bodies and so forth. It simply is not possible.
It certainly may be possible with a smaller public service to take into account its position and advantages and to compare it with similar jobs outside the public sector, but when the public service is the size it is at present I believe that that is a major factor in making the economy almost unworkable. Certainly it makes it excessively difficult, if not impossible, to come to any decision about salaries which will give satisfaction.
I have always felt that it is a great drawback of our politics that one of the major parties in the country is the political wing of a particular section—that is, the trade unions. That being said, it must also be said that everybody and every organisation is asking for more and production is not rising.
It cannot be said too often that it one section receives more when production is not rising another section will get less, either because prices will rise or because their pay falls behind. There is no escape from that. It should be said again and again. We can pay people £1,000 a week, but they will not gain unless someone else is minus £1,000 per week or production rises dramatically. I do not believe that that is understood, but it should be understood by exactly the sort of people who are on strike in this dispute. Above all, they are the people who have everything to lose from rampant inflation, yet they choose to take this kind of action.
It must be said that this strike is not against wicked employers but against the taxpayer and is being conducted against the taxpayer by people who, compared

299
with most of the population, are pretty well off. I asked the Secretary of State what they were paid. I am not at all clear on the figures, or exactly what the range is, but I think I would be right to say that at the top it is in the region of £8,000 upwards. If I am wrong about that I shall be corrected. They are not the lowest paid workers.
Further, I think that the country must realise that the days are gone when dirty and unskilled work was paid very much less than comparatively attractive, skilled work. The people that we must pay more money to are those who do the dirty and unpopular jobs and those who show enterprise. We, as politicians, lawyers and so on, must take relatively less. We all pay lip service to this idea, but we never put it into practice.
I hope, like everyone else, that public opinion will support sensible measures against this type of action. My fear is that when the hospitals go on strike everybody is irate at that particular moment and then, three or four months later, it is forgotten about and we all slope back into the old ways. If there is one body of people who deserve higher pay, it is the nurses. They have said that they will not go on strike, and I trust that thye will not be penalised for that. I believe that it would be quite monstrous if people such as the sheriff clerks, who are much better paid, who do work of no more responsibility and who have shown considerable irresponsibility, gain through striking when the nurses, who have said that they will not strike, are offered the kind of derisory increases which so far have been their lot.
I hope that the Government will stand firm. I do not say that they should break the agreed procedures, but I think that they should look at them again. They might also look at the manning of some of the public industries. What is interesting is that when people go on strike it is very often quite possible for their work to continue without them. I am not saying that that is entirely so in the Scottish courts, but I hope that the Government will stand firm on this matter and that they get support. That does not in the least mean that I agree with their general policies. However, looking at the country as a whole, it is essential that this type of action, which is pure blackmail, should not succeed.
300
If the Government have more money to give away, let them give it to the nurses and to some extent to the doctors. I do not believe that the people who are presently on strike in Scotland deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve to be made a special case of any sort.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest. I am—at least nominally—still a partner in a Glasgow law firm which derives a good deal of its business from practising in the courts, both civil and criminal. In that sense I obviously have a direct interest in the outcome of this strike, because it affects the legal profession just as it affects the sheriff clerks and their staff who are presently in dispute with the Government.
The firm with which I am connected has had a certain amount of publicity in its attempts to put some pressure on the Government to get a settlement of this matter. However, I assure the House that I speak for myself today. Perhaps when I finish some of my connections in other areas will wish to underline that point. I am at one with the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) in that I accept that this is a serious and difficult situation and that the disruption of the legal services is not something that we can accept in an easy or light manner and just shrug off.
This dispute is difficult for the public. It has long-term implications for them. Indeed, I take the view that in some respects the public are not alarmed enough about what is going on. Certainly, I have not had one letter from any person in my constituency either for or against the industrial action. I do not think that people realise the considerable difficulties that will lie in the future when this strike is settled, which I hope will be soon.
I should first like to ask several questions of the Government and perhaps get a little more information. However, the Secretary of State has helped already by giving some useful information. On the criminal side, there will undoubtedly be enormous difficulties as the backlog builds up. This is not a new situation. This industrial dispute may have one rather pleasant side effect: it will concentrate all our minds upon the quite impossible conditions which have existed for a very long

301
time in some of the major Scottish sheriff courts.
If one appears on a summary complaint in Glasgow, pleads not guilty—here I am talking about the time before this dispute arose—and a trial is set, it will certainly be a diet of trial four or five months after one's appearance. That cannot be a satisfactory situation at any time.
This debate is on the operation of the courts in Scotland, and not just on the strike. It is perhaps worth making the point that at Scottish Question Time the continual questions about Glasgow sheriff court are justified because of the unpleasant circumstances and conditions under which sheriff clerks, solicitors, accused, witnesses and the public generally have to operate in the present premises in Ingram Street. There is very little of the dignified majesty of the law there. There is not even the kind of inertia and dignity of a passive and negative sort that goes with the kind of"Bleak House"image of the law. It is a kind of scurrying, ants' nest of a place, with everyone milling around trying to cover four of five courts simultaneously. Unfortunate members of the public are understandably totally bewildered about when and where they are supposed to be at any given time.
What worries me is that the backlog will build up. I should have thought that the problems of summary and indictment trials in the Glasgow sheriff court—no doubt it is the same in other sheriff courts, such as Edinburgh, with which I am not so familiar—in nine or 10 months will be desperate as a result of this lengthy delay.
I know that the Secretary of State has made clear—and no doubt the Lord Advocate will repeat it—that there can be no question of taking the easy way out by putting"No proceedings"upon a large number of significant criminal prosecutions which could otherwise have been proceeded with. That would be extremely alarming for the public and would be an extremely bad principle to establish. I have seen the written answer in today's Hansard to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire indicating that there are 110 cases of"no-pro"in Glasgow and 120 in which no proceedings have been marked in Edinburgh.
302
I take my right hon. Friend's point that these are comparatively minor road traffic offences. But it would hopelessly overdo it, and be somewhat cataclysmic in one's approach, if one suggested that this constituted a breakdown in law and order. We shall clearly have to cut our cost in respect of these minor matters. If we have to do so, I do not think that that will necessarily be the end of the world.
No doubt the Lord Advocate will want to emphasise that there can be no question of significant offences—say, of housebreaking, assault and so on—being marked for no proceedings at some future date. If the unpleasant reality is—I hope that it will not be—that this stoppage will go on for some considerable time, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can give some hint of what the policy of the Crown Office and his Department will be in the future.
We are entitled to some reassurance in this regard. Certainly around Glasgow the place is rife with rumour that those who penetrated the procurator fiscal's department have seen the place knee-deep in complaints which apparently have been jettisoned and put on one side. I accept that that is not a position which any of us would want, but perhaps a little reassurance would be of some assistance.
I should like to say a few words about the 110-day rule. This is an important principle of Scottish law, and one of which we are rather proud. I have had some experience in that I have dealt with clients who have been in trouble in England and who have found themselves on remand in custody awaiting trial literally for periods of up to six or seven months. I can think of one girl whom I dealt with on her return to Scotland who spent about six months in prison awaiting trial on charges of mugging, only to be found not guilty. That is an astonishing contrast to what happens in Scotland, and it is something that we would be extremely reluctant to abandon, even under the pressure of an industrial dispute of this kind.
I accept that the Secretary of State and the court's administration have two unpleasant alternatives if the strike continues. First, they may have to release people who would not normally be granted bail—presumably for good

303
reasons; here we must trust our courts—whch would be highly alarming to the general public. I assume that anyone who is subject to the 110-day rule and whom it is thought could not be released prior to trial is either suspected of being in very serious trouble or has a record which would make his release unsafe. It would be extremely dangerous if my right hon. Friend were to issue a blanket statement that such people should be released after the 110-day rule expires.
Secondly, we are forced to the reluctant conclusion, as has the Secretary of State—and reluctantly I support him—that we must declare the period of the industrial dispute as dies non and the 110-day rule again applies only when the courts are back in operation.
That is not a satisfactory solution to this problem. This is a very serious issue of civil liberties, and I am sure that the Government will be the first to accept that. Having stated that there is a problem, we can criticise Ministers only if we come up with a more satisfactory solution. Given that for various unfortunate reasons a settlement may be delayed, I reluctantly accept that there is no alternative to the one that my right hon. Friend has announced.
I imagine that the number of people who will be involved is very small. Perhaps the Lord Advocate can give us some figures about the number of people who are at present awaiting trial and in respect of whom the 110-day rule has been operating. It would be interesting to know what size that group is.
The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire pressed the Secretary of State on how long this should be allowed to run. Clearly, in a sense, it is not satisfactory to say that the gap will be for as long as the industrial dispute lasts. That begs every possible question. It would be an extremely alarming situation if it were to go on month after month. That is something which the Government would have to re-examine if that turned out to be the situation. I very much hope that long before we reach that stage we shall have found a solution to the problem.
On the civil side, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to legislate in order to correct the anomaly which might arise when the triennium runs out and good claims and reparation actions fall on those
304
grounds alone. It is not just trade unions' claims, but the mass of claims for damages arising in reparation actions. It would be monstrous if they were to fall on this technicality and the professional advisers had no way to redress the balance because raising actions in the courts was a physical impossiblity.
It is an interesting corrective to the widely held view on the Conservative Benches that restrospective legislation is wicked by definition. I. too, have reservations about restrospective legislation. It should not happen as a matter of course, or be accepted practice, but special circumstances require special steps. It is a form of retrospective legislation that none of us will like, but it is right and just and must be supported. I hope that it will be supported by both sides of the House.
I could continue with a long catalogue. There is a moratorium on the recovery of debts, which is not satisfactory. Quite clearly, divorces cannot go through. Weddings have been arranged on the basis that undefended proof dates had been set, and considerable cost, inconvenience and genuine distress have been caused because the arrangements have had to be unscrambled. I could go on listing the unpleasant consequences of the industrial action, and reach the sad conclusion that the interim action that can be taken is limited. As long as the dispute continues, we shall have the disruption and chaos that inevitably follow.
It is a truism, but perhaps worth saying, that that is the purpose of a strike. At the end of the day there is no point in complaining that strikes have unpleasant consequences. They are intended to impose pressures. Whether blue collar or impeccably white collar workers, at the end of the day they are trying to cause inconvenience, and in this case they have succeeded. The only solution is to persuade them to return to work in advance of a settlement, or offer a settlement that will get them back to work. There is no other way. We may to some extent be able to minimise the difficulties, but we have to live with them, and they will be unpleasant and cause much unhappiness.
I do not take the cataclysmic view of the dispute of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. He exhibits a fine turn of phrase and an almost melodramatic turn of mind. There

305
are many other strikes with unpleasant consequences. I was in Edinburgh not long ago, and it was not pleasant to have to boil the drinking water. There has been disruption in hospitals and closure of schools. These are unpleasant consequences of strikes under any Government.
We must consider how to reach a settlement. At one time the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said that the sheriff clerks were paragons of virtue, men of dedication and vocation serving the goddess of justice. Apparently overnight they have been turned into a mob with mob rule, will and decision. Neither extreme is justified. Sheriff clerks are human beings, and some one likes and some one does not. Their levels of idealism vary, like those of Members of Parliament or any other group of workers. They are entitled to strike. There are circumstances when they, like other groups of workers, can consider industrial action but I am not satisfied that the present situation or the stage of the negotiations justifies the withdrawal of labour.
The remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire on the English and Scottish court systems exhibited a Scottish paranoia that was politically unwise and unjustified. He has preached to us in high tones about the benefits of union and the sins of a too exclusive Scottish view of life. He should have avoided such a crass and unjustified over-simplification.
Mr. Fairbairn: Does not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) think that a person who is a clerk of course, and therefore a servant of justice has a duty to justice that overrides all personal considerations?
Mr. Dewar: It is not that absolute, but there should be a reluctance to take industrial reaction If there were an absolute ban, there should be rules to make that clear. Strikes should be a weapon of last resort in all fields, particularly in this. My complaint about the action of the SCPS and the CPSA is that I do not believe, perhaps through misunderstanding and lack of information, that we had reached the stage that striking was the
306
only weapon left and without it no progress could be made.
The date for a pay settlement was 1 April. The Pay Research Unit had made recommendations that were open to negotiation. Negotiations have been proceeding behind the scenes and should be allowed to proceed. The unions should not have considered further action until it was quite clear that what was being offered was totally unacceptable and no improvement could be found by negotiation. We had not reached that situation.
I say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that while it is true that senior principals earn £9,000 or £10,000 a year, they are a tiny group among those employed in that service. A large number are of the clerical officer grade and earn £1,698 to £3,280 a year. It is hardly a living wage at the bottom of the scale. When negotiations get under way and we reach a settlement of the dispute, I hope that there will be some weighting towards the bottom of the scale. That may not be popular with everyone in the unions. In this department, and in other parts of the Civil Service, the lower end is particularly badly treated. Although it is a sensitive subject closing of differentials to benefit the lower paid is much needed.
I accept from the Secretary of State that the negotiations are in the context that the phasing will be completed by 1 April 1980. That is an extremely short period. I assume that that means that it is possible to get not only an immediate payment on 1 April but an interim payment between then and 1 April 1980. It is open to negotiation. That period seems reasonable, given the pressures on pay policy of public service pay awards, where the Government cannot duck because they are in the front line as an employer. We have until 1 April, and we have the promise of restricted phasing and the suggestion that back-dating to 1 April is possible. As one who would always defend the right to withhold labour even in the courts, I believe that in those circumstances the strike is unfortunate.
I hope that the unions will reconsider the position. If they cannot go back to work immediately, I hope that we can get the kind of settlement before 1 April to which the Secretary of

307
State referred. Given the circumstances, it would be unfortunate to prejudice the administration of justice and hopelessly choke and clog the courts. The strike may well be premature and unnecessary. I say, not in any hostile spirit, that there is a real need for a drastic re-look at the pay scales at the lower end, but I hope that the unions will be flexible and consider whether it would not be in the best interests of the country as a whole if they returned to work.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I take part in this debate as a member of the legal profession, but my primary concern about the problem is as a member of the public who has been both depressed and angered by the shambles in our courts in Scotland during the last few weeks.
It has been pointed out that for the first time in the history of the High Court and the Court of Session these courts are no longer available to the public. It is an ironic and fitting comment on the present state of industrial relations that courts of justice, which were able to remain open during the First World War, the Second World War and every other emergency in this century and the last, should have closed their doors now because of a pay dispute. That is a fitting comment on the seriousness of the situation and the absurdity of the scale of action that has been taken to deal with a pay dispute, however justifiable the grievance in that dispute might be.
Hon. Members have already spoken about the serious consequences for a large number of people in Scotland that have flowed from the closure of the courts. While I appreciate the vast number of people who will be inconvenienced, I wonder how many of these same people have themselves taken part in other industrial disputes that have caused similar inconvenience to their fellow citizens. This is the curse of the present situation. Individual members of the public condemn without qualification those whose industrial action inconveniences them, but seem willing themselves to take similar action when it affects other people.
I suspect that some of those in the sheriff clerk's office and others taking
308
part in the picketing outside the House of Commons were the first to complain when the gritting supervisors in Edinburgh withdrew their labour over Christmas, thereby bringing the city to a halt. It is clear evidence of the anarchy that has crept into our system of industrial relations that so many sections of the community, without any serious consideration of the consequences, are prepared to inconvenience the public as a whole because of a pay dispute with the Government or their employer.
The Secretary of State pointed to another serious danger flowing from the emergency legislation that he seeks to introduce. I welcome that emergency legislation and am only sorry that it was not introduced a week ago. However, some of those who have been refused bail and who would otherwise have to be released under the 110-day rule will, undoubtedly, be found not guilty. As a result of the emergency legislation they may be kept in prison for weeks or even months for reasons that are in no way related to their offence but because of the industrial action being taken by officials of the courts. I hope that those officials realise that it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, that people, some of whom will be found to be innocent eventually, will be kept in prison indefinitely. That is very serious.
One must emphasise that in this form of industrial dispute the fact that the public as a whole are suffering is not a by-product of the dispute. The public are the target of the industrial action. When we first passed strike legislation in this House many years ago the right to strike, to take action and to picket was seen as a means of ensuring that employees could make life difficult for their employers in order to bring pressure upon them. If, as a result, the public were inconvenienced that was an unfortunate, accidental by-product of the action.
That is not the position that we are facing now. Those civil servants who have withdrawn their labour did not do so in order to inconvenience the Government. They did so in order to inconvenience the public and thereby bring pressure on the Government. It was a deliberate and preconceived intention of the action that life should be made as miserable as possible for the community

309
as a whole in order not that the people who were suffering should make recompense but that the Government would be forced to take action. This is a totally different form of industrial action from that envisaged when industrial legislation was first approved by Parliament. This has totally changed the nature of industrial disputes and it is why Parliament must act in a comprehensive and radical manner.
Reference has been made to the grievances of the civil servants taking part in the action. I do not dispute that some of them may have justifiable grievances. The hon. Member for Garscadden pointed out that clerical assistants receive a very low scale of remuneration, but they are not the only people taking industrial action. Those involved in the strike include the range from the deputy principal clerk of session and justiciary, whose salary ranges from £6,700 to £8,700, to sheriff clerks whose salaries range from £4,000 to £10,000. These are people who have withdrawn their labour because of an industrial dispute, irrespective of the consequences to the public as a whole.
I have far more time for the low-paid nurses who, despite a much more substantial grievance, have, by an overwhelming majority, refused to take industrial action, harm the community and bring intolerable pressure on the public because that would be contrary to the principles of their profession. I have more time for people like the nurses, who have decided not to use the community as a target for their action or to use the public as pawns in their dispute, than for civil servants, sheriff clerks and legal officials who, whatever the merits of their grievance, are prepared to take action of this kind.
It was reported in the press that the Lord Justice-General, Lord Emslie, referring to the action being taken, described it as
" an act of grave irresponsibility ".
When he made that statement the joint strike committee of the unions involved replied in the following terms:
" It would indeed be an act of grave irresponsibility if we were to submit to the Government's grossly unjust treatment of Civil Service pay."
No one is asking them to do that. That is a matter between them and the Gov- 310
ernment in the pursuance of their negotiations. The nature of their irresponsibility is not their refusal to accept the pay proposals put by the Government but the form of industrial action that they are prepared to take to pursue their objective.
I spoke to one of the pickets yesterday, and he was quite open about the unions' objectives. He said that they hoped that by making the operation of the courts in Scotland impossible they would force the Government to act. That was an interesting admission because it was an admission that their objective was to win their case, not on its merits, but by making life miserable for the community. If we find in this and other cases, that the grievances are to be resolved, not on their merits, on the arguments, or on the question of an independent assessment, but on the capacity of that minority to disrupt the life of the community, those who describe that situation as one approaching anarchy are quite justified.
I do not believe that the Government can shirk their responsibility, not only for the seriousness of the situation but for the way in which it has been allowed to develop. The Government's major failing was not to identify from the beginning that action such as this is not simply an industrial dispute. I sometimes wonder whether the very phrase"industrial action"is not grossly irrelevant to this matter. The sort of situation with which we are faced is not an industrial dispute, or a conflict between employer and employees, but a political action. By that I do not mean party political or political in the sense of seeking a purely political objective. I mean that it was political action because it was action deemed and directed at the very organs of the State and seeking to disrupt the very workings of Government in order to pursue an economic objective. That is political action, and the Government should have recognised it from the beginning. They should have condemned it in the most exclusive terms.
All along, the Government's attitude appears to have been that they cannot treat this dispute any differently from any normal industrial dispute. They seem to feel that they must not take any action to prevent the strike from succeeding because that would simply antagonise people and lead to a worsening of the situation. That is a wrong approach

311
which has simply encouraged the people taking such action to believe that they have only to hold out long enough and they will undoubtedly succeed.
There is a second point on which I condemn the Government. At long last, we have today had the announcement from the Secretary of State that there is to be emergency legislation. That is a curious description when the Bill is to be introduced several weeks after the start of the emergency. When the Secretary of State was pressed by hon. Members to introduce emergency legislation he suggested that it was not necessary, that he would keep an eye on matters and that, as they developed, he would see whether it was required.
I notice that the Secretary of State is indicating that he did not say that. Let me remind him of what he said when he was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton):
" I am keeping the whole situation under continuing review to see what further measures, including emergency legislation, may be required ".—[Official Report, 5 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 902.]
Many of the measures to be included in the emergency legislation not only should have been introduced the moment the emergency began but would have been capable of being introduced at that time and would have helped to deal with the problem to some extent. For example, there is a sensible proposal that many court procedures do not require court officials—the judge need not be assisted and can act on his own. There is no reason why that measure could not have been introduced from the start. Another sensible proposal is that photocopies rather than originals of documents may be used in court. If the Government had been prepared to take action, that is another matter which could have been introduced at the start of the dispute. I believe that the delay to which the Government have acquiesced has been harmful and dangerous.
At the time of the firemen's strike the Government made clear that the strike would gravely endanger the community and that they were prepared to take all possible action—including bringing in troops—to deal with the effects of it. On this occasion the Government do not appear to have taken any such measures.
312
The Secretary of State challenged me to offer suggestions on how to mitigate the effects of the strike. A sheriff suggested a proposal to me which I believe to be possible. A number of law firms have made clear that if they were asked for one of their partners to take over, on a temporary basis, the activities of certain of the sheriff clerks in the courts, legal actions could proceed in ways that are not available at the moment. I do not say that it would work, or that it would deal with other than a minority of cases before the courts, but the Government do not appear to have given any thought to such proposals.
Strike breaking is not improper in this dispute. The public are suffering grave inconvenience as a result of the strike. Therefore, any activity, including the replacement of sheriff clerks with anyone capable and willing to do that work, should be given the fullest consideration.
Picketing has been taking place outside a number of Scottish courts in the past few weeks. I do not know whether picketing a court could be classed as interference with the course of justice, but if it is not an offence it should certainly become one. Although the actions of the courts are severely limited, certain procedures are continuing—the hearing of bail appeals, custody matters and various other procedures. To allow picketing of a court of justice in an attempt to persuade officials not to enter that court should be a criminal offence which should be prevented by the law of the land. I hope that the emergency legislation will make specific provision in that direction. If it does, it will have the support of all those who are seriously interested in ensuring that the administration of justice is not unlawfully impeded.
I believe that the time has come for those involved in the administration of the courts to become subject to the restrictions placed on the Army and the police. I do not believe that they should have the right to withdraw their labour and pursue an industrial dispute. Withdrawing the right to strike from any section of the community is a serious matter. However, when that section of the community has clearly demonstrated that it is using that right not simply to cause inconvenience to the employers

313
but to cause maximum hardship to the rest of the community, I believe that the community is entitled to consider the prevention of such behaviour in future.
Court officials are not the only people in that position. In recent years the whole nature of industrial disputes has changed. Many groups are prepared to cause maximum hardship to the community, and many of us who would never have believed that we would seriously support a curtailment of the legal right to strike are obliged to reconsider our views. The alternative appears to be continued escalation of disputes over the years to come.
I understand that the civil servants, particularly court officials, feel that they can continue their action for up to three months because they are receiving full strike pay. If that happens, we are talking about not only inconvenience but a total collapse of the courts of justice in Scotland. If it is to be prevented only by giving in to pay on their merits but in order to avoid disruption of this kind—the remedy is worse than the disease. That is the dilemma facing the Government. Unless they reconcile themselves to difficult and bitter decisions, we are in for a serious future that will bear no relation even to the present hardships.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: I should like to refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). My hon. Friend taxed the hon. and learned Member with his remarks about Scottish paranoia. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. An odd lack of confidence has been evident among hon. Members in the past two or three months about the capacity of the House to debate Scottish affairs. This debate, if it does nothing else, knocks on the head the curious idea put around in Scotland that we usually debate Scottish education and Scottish health at 3 a.m. for about 40 minutes. This is a three-hour debate, on a specifically Scottish issue, at a prime time in the afternoon. We are talking about resolving a Scottish dispute which
314
has been going on for less than three weeks.
Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when we asked for a debate the Lord President refused one. The Opposition have provided time for a debate. The hon. Gentleman should note that the Lord President tried to force an Assembly upon us because there was no time for debates here.
Mr. Cook: That was not my point. I am saying that the House of Commons is now debating a specifically Scottish matter.
I am concerned at the growing tendency of the House to wish to debate industrial disputes. It is a regrettable trait, irrespective of whether they are Scottish or United Kingdom disputes. After all, the Chamber itself is based on conflict and division—the way that we sit represents that conflict and division. It is improbable that, in that context, the kind of division contained within an industrial dispute is likely to be resolved by us working in a party political forum.
A buttress for that observation was provided by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. No hon. Member could be under the illusion that that speech will make it easier to achieve a settlement of the dispute. The hon. and learned Member referred to those who are in dispute as primitive, childish, atavistic and succumbing to mob rule. The hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to his point of view. It is a free country, and nobody denies him his right to put his interpretation on events, but it is extremely improbable that that sort of language is likely to persuade the strikers that they are at fault and that they should resume normal working. He has gone about it in precisely the way to make that less likely.
The hon. and learned Member read extracts from the letter of my constituent, Mr. Bonner. He did Mr. Bonner a considerable disservice in burying under the exegesis of the commentary which he put upon that letter the essential point of it, which was to provide means by which the triennial rule—the three-year ban—would be provided for and that cases could be provided for, even though the three-year rule was coming up. That

315
was the point of the letter, although it was dressed up in denunciatory language, which is the nature of industrial disputes and negotiations.
There is only one way to get the courts back to normal working, and that is by achieving a resolution of the dispute. The Government face a difficult problem that has not been touched on so far in the debate. It arises from the analogues being produced by the current Pay Research Unit studies. It appears from the results of those analogues that the highest paid have fallen furthest behind and that the lowest paid require the smallest increases in order to achieve comparability with those in the private sector.
That is the real problem for the Government. They are facing a campaign, with which I have great sympathy, to provide something for the low-paid because they are low paid and, simultaneously, a demand to restore comparability for those who are much higher paid. There is, therefore, a separate issue that the Government will have to look at outside the context of the present dispute, namely, whether the range of salaries is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) quoted some figures. I am not sure that they are the same as the figures that I have, which show that executive officers in the High Court start at £2,500 a year and that the highest paid employee receives £10,800. That is a remarkable range of salaries within what is essentially a management function. I doubt whether that sort of salary range could easily be found on the management side of any factory or industry.
It is open to question whether we should not be trying to compress some of that differential, and particularly whether we should not be looking at the large number of increments in each grade. It is difficult to understand why one man should be paid more than another because he happens to have been in the job for several years longer. It is time that we looked at that problem to see whether we can get compression within grades, if not between them.
Mr. George Younger: I cannot quite see where the hon. Gentleman is trying to lead us. He started by saying
316
that he thought it was unfortunate that we should have to discuss these matters on the Floor of the House, but he is now going into matters with which the comparability study is designed to deal. Which view does he take?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire pointed out that the debate had been arranged by the Opposition. I regret that we are debating the subject and that the Opposition have used a Supply Day for that purpose. However, when they have made that decision, it is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to suggest that those of us who believe that they should not have chosen this topic should stay away from the Chamber and sit in the Tea Room and watch the proceedings on the internal television sets. I have a right and a duty to speak on behalf of my constituents and those in the High Court, which is in my constituency. However, I take on board what the hon. Member for Ayr said.
We do not expect in this debate to settle the dispute, but I wish to put to the Government two points which I hope they will bear in mind when they meet the other side on Friday. I raised the question of back-dating during the Secretary of State's speech. If I caught him right, he made a fairly categoric statement that there was nothing to prevent back-dating and that he would expect it in the event of a settlement not being concluded by 1 April. It would be immensely valuable if the Government could make that undertaking plain at the next negotiating session. There may have been a misunderstanding, but those in dispute believe that the 1975 changes introduced by the Government prevent back-dating or, at least, leave the decision on backdating to the Government. It would be most valuable if an undertaking could be given on that aspect.
The other aspect that the Government will have to consider is that it is all very well for them to say that they will honour the PRU findings and that they will be staged from 1 April, but they also have to give some indication—by Friday, I submit—about the way in which increases are to be staged. We cannot expect the staff side to settle on that basis until it has some idea of when the percentage

317
increases are to be paid and how they are to be staged.
Having said that about the particular dispute, and taking the hint dropped by the hon. Member for Ayr, I should like to move to the wider issues. The House was created to debate and resolve the wider issues, and it is to them that we should address ourselves.
I regret that we have constantly been debating dispute after dispute in the past two or three months on a fire brigade basis of dashing from one dispute to the next. It is time that we, as a political entity, addressed ourselves to the central problem of how to achieve a workable incomes policy that is acceptable to the nation at large.
I have to say that I am regarded as something of a reactionary among my close colleagues in the Labour Party because I am prepared to countenance an incomes policy. It is a little misleading to suggest that recent disputes in the public sector have been the result of incomes policy. They have not. They have been the result of the evasion of incomes policy in the private sector. There cannot be one hon. Member who is not aware of what I mean. Any hon. Member who goes round the factories and industries in his constituency will know how the private sector has managed to evade the guidelines and norms of the past two years.
That was brought home to me particularly vividly at a large industrial concern in my constituency. I asked the personnel manager a year ago if that year's pay settlement would be 10 per cent. With a twinkle in his eye, he said that it would look like 10 per cent. That is exactly what happened. There were many settlements in the private sector which looked as though they were within the guidelines but which actually provided increases well in excess of them. One of the suspicions of the Civil Service staff side is that the PRU was suspended precisely because it would provide hard evidence that the pay guidelines were being evaded and circumvented in the private sector.
We have talked much humbug, inside and outside the House, about the virtues of self-financing productivity agreements not being inflationary, but such agreements are inflationary in the
318
longer run because we have to provide comparability for those who are not capable of negotiating a self-financing productivity deal. There is no way that senior officers of the High Court could negotiate such an agreement. There is no way that the nurses could do so. If we are to let some groups get through the guidelines on the basis of self-financing productivity agreements, we have a duty to ensure that comparability is maintained for those directly employed by the Government and who cannot negotiate similar agreements.
I recognise that there is no majority in the House for a central policy on incomes. One reason is that the Opposition are strongly committed against such a policy. In addition, there is little prospect at this stage in the life of this Parliament of getting such an agreement. However, in the long run, we shall avoid the process of dispute after dispute only if we get such a central policy. In the short run, we shall get a resolution of this and other disputes in the public sector only if we recognise that the private sector has got round the policies of the past two years and accept the consequence of that, which is that we must honour the relativities and comparabilities of public sector workers.
5.49 p.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made a wide-ranging speech. I agree with him that we must find a way of resolving the dispute, but I believe that he was wrong in making a blanket criticism of the Opposition for raising the subject. If Scottish Members cannot raise a problem of acute importance to Scotland on the Floor of the House, our Parliament is not the force that we all wish it to be. I am glad that the Secretary of State intends to introduce an emergency Bill later this week. He has been pushed into action at long last, and that is one indication of the value of this debate arranged by the Opposition.
Whatever the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have been doing over the past few weeks, they have given the impresison of great complacency in relation to this most important issue. They have given the impression of a great lack of foresight of the inevitable. They have taken little action and have shown no

319
resolve to find a solution to this industrial action. Even today we assume, apparently, that this action may be over in a week or two, but it might take months. I hope that the Secretary of State is working hard on contingency plans if that turns out, unfortunately, to be the truth. So far the Government have not backed the continuing excellent work of the police force by ensuring that the courts are open and that justice is being administered, and seen to be administered, for the general public. The law is being ridiculed.
We are well aware of the reasons for the dispute, even though we cannot accept those reasons. It is intolerable that any union should attack justice in Scotland. The basis of the disagreement seems to be founded on the procedures for determining Civil Service pay which were apparently agreed in 1974 and revised in 1977. We have been sent the details in a letter from the union. The Government refutes them, as the Secretary of State made plain this afternoon. The case for the Government was set out in a letter dated 28 February from the Minister of State, Civil Service Department. Both letters seem to be perfectly clear. It is up to the Government to recognise the misunderstanding. It seems that there is a major misunderstanding. It is the Government's duty to resolve it. This is a constitutional issue that has never previously arisen. No one condones a strike which so affects the public. I fear that many of those on strike are reluctantly taking part in it. They are only fulfilling the orders of their union as a last resort. It is sad to see responsible people put in that position.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State for Employment to visit North-East England at the weekend and highlight the success of the"concordat ", when justice is not seen to be working in Scotland. The Government must speed up the negotiations.
Let us look at the position in the courts. Many hon. Members have spoken of the problem. The High Court, the Court of Session and many sheriff courts are closed. Some, such as those in Dumfries, are proceeding under great difficulty and only as a result of the exceptional work by the sheriff, the sheriff clerk and the procurator fiscal.
320
The Minister said that he would bring forward a Bill this week and was anxious to hear from hon. Members about matters that he might include in it. Many share this doubt. There is uncertainty about the Act of Adjournal and Act of Sederunt. Does the Act of Sederunt overcome the three-year civil rule? I hope that that will be made clear in the Bill. Does the Act of Adjournal operate if cases are not called on a specific date? If the cases are not called, are they finished? I think that the Minister indicated that that would not be so. However, over the weekend there was doubt about this, and also about motoring offences. When licences have been forwarded to the court, they cannot be returned because the clerks have not been operating. Is the licence temporarily invalid if a date is fixed and the case is not taken on that date, when the licence has obviously not been returned? People are now asking about those factors.
All this is causing enormous inconvenience, expense and damage to the reputation of the courts of justice. For instance, the High Court was sitting in Dumfries in the week that the strike commenced. There were three cases. There were more than 100 witnesses. Only one case was called. The witnesses in the other cases were sent home, at enormous expense. Many had to travel over 100 miles. What did those witnesses think of the state of justice after all their efforts to attend and help the courts?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that there was no trial by jury. The Lord Advocate might clear up the point whether any trials are taking place anywhere at present. The sheriff clerk—I refer to Dumfries, where he has done excellent work—cannot man the court alone. Cases, if held, could be blacked. This state of affairs must surely be unacceptable to the Government.
Who decides which cases will be heard? Who decides which cases will be blacked and which withdrawn? It is most unfair that some cases may be heard and others may never come to court.
The Minister rightly highlighted the issue of the mounting backlog. I am told that in Dumfries there are 316 complaints in respect of which no dates have been fixed; 100 were fixed for 4 April, 71 for 6 April, and 52 for 11 April. Over 539

321
cases are outstanding at present, plus six jury trials. It will take years to catch up, when the situation is developing as fast as it is and getting blacker and blacker each day that the strike continues. How can the Government allow justice to be administered in such a hopeless and haphazard way?
I touch briefly, as the matter is sub judice, on the important issues relating to cases of terrorism. Obviously the longer these cases are withheld from the courts the greater the strain on the prison service which, naturally, has to treat those who are on remand with extreme security. I hope that this strain is not prolonged in a service that is already pushed to its limits and that the Lord Advocate will give some indication of when these cases will come to court.
Again, there is the issue of football hooligans. Some of these cases are held in district courts and others are held in sheriff courts. These cases deserve speedy justice, especially those of hooliganism and vandalism. The memories of witnesses and of those who are accused fade rapidly. Many people, including myself, believe that maximum sentences provide the only way to prevent the continuing intolerable behaviour of these hooligans. I hope that the Lord Advocate will indicate that these cases will be heard as speedily as possible, especially as we are coming to a period of exciting and important matches in the next few months, when we are always liable to have more hooliganism than at other times in the season.
The Government must accept that the courts are slowing down and are overwhelmed. The future holds disastrous consequences if speedy action is not taken within days. We shall all wish the Bill well and help its progress through the House. It is important that the Government are seen to be in control. Today and over the past few weeks that has manifestly not been seen to be the case.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. John Ovenden: It is with trepidation that any English Member of Parliament ventures into a debate such as this. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that this is simply a Scottish issue. It has wider implications,
322
in the light of the dispute in the Civil Service. I declare my interest as an adviser to the Society of Civil and Public Servants, which is one of the unions involved. That interest is known. It is declared in the register of interests in the proper fashion. I would take the same line on any public sector dispute, irrespective of my interest.
This has been a strange debate. I listened with great interest to Opposition speakers, especially the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), to try to discover the Opposition's line of thinking on this matter. All members of the Opposition who have spoken seem to be walking a tightrope. Every so often they tend towards verging on condemning the trade unions. They then step back to attack the Government. I am not sure what is their line.
I am also not sure of the thinking of the Leader of the Opposition on this dispute. In her own inimitable, simplistic fashion, addressing the Prime Minister, she said:
" Is he aware that we join him, agreement or no agreement, in condemning a strike that takes place before a current agreement has run out and while negotiations are still in progress? "—[Official Report, 22 February 1979; Vol. 963, c. 623.]
I regard the fact that we have not had quite that degree of condemnation today from Conservative Members as a step in the right direction. They are coming to appreciate that these disputes are not quite as simple as their leaders often try to pretend.
There is no argument in this Chamber, I am sure, about the seriousness of the industrial dispute facing the Scottish courts. Instead of bemoaning the problems and talking of emergency legislation, we ought to be addressing ourselves much more to the root cause of the problems. We ought to be appreciating the urgency of solving the problems involved in the Civil Service dispute. If we could get to grips with those problems we would not have the disruption in the courts and we would not be dealing with this issue of emergency legislation.
Both unions involved in the dispute have tried to act generally in a responsible fashion. They have taken extraordinary measures to protect the poor, the sick and the elderly from the effects

323
of the dispute and to make sure that the disadvantaged sections of the community receive the benefits to which they are entitled and do not suffer. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay tribute to them for the measures that they have taken in that respect.
In the Court of Session, the unions have agreed to some action which will ensure that claims for damages are not time barred. They have moved some way in that direction to try to help out in a very difficult situation. But there is a limit to the exceptions which can be made in any industrial dispute. There is a limit to the areas which can be exempted from any industrial action if that action is to have any effect at all and if the people involved are to make their point and express their feelings about the way they are treated.
I am sure that if the Civil Service dispute was having no effect at all we should not be here today debating it and we should not have had the meetings this morning between the trade unions and my right hon. Friend. It is the fact that the strike is biting that makes people sit up and take notice. It is a pity that we have to come to that, but that is the way in which things often work. Industrial disputes have to have some effect if they are to be noticed at all.
Conservative Members have said that it is permissible to hit at the Government but not at the community. That is the most pious of platitudes. How can one do it? Government exists to serve the community. The services which the Govment provide are for the benefit of the community. How can one disrupt the Government's activities, therefore, without damaging somebody, or without some people not getting the payments to which they are entitled, or not getting the refunds of money to which they are entitled, or not getting the treatment in the courts to which they are entitled?
As soon as one starts to hit at the Government, one hits at the community which the Government serve. Unfortunately, there is no way in which that can be avoided. Civil servants are justifiably angry, and they are trying to find a way in which to express their anger. They are angry over the shabby way in which they have been treated on their pay claim. They are equally angry over
324
the ill-founded abuse to which they have been subjected, both inside and outside this House, and over the distortion of facts which has taken place in this dispute.
It has been asserted in this House by the Prime Minister and others that the Civil Service dispute is in breach of agreements. The reverse is the truth. We are faced here with industrial action which is in defence of agreements, in defence of the pay research system accepted by Governments and trade unions, and in defence of the system of comparability which the Government themselves now regard as central to the solution of industrial problems in the public sector.
If we are to have any chance at all of getting public sector unions outside the Civil Service to have faith in the system of comparability and to let their claims be dealt with in that fashion, we must not allow that system to be undermined in the Civil Service by the Government not living up to their obligations. I hope that the Government realise the seriousness of the situation, not just in the Civil Service, but in the public sector as a whole.
The Pay Research Unit was reactivated by the Government last year, but the Government have so far refused to commit themselves to a settlement this year on the lines of the Pay Research Unit report if that report recommends in excess of a 5 per cent. pay guideline. The Government have shown their determination over recent weeks to use the cash limit system to enforce a settlement along those guidelines or otherwise to impose cutbacks in public expenditure to counteract any excessive pay claim.
We shall not reach a solution of this problem unless the Government are prepared to be much more forthcoming than they have been so far. Perhaps we have moved a little way this afternoon. It has been said up to now that trade unions should not take industrial action before their existing settlement expires. I understood that the problem involved was that of the implementation date and that if we did not get a settlement by 1 April the operative date of any settlement would be endangered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland seemed to be implying today that the Government are prepared to commit themselves to a

325
back-dating of the claim to 1 April, whenever a settlement is reached. He did not actually go that far. He said that he could see nothing to prevent such back-dating. He needs to go a little further than that and to give this commitment. If he sees nothing against it, I do not see why the Government should resist such a commitment. It would go some way to clear the air on that aspect of the problem.
The civil servants affected by the dispute feel that there has been a lack of urgency over the problem on the Government side. This is not a new problem that has crept up on the Government, appearing from nowhere—a problem that we did not know about months ago. It has been evident, even to the most disinterested observer, that this problem was inevitable from the day when the Government wrote 5 per cent. into their White Paper on pay, and from the day on which they reactivated the Pay Research Unit. It is evident to anyone with the merest smattering of knowledge on the subject that those two moves are not compatible. We all know that the Pay Research Unit will not arrive at a settlement below 5 per cent. We know that pay movements in the private sector have gone ahead of those in the public sector. We know that workers in the public sector have fallen behind. We know that any Pay Research Unit report is bound to recommend increases to put that right. It was inevitable that there would be conflict between the PRU recommendations and the Government's pay policy, and we could see it coming months ago, yet the Government seem to have dragged their feet in moving towards any meaningful negotiations to reconcile that problem.
On 6 February Lord Peart, the Lord Privy Seal, met the Civil Service unions. They met again, I understand, on 16 February and on 2 March, when Lord Peart authorised urgent discussions between Civil Service Department officials and the trade unions over the pay claim. Those talks have not really got off the ground, and they cannot get off the ground, for the very good reason that the CSD officials have no brief to work on because the Cabinet has reached no decision about its policy towards the implementation of pay research. The dispute cannot be resolved and there cannot be meaningful negotiations until the Gov- 326
ernment make clear the extent to which they are prepared to implement pay research findings from 1 April, until they make clear whether they are prepared to go beyond their 5 per cent. guideline, until they make clear whether they are prepared to go beyond double figures and until they make clear what proportion of the Pay Research Unit recommendations they are prepared to implement.
The Government must also be much clearer about the phasing of the remaining part of the settlement and about the implications for future pay settlements. We have been told today that the rest of the pay settlement would be phased over a period up to April next year, but the Civil Service trade unions will be due for another settlement from April next year. We shall then have another settlement to put into operation. What is to be the effect of the phasing of the 1979 settlement on the April 1980 setlement?
These are the questions which the Civil Service unions have been asking. They have become frustrated because they are unable to get the answers to those questions. Because they cannot get the answers to those questions, and because the Government will not commit themselves fully and the Cabinet will not reach a decision, there are no meaningful negotiations. The frustration of the Civil Service unions is showing itself in the actions which are being taken in the Scottish courts and in other parts of the Civil Service.
I understand today that the trade unions who met the Secretary of State offered to convene their executive councils immediately if the Government would authorise the CSD to embark on detailed negotiations. That is an offer which the Government cannot afford to refuse. If they are serious about tackling the problem, they ought to be prepared to give that commitment. The Cabinet ought, as a matter of urgency, to define exactly what is Government policy on this matter.
A great deal has been said in the debate about the conditions of civil servants. Not a great deal has been said by some Members about the worth of civil and public servants in general. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that in some Civil Service and public sector disputes he did not even notice when people went on strike. At

327
least that is not the case in this dispute. If it were, we should not be having this debate. Everything that has been said about the problems in Scottish courts points to the importance of the people who are involved in this industrial dispute. If we are prepared to recognise their importance by holding a debate when they are on strike, why do we not recognise their importance when they are working and pay more tribute to them then? Why do we not also recognise their importance and the value of their job by making sure that they get a fair deal in pay settlements and are not forced to take the action in which they are now involved?
Other comments have been made about the general pay level of civil servants. At least one Conservative Member implied that people should not get pay rises beyond a certain limit if they are already reasonably well paid. That is a strange idea of Tory Party pay policy. I hope that it will be expanded upon, because some of us may be prepared to go along those lines. We are talking about a settlement in the Civil Service based on fair comparisons. Those fair comparisons apply at whatever level in the Civil Service one discusses. If one accepts that there are differentials in the private sector, depending on the responsibilities that people bear and the skills they possess, that must be reflected in the Civil Service and the public sector where those differentials must also exist.
The comparisons must lead us to the conclusion that the same treatment should apply in the application of pay research to assistant secretaries, clerical officers and clerical assistants. If they are underpaid compared with their counterparts in private industry and other parts of the community, there is no way in which we can shrink from our obligations on the basis of the Pay Research Unit system which the Government and the trade unions accept.
It is not true that the vast proportion of civil servants are privileged people earning vast salaries. Some of them enjoy comfortable salaries, but I would not say that too many enjoy high salaries, certainly not compared with the extortionate salaries paid to many people in private industry for bearing far less responsibility. Of the civil servants in this country, about 300,000 in the grades rep-
328
resented by the CPSA—the clerical assistants and clerical officers—are earning less than £60 a week, which is the TUC's low pay limit. About 8,000 executive officers represented by the SCPS, earn less than the £60 limit. Those 8,000 executive officers hold responsible positions within the Civil Service and perform valuable work for the community. Some of them are graduate entrants to the Civil Service, yet 8,000 of them are paid below the TUC's £60 limit.
This matter must be put into perspective. When one talks about civil servants, one is not talking about a high paid elite, a band of permanent secretaries on five-figure salaries. One is talking about hundreds of thousands of people who do a valuable job for the community in DHSS offices, jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices. They do that job often for little more money than the people to whom they are paying out benefits. I was worried for a moment that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) might grab on to that as an argument for reducing social security benefits. In fact, it is a good argument for paying people the rate for the job and eliminating low pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central made a valuable point. He remarked that although this debate is about Scottish courts and their problems, it opens up a much wider field of incomes policy. One of the big problems in relation to incomes policy is what to do about low pay. That is an area to which we must address ourselves. The Government have a particular concern, because so many of the low-paid are employees of the Government and are their responsibility.
Many people working in the Civil Service are a party to the dispute that we are discussing. They look to the Government for a fair and just settlement. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance about the Government's attitude to the implementation of pay research, how far they are prepared to go towards a settlement on 1 April and what their proposals are for phasing. We might then be able to get the parties back round the table for meaningful talks and solve a dispute which is causing untold suffering in the Scottish

329
courts and in many other Government Departments.
The issue cannot be solved in this House by simply bemoaning the situation. It cannot be solved by condemning the people involved, as the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire was doing when he was tottering on that side of the tightrope. It is a problem that can be resolved only by putting right people's grievances. So often the Opposition in this House spend time condemning people involved in industrial disputes and dealing with the symptoms of our industrial and economic problems instead of getting to the core of the problem and sorting out how to ensure that these people get a better deal. Until we address ourselves to that problem, we shall solve not a single industrial dispute.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. George Thompson: Unlike other speakers, I have no personal interest to declare. I am not a lawyer. I have never been on strike either as a forest worker or as a teacher—or, indeed, as a Member of Parliament. I have never figured in any court proceedings. I understand that the two sheriff courts in my constituency are still functioning, although some of my constituents may be involved in the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
I should like to back what the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) was saying and also the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) about the need for the Lord Advocate to give a clear statement on this problem of back-dating so that no one leaves the House without knowing the Government's intentions. I was puzzled by a remark of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who seemed to be urging that people other than sheriff clerks might be called upon to function as sheriff clerks. I wonder whether this would not be a recipe for chaos. I should have thought one would require experts trained in the procedures to function as sheriff clerks. I hope I have not established too high an opinion of sheriff clerks. If the hon. Gentleman was right, it would indicate the I had perhaps had too high an opinion of them.
330
This is the only time in Scottish history that the supreme courts have been brought to a halt. It may also be the first time that it has happened to the sheriff courts, at least since the Middle Ages when certain noblemen were occasionally inclined to take the law into their own hands, notably in the old Stewartry of Kirkcudbright.
I draw the attention of the House to an editorial in The Guardian yesterday which said:
" In which Western European country has the machinery of justice virtually ground to a halt because of industrial action? The answer is Scotland, where the civil servants' strike has closed almost every court in the land. The fact that this has attracted so little publicity simply confirms for Scottish lawyers what they have always known: that Westminster has little interest in anything that happens north of the border."
At least the Government have been dragged to the debate today to discuss the matter. We should welcome that.
I welcome the legislation that the Secretary of State proposed. I am glad that the Government have yielded to good sense, although they have been slow in doing so. There is need for more activity than they have shown. I take the view that we ought not have strikes except as a last resort when all procedures have been gone through.
The lower end of the pay scale seems to require amelioration. I am not always convinced that amelioration at the lower end of the scale should necessarily mean an increase at the higher end to maintain differentials. I do not know how we can continue to maintain substantial differentials at the top of a pay scale when we are finding difficulties in producing the wealth that is needed to pay for them.
We have the 110-day rule, the six-month rule on summary procedures and the triennium in civil damages, but there is the difficulty that our legal system does not recognise amnesties. Many of the Roman systems recognise them and prisoners are released on such occasions as coronations and visits of important personages. In Scotland we would consider that procdure to be unfair. Therefore, it would surely be unfair if people were released with no procedures taken merely to lighten the burden of the potential backlog.
I apologise to the Secretary of State if he mentioned the matter to which I

331
now turn. I had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. There is a problem about the granting of legal aid certificates. I understand that certificates are not being granted at present. That means that trials are postponed and that lawyers who might be appearing for those whose trials are postponed are not even able to start preparations as they are uncertain whether legal aid will be granted.
What will happen when everybody returns to work? Obviously the strike is bound to end in time. I understand that there are about 5,000 or 6,000 persons awaiting hearings in the sheriff courts. The Lord Advocate knows from the many times that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has raised the issue that there have been problems at the sheriff court at Glasgow through the years. There is a backlog at that court already. What will the Government do when we return to normal to expedite the clearance of the backlog? Will more sheriffs have to be appointed, or will sheriffs be asked to work longer hours? What solution will be proposed?
The present situation, however it has been arrived at, is bound to have an adverse effect upon the ordinary citizen in Scotland. It appears to the ordinary citizen that in a certain sense law and order is crumbling in our society. Therefore, we must take action to restore the respect and esteem in which the Scots legal system and the Scottish courts are properly held. I should like to know what measures the Government will take to do that.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Iain Sproat: I had intended to make a peaceful and placatory speech to surprise the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grange-mouth (Mr. Ewing) and I still intend to do so, on the central issue of the debate.
My hon. Friends and I have found it surprising that throughout much of the afternoon and evening, during a debate central to Scotland, mostly only one Scottish National Party Member has been in the Chamber. When the Secretary of State made his announcement about the emergency regulations there was no SNP Member present. For the most part there
332
has been present only the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thomson).
Mr. Thompson Mr. Thompson rose—
Mr. Sproat: I gladly give way to the one member of the SNP who has been in the Chamber most of the time.
Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, as Mr. Speaker has on occasion pointed out, that sometimes an hon. Member has to leave the Chamber for a necessity that I should have thought the hon. Gentleman understood? There have been several of my hon. Friends on the SNP Bench during the afternoon.
Mr. Sproat: I was not referring to the fact that the hon. Gentleman left the Chamber briefly. I was referring to the fact that his hon. Friends hardly entered the Chamber. It is to that that I raise objection, especially as we have just had a gruelling three weeks on the central issue whether Scottish matters are debated sufficiently in the House of Commons. I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that the House is giving prime time to a Scottish subject. I hope that those in the Scottish media who like to spread misstatements that Scotland never gets a fair crack of the whip in the House—for example, newspapers such as The Scotsman—will report the fact fully and fairly in tomorrow's editions.
Mr. Douglas Crawford Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—
Mr. Sproat: No, the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for only the last two speeches.
I welcome the fact that the Government are now to bring forward emergency proposals. It is a pity that it has taken a debate introduced by the Conservative Party to make the Government do so. However, it would be churlish to do other than welcome the announcement of the emergency proposals. I appeal to those on strike to go back to work now that the emergenecy proposals have been laid before the House and now that they have had an assurance from the Secretary of State that any pay award will be backdated, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, to 1 April.
I should never seek to deny that those who have taken action have the right to

333
go on strike. I do not deny that many of them may have a good case for feeling that they are inadequately paid. I agree that we are not talking about sheriff clerks earning £10,000 a year. We are talking about those who have a good case. However, I am sorry that they seem to have been caught up in the general attitude of"strike first and negotiate later ".
They have a right, which they are properly exercising, to go on strike. The community must now consider whether the damage that has been brought about by the strike is not so great that in future those who are now on strike should be part of the community that has a no-strike contract and guaranteed build in increments in their pay scales. We cannot continue to have justice in Scotland brought almost to a halt over a pay dispute, however justified it may be. That is a proposal that I hope the Government, or the next Government, will consider. I hope that they will consider making those who are now on strike part of a no-strike sector of the community.
The present action has produced two serious results. First, it has produced delays. As the Secretary of State implied, justice delayed can mean no justice. Already delays in justice in Scotland are scandalous. The present action will greatly add to the present horrifying backlog. There are people in prison who may later be found innocent. Those people are being detained in prison for far longer than would otherwise be necessary. These people are certainly getting injustice.
I hope that the clerks will consider carefully the effect of their action, which is causing delays in the process of justice and keeping innocent people in custody. Over the past few years we have seen justice and the process of law and order brought increasingly into disrepute. That is not a party issue because it has happened during both Conservative and Labour Administrations.
Justice may not be crumbling as a result of the action that is now being taken, but its authority is being diminished. The dignity of the law is being lessened by the strike. However good a case on pay those on strike may have, I hope that they will consider the long-term damage that they are doing to the law in Scotland. I earnestly beg them
334
to reconsider their position and to return to work in view of what the Secretary of State has said.
6.30 p.m.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I declare a specific interest as a lawyer but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) I have a much more general interest as a member of the public. While many matters have been raised today, one matter transcends all others. It is that justice in Scotland has been suspended indefinitely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, justice delayed can be justice denied.
This is certainly a matter for the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said. It is extraordinary that on the very day when Scotland was voting whether it should have its own Parliament, in the old Parliament House all work had come to a stop. That was unsatisfactory.
The British trade union movement is intimately involved in this matter. Funds in excess of £1 million have been allocated so that the clerks in Scotland can stay out for a long time—in excess of three months, and possibly up to six months. It is fair to say, although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) is not present, that his constituent, Mr. Bonar, had the courtesy to speak to me this afternoon. As secretary of the SCPS branch of the Court of Session, he explained that if a guarantee of meaningful negotiations on the Pay Research Unit report was made the national executive councils of the CPSA and SCPS would be called to consider the request of the Secretary of State to call the action off in the Scottish courts. I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman considers that offer as a matter of urgency.
The hon. Member for Gravesend asked what is the policy of the Conservative Party. I can tell him in one sentence. Emergency measures are needed, and have been needed for some time. We are glad that the Secretary of State has promised to bring these forward. We should have preferred them earlier, because had they come then the need for retrospective legislation—which we dislike—would have been unnecessary. But we are glad

335
that he is introducing them, even at this late stage.
No hon. Member should underestimate the importance of what is happening. The Secretary of State is to introduce the legal equivalent of martial law. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, this is a serious matter. Every weekday throughout Scotland a large number of criminal trials come up for disposal. If summary criminal trials are not brought within six months they fall and cannot be revived. That means that the course of justice in Scotland is being interfered with. This strike has been going on for two weeks, which means that summary criminal trials, running into hundreds, have been lost. They have not been postponed, they have been lost altogether. Virtually no criminal jury trials have taken place anywhere in Scotland recently.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman said that he would say in a sentence what Conservative policy was. It appears that there should be emergency legislation. I should like an answer, in a sentence, to two matters. First, is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the Pay Research Unit settlement being implemented immediately without any phasing, as the unions want? Secondly, is he, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) saying that there should be a ban on striking in the public sector? Or does he agree with the surprisingly liberal view of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who would allow people to strike in this sector?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I start from an entirely different premise from that of the hon. Member. My premise is that the rule of law must be enforced, whatever the circumstances. I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman on his two questions, but I can satisfy him about what he said in his speech about the congestion in the Glasgow sheriff court. That congestion is so bad that something must be done about it. Even before this industrial dispute took place the procurators fiscal were working under intense pressure. Accused persons were facing up to five and a half months before their summary cases were brought to trial. Others were waiting for up to a year for
336
sheriff and jury trials because of the congestion.
The backlog of these cases will build up to an intolerable extent. Only last week the assistant procurator fiscal in Glasgow revealed that one out of five trials in the Glasgow sheriff court will not proceed even when the strike is over. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) said that that would be unsatisfactory. It is estimated that the number of trials that will never come to court in the Glasgow sheriff court has reached the astonishing figure of 150.
Mr. Ross Harper, the senior partner of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and former president of the Glasgow Bar Association, said:
" Petty crooks and thugs arrested by the Police are daily walking free from Scotland's strike paralysed Courts and are laughing at the Law."
That brings the law into serious contempt, and I ask the Lord Advocate to specify how many breaches of the peace will not be proceeded with. The secretary of the Police Federation in Scotland, Sergeant Joe Black, said:
" It is a piece of nonsense that people can escape from the Law because of action taken by Courts staff."
We shall look carefully at the terms of the emergency legislation to see whether something can be done about that. But the matter does not stop there. Cases affecting children are sometimes referred to the sheriff court for a ruling on the facts when there is a dispute. Many of these cases will become time-logged and be lost. This is unsatisfactory for social workers. There is anxiety not only that those charged with crimes may never appear in court but that some persons may be imprisoned indefinitely without trial.
We have no habeas corpus provision in Scotland. Instead, we have the 110-days rule in serious cases. That means that the trial must be completed within 110 days of the committal of an accused person for trial, or he or she must be released. We are very proud of this safeguarding of individual freedom, but under the Act of Adjournal, which deals with procedure, this rule can be extended by petition on cause shown. This has been done already in some 40 cases. The Secretary of State is absolutely right to bring

337
in emergency legislation, since it would be wrong to expect judges to keep people in prison on a semi-permanent basis as a mere procedural matter. The rights and freedoms of the individual are matters which must be dealt with by this Parliament. If those recently charged under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision) Acts, and those whose cases were to be called last week in the Glasgow High Court, are to be detained indefinitely without trial, that should be for the House to decide.
There is another clear example of the inescapable duty of the Government to act. I have given a number of examples. It is that no person who is charged with a crime and who is convicted in a Scottish court can go to prison until the clerk has signed an extract for the prison governor. No prison will take a prisoner until the clerk has done that. Clearly, under the law this must be changed. All these factors indicate the need for emergency legislation. In civil cases many actions for damages become time-barred if they are not raised within three years. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State has said that he will deal with this.
There are many other remedies which have been denied. No divorce cases are being heard, and no divorce petitions are being served. The payment of legal aid fees has stopped because the Scottish Office computer is not working. Companies against which arrestments and inhibitions have been laid have no means of recalling them. Inhibitions prevent proper title to property being established, and arrestment means the freezing of funds. A building firm might be unable to give the proper title to property because of an inhibition, and there is no way, during the strike, of recalling it. If someone dies leaving a will it cannot be confirmed in the commissary office because the staff are on strike. Because the will cannot be confirmed the property cannot be dealt with.
Many building society mortgages are being held up because title to a property cannot be recorded unless the deed has been stamped in the stamp office, where the staff are on strike. In those and many other spheres people cannot have recourse to their normal rights of freedom under the law.
Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Member has asked for emergency legislation which has already been promised by the Government. My hon. Friends and I listened with bated breath to hear whether the Opposition Front Bench is in favour of immediate implementation of the pay deal and of banning strikes in this area.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition are absolutely determined that the rule of law shall be enforced and that justice is restored. That is what this debate is about. If the hon. Member has representations to make on behalf of trade unions, he must make them to the Government. If the Government are to give way and surrender to what the strikers are asking for, why did they not do it a long time ago? This is the Government's responsibility, I have mentioned the offer made by Mr. Bonar, and the Secretary of State must deal with that.
Only the Government can ensure that justice is restored to the Scottish people. I shall ask the Lord Advocate four questions. First, will the Government introduce retrospective legislation which will protect the public against the complete absence of criminal justice? Secondly, has the Lord Advocate considered the temporary suspension of criminal jury trials so that alleged crimes are dealt with by a judge sitting without a jury, and thus prevent the breakdown of the operation of criminal law? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central deplored that possibility. Of course that proposition is horrific, but the alternatives are that accused persons will be held in prison for unacceptably long periods without trial or that a judge shall sit alone without a jury.
Thirdly, will the Lord Advocate introduce emergency legislation so that he can ensure, through his advocates depute and procurators fiscal, that the prosecution of crime will be resumed immediately. Fourthly, if any civil actions have been prescribed or become time-barred, will the Government introduce retrospective legislation to deal with them?
Another issue was alluded to in the excellent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire and by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).

339
It concerns the blacking of processes. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire used one example. I shall use another which appeared in The Scotsman on 8 March. Mr. John Ross, a member of the civil servants three-man strike committee, was reported as saying:
" The Strike Committee will continue in operation to consider cases of strike-breaking and black-legging. We will refuse to handle business initiated during the strike which could have been averted…Court staff would refuse to handle cases where small fines had been imposed. Civil actions which were proceeded with could also be blacked by staff."
Mr. Ross should be careful, or he may find that he is embarking on the dangerous course of inciting clerks to pursue their genuine grievance outwith the framework of the law. He would be advised to read the ruling given in the case of Her Majesty's Advocate v. Airs in 1975. Lord Emslie summed up the matter in one sentence when he said:
" Contempt of Court…is the name given to conduct which challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself, whether it takes place in or in connection with civil or criminal proceedings."
The courts obviously have a duty to preserve the impartial administration of justice. They cannot be indifferent to acts which undermine their impartiality and their authority.
In my work as an advocate and as an interim procurator fiscal I have found clerks to be extremely helpful and to be men and women of honour and integrity. Many of them have given a lifetime of service to the courts. I realise that they are certain that they have a genuine grievance against the Government, but I hope that they will pursue their complaint within the framework of the law.
The threats of blacking processes are a challenge not only to the courts but to the supremacy of Parliament. If implemented, they may be construed as perverting the course of justice, which is a serious offence. Many lifelong friendships are at stake as well as the community spirit in the courts, and also the rights and freedoms of all British citizens under the law.
I hope that the clerks will not allow themselves to be manoeuvred into sabotaging the rule of law. That is not in the interests of the courts, of Parliament or of the British people. If they
340
try to undermine our system of justice, sooner or later justice will prevail.
We shall not vote against the Government tonight. We have asked for emergency measures to be introduced as quickly as possible. We wish that they had been introduced sooner, but the Government have responded to our request, and when they introduce the necessary emergency legislation on Thursday it will have our support.
6.46 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the announcement by the Secretary of State of our intention to introduce emergency legislation to deal with this matter and for the promise of assistance in the House to deal with the matter expeditiously.
The debate has served a useful purpose. It has enabled hon. Members to consider all aspects of the problem. I shall attempt to deal with as many of the important issues that have been raised as I can in the time available. I hope also to reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) about the four questions that he put to me.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the pay range of those who are on strike. The salary range for a senior principal, at the top level, is between £9,059 and £10,809. At the bottom of the spectrum are clerical officers whose salary range is from £1,698 to £3,280. Obviously there is an intermediate hierarchy between those two extremes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked a number of important questions. He wanted reassurance about proceedings which were abandoned. He asked about the size of the backlog and about custody cases—an issue to which other hon. Members referred.
I answered a parliamentary question yesterday and said that about 230 cases have been abandoned. These cases will not be revived. The normal decisions which prosecutors have to make have been applied but in the unusual circumstances of a strike. I share the view of hon. Members that under no circumstances should the prosecution depart

341
from the ordinary canons which are used in deciding whether prosecutions should be brought, except when there is no way of avoiding that.
All serious cases such as those involving dishonesty and breaches of the peace will be brought to trial when that is possible. I go further: they will be brought to trial as soon as possible. I can go further and say that they will be brought to trial as soon as possible, and I shall amplify that a little later.
When one comes to the 231 cases or thereabouts where the matter has been abandoned entirely, I think it is right that I should take as an example Edinburgh sheriff court, where the biggest number have been abandoned. A very large proportion of those were road traffic offences; very nearly all of them were for prosecutions in regard to careless driving or something less serious than that. That is typical. We are concerned with really minor cases that nevertheless would take up time in the sheriff court.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: May we be given an assurance that none of the cases concerned relates to driving under the influence of drink?
The Lord Advocate: I can give that assurance, with one exception. The one case known to be abandoned in Dunoon was that of an American Service man who was due to appear in court on a drinking and driving charge, but he was also due to leave for the United States of America. The decision made was that in the broad interests of justice it would have been undesirable for him to have been kept in this country. I do not know whether the United States forces would have been required to detain him in custody, but it would have been necessary for him to be kept in this country merely for that purpose. The decision was made that that case should be abandoned. I think that that was a correct decision.
However, I can give the general reassurance that I think the hon. Gentleman requires, that no material case will be abandoned in this way.
As for the size of the backlog, I cannot give any reassurance to the House. In a parliamentary answer to which reference was made earlier, I have given an indi- 342
cation of the scale of the problem as it exists from when the strike began, less than three weeks ago. Some thousands of summary cases and some hundred or more of sheriff and jury cases are involved. Quite obviously, if the strike goes on for a material length of time, the number of cases that will be placed into the backlock will increase in proportion to the lapse of time. I cannot give any reassurance about it, except to repeat what I have already said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that these are not cases that will be abandoned; they will be postponed. Again, that will be subject to the normal discretion that the prosecutor has to exercise all the time.
I think I am bound to point out that one of the factors to be borne in mind is that where undue delay for one reason or another is already affecting cases, and if a delay of many months perhaps were to occur as a result of this strike, obviously in some of these cases one would be bound to reach a decision that the total delay would be so long that it would be unconscionable to press these cases any further.
However, I can give a general reassurance, not as to the size of the backlog, but that it is my intention to ensure that all of the cases in the backlog are pursued to prosecution where that is appropriate, in accordance with the normal canons. I shall deal with the mechanics of that, because hon. Members have pressed me to say how I propose to do it and how it can be tackled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gars-cadden made a third point, in regard to the 110-day custody rule. I think I can reassure him on this. In the emergency legislation announced by my right hon. Friend, we are seeking to take a power. Obviously, if one makes provision that during the period when the courts are not in operation detention that otherwise would count in the 110 days should not be computed for that purpose, it would mean—and I think the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) pressed the point strongly—that a number of people would be in custody for a period longer than they ought to be under the statutory provisions. Although that would be unavoidable, this power would not be exercised to the full. In no case would anybody be detained

343
under this power for any longer than was absolutely necessary.
A review has taken place since industrial action began and some of the 39 people who were in custody under the 110-day rule whose cases have been reconsidered have been released without condition at the moment.
Mr. Fairbairn: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate two questions. Will there be a power of appeal to any court if one can be convened against detention without trial? Secondly, when he says that in no case will a person be unreasonably detained, does that include cases of terrorism and murder?
The Lord Advocate: If I may take the second point first, quite obviously the question whether the detention of persons for a period is reasonable will depend primarily on the nature of the offence and its seriousness. Clearly, with the more serious offences, there will be no question of people being released from custody.
On the first point, I should make it clear, as has already been said by my right hon. Friend, that bail appeals are being heard. There is no reason to suppose that where necessary an appeal court could not be convened where an emergency arises. However, perhaps I may amplify these matters in a moment when I deal more fully with the question of the emergency legislation and its impact.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) expressed anxiety about another category of persons—and this relates to the point with which I have just been dealing—namely, those who at the end of the day are acquitted. They would have been detained under the 110-day rule in custody for a long period—obviously to their great prejudice. Those are the sorts of people who have to be kept very much in mind. When the Crown is reviewing the 110-day custody cases at present in detention, that is very much one of the matters to be considered. Clearly the seriousness of the crime has to be considered and the case against the accused. Those factors and many others that I have not time to mention are earnestly taken into account in reconsidering and reviewing the 110-day custody cases.
Before I leave the matter, I am bound to make it clear that the problem of the
344
110-day custodies is a cumulative one. Whereas about 14 of the 39 originally detained have been released, others are coming near the time when the 110-day rule will come into effect. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend and I feel that emergency legislation is now necessary. However, I can reassure the hon. Member for Pentlands that that matter will be very much in the minds of prosecutors when considering this.
The hon. Gentleman then raised two other matters on which I think I should briefly touch, because they were referred to by other Members, although perhaps not in the precise terms used by him. He seemed to take some exception to the members of particular unions picketing at the Court of Session. He seemed to indicate that those administering justice in the courts should perhaps not have the right to withdraw their labour. I do not propose to enter into that matter in any detail. I simply point out, as other Members have done, that it would seem rather anomalous to take the view that any one category of employees, as matters are at the moment, should be deprived of the rights accorded to other employees. It has been accepted generally—and the recent accord between the Government and the Trades Union Congress vouches it—that any means cannot be justified by the end. If the end is to achieve better conditions for trades union members, it does not follow that any means whatever can be used for that purpose. Indeed, that is one of the matters that is embodied in the accord between the Government and the Trades Union Congress.
Therefore, when one thinks of other unions that undoubtedly have the right to picket and to withdraw their labour, it would seem odd to exclude these unions from that and at the same time, presumably, exclude the sanction that goes with it—which must be that any means to achieve an end is not justified. Again, I think it is right to point out that in this case—and my right hon. Friend made it clear when he opened for the Government—we are dealing with a strike that is a United Kingdom strike where, on any view, a small minority of those involved are working in the administration of justice. There is an anomaly which those involved must face up to and answer according to their conscience. The anomaly is that in seeking just

345
remuneration they are bringing the whole machinery of justice to a standstill in Scotland.
May I turn to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden)—I think the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) also touched on the same matter—on the question of pay negotiations and the Pay Research Unit. Despite what has been said on the matter, I think it would be wrong for me to attempt to go beyond what my right hon. Friend said. He made clear the position that the Government take, and it is a reasonable position.
May I come back to a large number of questions which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) put to me. The Act of Adjournal and the Act of Sederunt have been of assistance, but both those Acts deal primarily with procedural problems—
It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 7 (time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL
[Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.1 p.m.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): With the House's permission, I should like to make a statement on the possible consequences of the House agreeing to any of the motions committing certain clauses of the Bill about to be debated to a Committee of the whole House.
I should make clear that my remarks are made only in my capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, charged with the duty of supervising the passage of Private Bills through the House. I have no views on the merits of the clauses in question or, indeed, on the merits of the Bill or of any Private Bill; nor do I want in any way to cast doubt on the right and indeed the duty of hon. Members, where they think proper, to intervene in
346
Private Business in protection of the public interest. The purpose of my addressing the House is merely to make clear what may be the consequences of its agreeing to motions committing clauses of Private Bills to a Committee of the whole House.
The treatment of Private Bills by Parliament has always taken account of the fact that, in the words of Erskine May, page 859:
" a Bill for the particular benefit of certain persons may be injurious to others, and to discriminate between the conflicting interests of different parties involves the exercise of judicial inquiry and determination."
The House has, therefore, always allowed the promoters of Private Bills to argue their case either, in the distant past, before the whole House at the Bar or, more usually and for greater convenience, before a Select Committee, and has given the same right to be heard to petitioners against a Bill or against particular clauses in a Bill. At the same time, the procedure of the House enables hon. Members, representing the public interest, to intervene and set aside arguments for or against private interests. Hon. Members can carry out this duty by rejecting a Bill on Second Reading, by giving instruction to the Committee on a Bill to amend it in specified ways, or by making amendments on Report.
By agreeing to the committal motions at present on the Order Paper, the House would be altering this balance in two ways, both of which I think are undesirable. In the first place it would entail providing a further stage at which the public interest alone is considered. This I believe to be unnecessary because, as I have said, hon. Members already have opportunities to impose their views on parties, by instructions, by new clauses or by amendments on Report.
In the second place, it would deny promoters and petitioners a right to be heard; unless at the same time the House reverted to what I would regard as the cumbersome and anachronistic procedure of allowing parties to be heard at the Bar of the House.
If the House were to decide to take these clauses on the Floor, there would be no real gain to hon. Members and the House would risk damaging the essential principles of Private Bill procedure which

347
are designed to protect that proper exercise of"judicial inquiry and determination ".
I should like to emphasise that I have addressed my remarks to the House solely out of a sense of duty as Chairman to appraise hon. Members of the difficulties which might arise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the"six months"amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). He has selected the first motion for an instruction in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), but not those in the names of the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement which has just been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means creates problems for hon. Members who have put their names to some of the motions on the Order Paper. They chose a procedure which is set out in"Erskine May"and appears to be perfectly proper and correct. It is now being suggested that it is not a proper and correct procedure. There is an alternative procedure, which is to move to delete the particular clauses. It is a little difficult for hon. Members who put their names to motions if there is at this stage a suggestion that the rules should be altered in such a way as to make it more difficult for representations to be made, particularly when we have no opportunity to table alternative motions to achieve the same purpose.
About a month ago when we dealt with the West Midlands County Council Bill we had a fairly lengthy Second Reading debate. A business motion was put down by the Government which enabled us to have time to debate some of the amendments. On this occasion, I understand that we merely have the opportunity to debate the Bill until 10 o'clock, with no further opportunity to debate it. I should like your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether, if by 10 o'clock we have not completed the debate on Second Reading and on the selected amendments, further time will be made available. If not,
348
may I ask why no business motion was put down on this occasion, as it appears that the Bill is being treated differently from the West Midlands County Council Bill?
Mr. J. W. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me, in the light of the statement that has been made, that the rights of Back Benchers might be curtailed in the future. In the five years during which I have been in the House, private legislation has been brought before the House in a manner to which some of us object. It is expected to go through on the nod as the norm, even though it may contain objectionable provisions.
We are seeking to stay within the rules of order laid down by the precedents of the House and to use the parliamentary procedures. It seems unfair that we should be criticised for using the existing rules and procedures of the House, even though the consequence of our doing so might be to cause embarrassment to and problems for the Administration. That is not our problem, and it is not our purpose to do that.
Our purpose is simply to achieve our objective, which is to make clear to the promoters that any Tom, Dick or Harry cannot bring forward to the House Private Bills and expect them to go through on the nod. That is our only objective. It seems unfair for someone to attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game. Some of us might be caught short because we have had no time to re-table the motions as we would have done had we received advice from the Chairman.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: With all respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), it cannot be said that the rules of the game have been changed, because there is no precedent in Private Business for motions to commit individual clauses to a Committee of the whole House. In the early nineteenth century certain Private Bills, but not single clauses, were occasionally committed to a Committee of the whole House, but there is no precedent for this procedure in the case of individual clauses.
I point out to the hon. Member for Perry Barr and the hon. Member for

349
Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that individual private Members have easy remedies in the business of procedure on Private Bills inasmuch as they can, if they so wish, reject a Bill on Second Reading, they can, by giving instructions to a Committee on the Bill, amend it in a specified way, which is the normal procedure, or—this is the final fallback position—they can make amendments on Report.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Nobody has greater respect than I have for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but may I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the fact that there is no precedent for a certain procedure is not synonymous with saying that that procedure is out of order? A procedure, action or statement is out of order only if it violates the Standing Orders of the House. With the greatest respect to the Chairman of Ways and Means, he has not adduced any evidence to show that the procedure which has been followed by my hon. Friends and myself is in violation of any of the rules and Standing Orders of the House. Nor has he identified, or sought to identify, which of the rules and Standing Orders we are allegedly in breach of.
To say that something is out of order because it has not been done before is, with the utmost respect—and I mean that—a total non sequitur. If we were to have an ipse dixit of this sort placed before the House, I believe that it would have been in accordance with the traditions of the House of always seeking to help one another if that ipse dixit had been uttered some days before we began our debate this evening.
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that without further clarification, evidence or argument there is nothing which the Chairman has said which indicates that the procedure we have followed is out of order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: May I add a further point to that of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), for whom I have the greatest respect? I hope that he will forgive me if I say that if he reads my statement he will find that I never used the words"out of order ". Indeed, there is no Standing Order in connection with what I have said. I am quite right, I
350
understand, that there is no precedent for individual clauses to be committed to a Committee of the whole House. With respect, however, I did not say that this was out of order.
As I said earlier, there was in the nineteenth century a method by which Bills were committed to a Committee of the whole House, and it was in connection with this, and the natural sequence of events if we accept that individual clauses were to be committed to a Committee of the whole House, that I drew the attention of the House to what that might entail. If one were to carry that through to its logical conclusion it would mean that I might well be put in the position where I felt I was obliged to provide a motion seeking leave for parties to appear at the Bar of the House, which I think would, in more ways than one, put the clock back and might not be entirely convenient for all hon. Members of the House.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am honoured to move this measure because it is a vital and important Bill, promoted jointly by the Merseyside county council and the five district councils within the metropolitan county of Merseyside—namely Liverpool city council and the borough councils of Knowsley, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral. The Bill has been introduced to carry out for Merseyside the rationalisation of local legislation which was generally commended to local authorities with the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. Section 262 of that Act provided, in the first place, for the continuance in each new local government area of the local legislation applicable to the old local authorities and, secondly, for the repeal of this legislation at the end of 1979 in the case of metropolitan counties, and 1984 in the case of shire counties.
In Merseyside our local legislation is set out in 300 local Acts and orders relating to the former county boroughs of Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bootle, St. Helens, Southport and Wallasey, and to parts of the former counties of Cheshire and Lancashire included within the boundary of Merseyside on local government reorganisation. Section 262(10) exempted from

351
that repeal certain enactments, including provisions relating to specified undertakings—for example, harbours, markets and public utility undertakings. However, it did not save from repeal provisions relating to road transport works and, in Merseyside, such provisions as the Mersey Tunnel Acts 1925 to 1972, which regulate tolls for passage through the Mersey tunnels, which will cease to have effect on 31 December 1979 unless steps are taken to re-enact or preserve that legislation, as is now proposed in the Bill.
The reason why this total reorganisation has had to take place was explained in Committee by the former Minister for Local Government and Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), whom I am very pleased to see in his place. He will understand, if I explain to him, that none of this exercise would have been necessary without his well-intentioned recommendation to local authorities to clear up local legislation. I think that his words explain what we are doing in this House. During the proceedings on the Local Government Bill he recommended this procedure, for the following reasons:
" This should cut out a lot of dead wood and greatly reduce the whole bulk of local law cluttering up the statute book—a tidying-up operation to the benefit of everyone. I am glad that we are taking the opportunity to do that ".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 March 1972; c. 2594.]
We on Merseyside are glad that we have the opportunity to do just that. This rationalisation has occupied, as I understand it, the work not only of those in the county council but of all those officials of the district council. The Bill before the House tonight represents five years' work by those officials.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Tory reorganisation.
Mr. Hunt: The cost, of course, has been considerable, and if this Bill were to fail—I find it difficult to contemplate that some Members would wish that it should—it would not just mean a direct cost of £¼ million which it has cost the ratepayers of Merseyside at present on reasonable estimates, but would probably mean a loss to the ratepayers of Merseyside of just under £1 million. Therefore, we are talking of a mammoth exercise which has resulted in the Bill before us.
352
How has this Bill been prepared? In Merseyside the county and district councils got together in the preparation of the Bill, covering the interests of all those local authorities, and submitted their proposals for consideration under the Private Bill procedure. We are considering that tonight. At this stage the House is considering whether the Bill should have a Second Reading so that the case for need on each of the clauses can be put to the Committee in the usual way on the Private Bill procedure, in the light of the evidence which the promoters wish to present.
In presenting the Bill for a Second Reading it may be helpful to those hon. Members who may know"Erskine May"from cover to cover if I say that I do not. I therefore took the opportunity to peruse"Erskine May"for a number of hours yesterday. I found that there was an important distinction—I may well be talking for the benefit of no hon. Member other than myself, but that is probably the best justification for saying what I am about to say—between the Second Reading of a Public Bill and that of a Private Bill. I quote from"Erskine May ", page 939, where it says:
" There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill: a public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded on allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee."
That is what we are considering on Second Reading. Obviously, the promoters have been aware that a number of hon. Members have spent a considerable time in researching the provisions of the Bill. Presumably that explains the presence of a number of instructions on the Order Paper.
I should like to refer to the contents of the Bill. In doing so I want to try to refer to all the instructions that have been put forward. Again, I stress that the Bill re-enacts existing local legislation, updating it and, where necessary, improving it. It comes to this House with the support of the county council and of all the district councils that I have mentioned, with no political party

353
having opposed any provision at the time of its passing. The provisions come before the House in that context.
The Bill was deposited in November 1977. I say this to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who said that promoters of Private Bills must not expect their legislation to go through on the nod. In my view it never does, and one cannot say that about this Bill, of all Bills, which has been seriously discussed in another place.
Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman was referring to my remarks in the context of another Bill—the West Midlands County Council Bill. When we originally shouted"Object"to secure a debate on that Bill, we were accused by Tories in the West Midlands of"butchering"their Bill and wasting all the ratepayers' money, whereas all we wanted was a debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with that Bill now.
Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman uses references that I made in respect of another Bill—and I accept that this is not the other Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman confines his remarks to this Bill?
Mr. Hunt: I hope—
Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member is in order in referring to the speech of another hon. Member on a previous occasion, surely it cannot be out of order for that hon. Member to reply to the reference?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was suggesting that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman confined himself to the matters that are before the House at the moment.
Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander?
Mr. Hunt: I spent some time reading through"Erskine May ", but I did not
354
find that reference. No doubt it is a very great help this evening.
We on Merseyside feel very strongly about our legislation. I hope that this particular legislation will not be confused with other legislation. I quoted remarks made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I now understand the context in which he made them, and I accept that. I hope, that he will accept from me that this Bill has been carefully scrutinised in another place.
It was originally deposited in November 1977, and at that stage it contained 165 clauses. They were subjected to detailed scrutiny. Certain clauses, which were common clauses, were opposed in the other place and were referred to a Select Committee, proceedings before which occupied 11 days. Other common clauses which were unopposed went before another Select Committee of that House and the proceedings on those clauses took a further 12 days. The proceedings on clauses in each of the Bills, which were not common clauses, extended over a further seven days. In addition, there was opposition in another place to those clauses relating to street processions. This was referred to yet another Select Committee, which sat for two days.
As a result of those proceedings, a number of clauses were deleted from the Bill and other considerable amendments made, including amendments to secure so far as possible conformity between the four county Bills which at that time were before the other place. Of course, there was also the carry-over motion on 1 August 1978, and the county Bills were introduced on 7 December 1978.
I think that hon. Members have had a considerable amount of time to consider the proposals, and to make their representations to the promoters. The Bill before the House comprises 144 clauses and five schedules. Of these, 23 clauses relate entirely to the Mersey tunnel undertaking of the county council, and a further 19 clauses are of a general nature providing procedures, savings or other special provisions, determining the scope, manner or application of the substantive clauses.
Part I of the Bill provides the interpretation. Part II contains provisions to which the promoting authorities attach considerable importance. They are the

355
subject of instructions before the House. This part of the Bill provides for Merseyside powers that are substantially similar to those that have been granted since 1972 in part III of the County of South Glamorgan Act 1976 and part III of the Tyne and Wear Act 1976. They enable local authorities to provide modest assistance to industry within the limits of their own budgets. Clause 4 would re-enact the provisions in existing local legislation to authorise the making of loans for the purchase of land, or for building purposes, whether or not the land is acquired from the local authority or is situated within its area.
Clause 8 authorises the local authorities to guarantee the payment of rent or other outgoings on industrial buildings. In part, this re-enacts and extends to the whole county provisions which are now in force in section 5 of the Lancashire County Council (General Powers) Act 1968.
The reason I mention this in such detail is that the attention of the House has been drawn to this clause by a notice for committal in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and other hon. Members. I therefore felt it right to go into some detail. Powers are also available in respect of commercial premises which fall within the definition of"industry"in the Industry Act 1975, which is applied for the purposes of the Bill.
I am not sure why the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has tabled this instruction. It may be that he is concerned about the overlap that there may be between other powers. Clause 5 is restricted in scope. In the other House, amendments were made which now mean that the making of these loans is restricted to small firms—defined as firms employing up to 100 persons—for the provision of machinery or equipment.
Notice is specifically given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) that the provisions of clause 5 should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. It is appropriate to mention that the proposed power is very similar to a power conferred upon local authorities by section 13 of the County of South Glamorgan Act and also by the Tyne and Wear Act. In the case of Merseyside, as I have already mentioned,
356
as a result of amendments made in another place, the power is now confined to assistance to the small firms that I have described.
Mr. Mikardo: Would it not have been useful had the same restriction been placed on clauses 6, 7 and 8?
Mr. Hunt: Clause 6 will enable local authorities to make grants to small firms in respect of interest on loans, loans made under clause 5 or loans made for the acquisition of land or for building purposes and grants to small firms in respect of site preparation or building works for industrial purposes. Notice to refer clause 6 to a Committee of the whole House has been given by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and other hon. Members. Similar provisions, although without restriction to small firms, were confirmed by the Tyne and Wear Act 1976.
Clause 7 requires explanation. It is subject to notice given by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The clause would enable local authorities to carry out site preparation or improvement work for industrial buildings. Again the powers proposed are instanced in the legislation that I have referred to. In Merseyside's opinion the proposed powers would fill a gap in the range of assistance provided by the Industry Acts and supplement the powers available under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978.
The Government's White Paper policy for inner cities stressed the role of local authorities in combating serious unemployment and promoting the idea that authorities should be anxious to play their part.
Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is right about clause 6, and I overlooked that. I am in favour of part II of the Bill. My local authority has similar provisions, and we use them to good effect. I am greatly involved in their implementation. But he has not dealt with my points on clause 7 and 8.
Mr. Hunt: I was about to deal with that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for spurring me on. The borough of Knowsley has one of the highest unemployment rates but is not designated as an area for special assistance under the Inner Urban Areas Act. That is one of the gaps

357
that clause 7 seeks to fill. Local authorities are able to assess the financial strength or prospects of a firm that may require assistance. That is restricted to small firms under clause 7.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Because we have put down clauses for debate, it does not mean that we are against them. We want to develop them and see that they are part of the national policy. There is an unfortunate practice for firms to say to local authorities that another authority will give them assistance, and there is a trade-off between one local authority and another. In my constituency there is a firm which has said that it has got this, that and the other from Merseyside. It does not want to leave Stockport, and it asks for better things from Greater Manchester to encourage it to stay. This leapfrogging should be carefully debated within a national policy. Within such a policy, Merseyside has one of the best claims.
Mr. Hunt:The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) starts by saying that he does not oppose the clause. He then proceeds with an argument in opposition. Finally, he says that he just wants to consider it carefully. He should consider carefully the serious consequences in Merseyside were the clause not to be passed.
Clause 7 will be carefully scrutinised in Committee, and the onus will be on the promoters to produce evidence to support the clause. If they cannot do that, the clause falls. That is Private Bill procedure, which does not appertain to Public Bills. The advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means was most helpful. We must be careful that we do not prevent people petitioning to the Private Bill Committee if we pass instructions for the debate to take place here. It is possible to raise the issues in a Second Reading debate, which is why I have raised them now.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: There are problems with the procedure of the Committees dealing with Private Member's business. Although it is not laid down, the convention is that a member must have no vested interest. A Merseyside Member or anyone else with an interest cannot sit on the Committee. But on the
358
industry clause it is difficult to find an hon. Member without an interest. The clause is conferring a privilege on one part of the United Kingdom at the expense of others. That sort of clause should be considered by the House in a full debate rather than by a group of hon. Members who are supposed not to have a vested interest in the clause.
Mr. Hunt: The independence of the Committee is in its favour. The debate on that clause should take place in debate on an Inner Urban Areas Bill or an Industry Bill, when matters are considered globally. In the Private Bill Committee the promoters must justify the clause for Merseyside, and the onus will be on them. I commend that procedure to the House. I hope that hon. Members will not seek to prevent the Second Reading of the Bill. On Merseyside we feel that these powers are vitally necessary to attract industry and especially small firms.
I am slightly at a loss in moving to part III. Attention has been drawn by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to clause 11.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and his party are in favour of grants and subsidies to industry? If that is so, he is running counter to what the Leader of the Opposition and the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) have publicly and frequently stated. Will he assure us that he at least in his party is in favour of the continuation of grants and subsidies to industry?
Mr. Hunt: I do not know what books or policy pamphlets the hon. Member for Ormskirk reads. The Conservative Party is in favour of grants and subsidies. On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I am in favour of the clauses. The hon. Gentleman is politically naive if he imagines that we are all baddies and Labour Members are all goodies. On Merseyside we favour these provisions. I do not want to enter into a party political debate, but the hon. Gentleman has grossly misrepresented the views of the Conservative Party on national policy. He has also laid an instruction on clause 11 in part III of the Bill concerning the provision of parking places in parks and open spaces for the use of persons resorting to them. I do not know whether he is opposing the

359
powers or whether he just wants them subjected to careful scrutiny. Most people in Merseyside visit parks by car. It is vital, particularly where there are sports facilities, that there are adequate parking spaces. That is why the power is needed.
Part IV of the Bill relates to highways and road traffic. Clause 12 includes a common clause to enable local authorities to provide facilities for recreation or refreshment in streets. I need not go through all the relevant clauses, but there is an instruction to ignore any provisions which do not re-enact existing law. It is a curious lacuna of the general law that there is no adequate provision for the numbering of buildings in the streets. The law on that is still under the Town Improvement clauses Act 1847. That deficiency is made good by clause 14.
Part V contains a number of provisions under the heading"Public Health ". On Merseyside we are particularly concerned about the problems of stray dogs in the port area. Merseyside is a sea port. It also has an airport. It is, therefore, desirable that there should be adequate powers to take effective steps in anticipation of the potential dangers of rabies.
Part VI contains 11 clauses relating to public order and safety. In clause 28 the promoters have undertaken to seek leave to make certain amendments, including one to reduce to a period of 28 days the time during which demolition may be delayed.
Part VI also contains clauses 33 and 34 relating to the byelaws on street processions, and the notice given of such street processions. Clause 33 would re-enact and extend to the whole county the powers that were first conferred in the Liverpool Corporation Act 1912 for making byelaws to regulate street processions. The occasion for that Act was the recommendations of a commissioner appointed to inquire into certain sectarian disturbances which had occurred at that time. Those byelaws are still in force and over the years they have established a practice and custom which the promoters of this Bill are anxious should continue. The byelaws are effective to protect the marchers, as well as to secure the orderly behaviour of all concerned. There is no record of any prosecutions ever having been made under these byelaws. The
360
promoters believe that this is a measure of their success.
The existing byelaws specify particular processions which are subject to closer control than others, including those held for the purpose of demonstrating against any form of religious faith or creed. Clearly, the detail of the byelaws may require reconsideration when they are submitted for confirmation by the Secretary of State, if clause 33 is allowed to pass.
Byelaws under clause 33 would also control the application in Merseyside of clause 34, which concerns giving notice of street processions. If this is allowed to pass, it will not come into operation in any district until byelaws have been made which are applicable in that district under clause 33. These byelaws would specify the processions to which the clause should or should not apply.
Clause 34 as it stands requires that any person organising or conducting a procession must give prior notice of that procession to the district council and the chief constable. In the Bill as deposited the period of notice specified is seven days, since this is the period of notice at present required in Liverpool. In Merseyside at present the police force is under strength and arrangements must be made in advance for the adjustment of rest days and other matters affecting the personnel of the force. The chief constable has carefully reconsidered the notice provision. To meet the points that have been made he has advised the promoters that, to be effective, the notice will have to be at least three days. This is a matter on which the promoters wish to give evidence in Committee.
Miss Jo Richardson: The hon. Member described the Liverpool Corporation Act 1912, and I got the impression that the byelaws applied to any organisation which wanted to hold a procession or a demonstration. Is there any restriction on the organisations concerned? Is there a list of organisations to which the byelaws apply, or do they operate across the board wherever there is a demonstration or procession?
Mr. Hunt: I was about to come to that point in referring to the byelaws. I have a crucial undertaking to give on that aspect.

361
It may help the House if I detail the way in which the promoters wish to pursue their case for this clause. They have authorised me to give a number of undertakings. First, in clause 34, they will seek leave in Committee to substitute three days' notice for seven days' notice. Second, they will seek to add a provision in clause 134, which deals with restrictions on the right to prosecute, to the effect that no proceedings shall be instituted under clause 34 except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Third, as provided in clause 33(5), there will be exemption for the Salvation Army. Fourth, the promoters will seek leave to add exemption for funeral processions organised or conducted by persons engaged in the business of a funeral director. Fifth, undertakings have been given to the persons concerned that provision will be included in any byelaws made under clause 33 to exclude, both from the byelaws and from clause 34, bona fide processions of the Church Lads Brigade, the Church Army or similar religious organisations, the Boys Brigade, and the Scout Association, the Girl Guides Association or their junior organisations.
The sixth undertaking is that byelaws made under clause 33 may specify the processions to which clause 34 shall apply. These byelaws are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State and there will be an opportunity for objection to that confirmation. A further undertaking will be given that a copy of any byelaws, when submitted for confirmation, will be sent to the secretary of the churches main committee for consideration.
The seventh undertaking is that the defence of due diligence provided in clause 137 will apply to clause 34. I have a copy of the byelaws. These byelaws have operated successfully on Merseyside. In 1977 there were 102 processions on Merseyside, of which 86 were organised by the Orange Lodge or similar organisations. Thus, hon. Members can see that processions are very much a feature of our life on Merseyside. I have just been handed more up-to-date figures for 1978, when there were 366 processions. Of these, 129 were connected with the Orange Lodge. Fifty were held in Walton, 34 in Garston and only one in Kirkby. I am advised that those
362
living in Kirkby preferred to return to their former homes in Walton and Everton to march there. These marches involve a great deal of police time, and this point has been put very forcefully by the deputy chief constable. To organise rest days and other important needs, the police must have at least three days' notice to make the necessary arrangements. That applies particularly to our big march on 12 July.
The eighth undertaking relates to the proviso that under the byelaws where the police authority is reasonably satisfied that it is impossible for the person organising or arranging any such meeting to give seven—as it was then—clear days' notice, it shall be sufficient for such notice to be given not less than one clear day before the date of the proposed meeting. Therefore, I am authorised to state categorically that it is the intention of the promoters to re-enact those byelaws and, in particular, that proviso.
I cannot give a definite undertaking that the rest of the byelaws will be re-enacted in toto. There are provisions that need up-dating. Under subsection (8) there is a categorical proviso that no person shall carry any lighted torch without the consent of the watch committee. There are other similar provisos which may have had relevance in 1912, but no longer do so.
Subject to the revision of certain byelaws and the addition to and consideration of the final list of processions, I am authorised to say that, so far as the promoters can control the actions of district councils, they intend that the byelaws, in substance and in principle, should be re-enacted.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been helpful for hon. Members to have had a draft of the byelaws? In my opinion, having carefully examined the Bills being promoted by county councils, the Merseyside ones are the most helpful. Those of us who have copies of the byelaws can see matters that save the worst features of the Bill, but there is no guarantee that they will be in the Bill. I appreciate the undertakings that are given, but it would have been helpful to see a model set of byelaws before the debate started.
Mr. Hunt: I understand that the byelaws were made available to members of the other place and were referred to there in considerable detail. If hon. Members had researched the matter they would have been able to obtain copies. We are dealing with private legislation. It is up to the promoters in Committee—having obtained conditional approval of the Bill—to make clear their intentions. If I have not done what the hon. Gentleman seeks, I hope that I have laid to rest at least some of his fears.
Despite the proviso of the Merseyside constabulary, they still believe that the normal period of seven days' notice is necessary. It is only to meet the points of hon. Members that they have been willing to undertake that three days' notice may be required. They hope that byelaws that have continued in force in Liverpool and other parts of Merseyside do not fall away at the end of the year and that the helpful practice that has been built up over many years and is now a matter of course—co-operation between the police and organisers of marches will not be lost.
It should be recognised that the provision is vital not only so that processions and marches are successfully organised, but that members of the public are adequately protected, particularly on the highway.
Mr. Rooker: I should like to raise a point that is relevant to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. On 15 July 1977 the Home Office commented in a letter to the co-promoters of the four Bills—I refer to the four Bills because of the common clauses—on the clause relating to the notice for street processions:
" Our main concern in considering clauses requiring notice to be given on street processions is that it should not impinge unduly on the traditional right of people to demonstrate, particularly spontaneously, if the occasion arises. Although this clause varies slightly from the corresponding provision in the County of South Glamorgan Bill "—
I understand that is now an Act—
" it seems unobjectionable, although the length of notice required is two days rather than 36 hours ".
How does it happen that, on that date, the Home Office wrote to the co-promoters commenting on the clauses referring to two days and 36 hours and not seven days? When was the provision for
364
seven days put into the Bill? I may be wrong, but it seems that, on the one hand, seven days has been put to the House and an objection has been raised and so we are offered three days, whereas originally only two days were provided for in the Bill. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could provide me with an answer.
Mr. Hunt: I shall ask for assistance in order to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point. Seven days was put into the Bill because it has always been seven days under the byelaws to which I referred. It is a re-enactment of existing provisions. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's query before I sit down.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman has said that the period of notice has always been seven days. As he well knows, it has not—at least not in my constituency. I agree that there should be co-operation with the police. That is an unexceptionable comment. However, I should like to be provided with strong grounds to show why it is considered necessary to extend the provision to areas in my constituency, for example, Kirkby, Rainford and Aintree. Those areas were not subject to the provision previously, and that has not led to difficulties in the past. There has always been an unusual degree of co-operation between those organising demonstrations and the police. Why has it become urgently necessary to make the provision apply to the parts of Merseyside to which it previously did not apply?
Mr. Hunt: In order to rationalise the legislation—that is the simple answer. According to the hon. Gentleman, notice is not necessary in Kirkby, but I find it curious that the marches do not take place there—only one has—and 367 take place elsewhere. I do not know the answer to that.
I cannot reiterate strongly enough that there have never been prosecutions for spontaneous marches. Hon. Members should realise that there can be technical infringements as soon as a procession is led through the streets. Technical offences such as obstruction are committed immediately. It has never been the intention of those in whom the responsibility for law and order on Merseyside rests to prosecute organisers of spontaneous marches who could not possibly

365
have given the necessary notice. That is why I had hoped that all the objections would have been met by saying that the final decision is to be left with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I should like to clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It arose out of documents that I sent to him today. In discussions that took place between my office and parliamentary agents some time ago, not on the merits but on the wording and other matters, the periods of two days and 36 hours were mentioned, but no time had been put in by the promoters. They had dealt with common clauses, and the figures were to be inserted afterwards.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his helpful intervention.
I do not want to take up too much time, but the hon. Member for Ormskirk was right when he said that there have been differing periods of notice in various parts of Merseyside. For example, in the Birkenhead area the period of notice is two days, in Bootle, Crosby and parts of Cheshire that are now in Merseyside it is 36 hours and in Wallasey and Southport, under Acts passed as long ago as 1927 and 1930, the period is 24 hours.
It was felt that in order to have legislation that applied over the whole of Merseyside we should not have a situation in which a march passing through different districts in the same county should be subject to differing provisions and differing byelaws. I hope that the Bill will rationalise the position and re-enact provisions that have been in force in Liverpool, with the period of notice reduced considerably to three days—with a 24 hour proviso also included—to apply over the whole of Merseyside so that everyone knows where he stands and the longstanding practices can continue.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am opposed to the whole principle of having to give notice, but I accept that what we are being offered is more acceptable than the original proposal of seven days. I also accept that if we are to have byelaws we need rationalisation so that they are common to the whole county. We cannot
366
have the anomalies that would occur if a byelaw applied to Liverpool but not to areas in my constituency.
However, if, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, there were periods of notice for Crosby, Bootle, Wallasey and Birkenhead ranging from 24 hours to two days and which, on the hon. Gentleman's testimony, were found to be satisfactory, why has it suddenly become necessary to change the period of notice from two days to seven days and back to three days? Why is a period of 24 hours not sufficient?
Mr. Hunt: When talking about the long-standing practice, I am referring to the position in Liverpool. I am a Liverpudlian and have lived most of my life in the city. I know the problems that we used to have with the Orange marches. They used to go past our house when I lived in Dingle. We now have a rationalisation which re-enacts and clarifies, over the whole area, the practice in Liverpool, where the vast majority of marches take place. That is the most sensible way of dealing with the matter.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will have the opportunity to outline the views of the police, because they feel strongly that what they have achieved in Liverpool must not be lost.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I was interested in the list of exemptions outlined by the hon. Gentleman, and I wonder how it was arrived at. In particular, what about the Woodcraft Folk?
Mr. Hunt: The list was put together after intensive negotiations and representations. I am not aware of representations having been made by the Woodcraft Folk, who sit on the British Youth Council of which I am president. I have not heard in that capacity that there is any problem for the Woodcraft Folk. However, now that the hon. Lady has raised the matter, I shall look into it with the promoters.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk mentioned provisions being"offered"to the House, as if some sort of trading were going on. I wish to make clear on behalf of the promoters that there is no dealing taking place. The promoters are concerned to keep Liverpool a safe place

367
for marchers and for the public generally and to re-enact provisions that have always been in force. There have never been prosecutions and I cannot remember any march in the past 10 years that has caused problems. The police are desperately anxious that they should be able to continue in that responsible way with the necessary preparations.
I have had a difficult task in speaking to so many instructions. I hope that I have gone some way on clauses 33 and 34 to meet the objections of hon. Members. The promoters and I are aware that we shall never get unanimity, certainly in the House, but I hope that there is sufficient agreement at least to allow the Bill to continue its passage into Committee, where the provisions can be examined in more detail.
I turn to the rest of the Bill, because it would be discourteous to hon. Members who have put down instructions relating to other provisions if I were not to outline the objects of the other parts of the legislation.
Part VII provides a code for the regulation of street trading in heavily built-up areas where it is considered appropriate to exercise such control. Attention was drawn by the hon. Member for Lewisham West (Mr. Price) and others to clause 40, which provides machinery for the designation of streets as either streets in which no street trading is permitted or as licensed traders' streets, that is streets in which markets are conducted by persons holding street traders' licences.
This is a topic which arouses strong feelings in Liverpool. Indeed, it was the subject of a local referendum—perhaps the first in this country—in which I remember taking place when I was a young boy. We believe that we now have the right formula.
Part VIII contains important provisions relating to fire precautions and other safety measures. There seems to be a welter of general legislation of great complexity, including the Public Health Acts, the Fire Precautions Act and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but the promoters believe that on Merseyside there remain a number of gaps in the general law which are met by certain existing local enactments that are reproduced in part VIII.
368
Part IX contains new provisions for Merseyside, to enable the fire authority to exercise a measure of control over the stacking of flammable materials, such as rubber tyres or paper, in the open.
Part X makes provision for the registration of night cafes and entertainment clubs for the purposes of securing the safety of persons visiting such premises and mitigating the nuisance that may be caused to adjoining property, particularly in the case of night cafes kept open for the supply of public refreshment between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Part XI makes provision for the licensing of premises made available for dancing, music or other public entertainment and for public boxing or wrestling. They are somewhat similar to the controls exercised by local authorities on cinemas and theatres to secure the safety of the public attending such functions.
Part XII contains only two clauses relating to finance, and I do not think that I need to mention more than that, but part XIII is an important part which would effectively consolidate, with amendments, the provisions of the Mersey Tunnel Acts of 1925 to 1972, under which the county council maintains and manages the Kingsway and Queensway road tunnels under the Mersey.
Part XIV contains miscellaneous provisions, and if any hon. Member wishes to raise questions on the two clauses dealing with taxis and private hire vehicles—I understand that the committal motion in relation to clause 112 is in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, North and that the motion on clause 113 is in the name of the hon. Member for Perry Barr—it would not be appropriate for me to go into great detail on the clauses at this stage. If hon. Members wish to raise any concerns, I hope that they will allow me to intervene in order to clarify any points that they wish to have explained.
Part XV contains a number of miscellaneous provisions which are applicable only to certain districts, and clause 144 provides for the repeal of numerous local enactments.
I should like to pay tribute to the large number of officials in the district councils and the county council who have spent a tremendous amount of time looking

369
carefully through all the existing provisions and updating them in the way that I have sought to explain. That work often does not receive commendation, but it has occupied a tremendous amount of time and I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to the officials for carrying out that work.
I have endeavoured to give a bare statement of the contents of the Bill, with particular reference to certain clauses to which attention is drawn in the motions on the Order Paper. I have explained that the Bill is required to deal with a number of miscellaneous clauses, some containing technical points, on which the general law is found to be deficient. It represents the local legislation in Merseyside for which the promoting authorities find a need. Under the Private Bill procedure the case of need for these provisions would normally be considered by a Select Committee. The promoters ask that they should be permitted to put their case for various provisions in the normal way. Therefore, in asking for a Second Reading for the Bill, I regret that due to the action of a number of members the local authorities on Merseyside spent hundreds of hours dealing with various points which would normally be considered under the Private Bill procedure in a Select Committee and which have already been considered in the other place.
I never criticise hon. Members for exercising their democratic rights. On Merseyside there are a number of important local issues, such as getting rid of our high unemployment rate, attracting local industry, reviving our inner cities, breathing life into Liverpool especially, and attracting small businesses and giving incentives to them. Those are the considerations upon which I should have liked the officials in local government on Merseyside to concentrate their attention. We want to bring industry and life back to Merseyside. I hope that after we have given a Second Reading to this vital and important Bill those officials, having clone a tremendous job of work, may now return to those much more important issues.
8.12 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral
370
(Mr. Hunt) on the comprehensive way in which he presented the Bill. However, I do not think that he was justified in some of his criticisms. When he referred to his researches in"Erskine May ", he spoke of the different approaches on Second Reading to Private and Public Bills. When a Private Bill deals with essentially a public matter that is of State interest, such as the maintenance of law and order in relation to processions, different considerations apply. When a matter of great general importance is included in a Private Bill, the Second Reading debate tends to follow what would be the appropriate debate on a Public Bill. However, I do not want to detract from the fine way in which the hon. Gentleman did his job on behalf of the promoters of the Bill.
I should like to deal with two matters that concern me. I refer to clause 34 and the references to the Liverpool Corporation Act, in part II, schedule 3 and schedule 4 to the Bill.
I deal first with clause 34. The arguments for this clause are essentially the same as those for deleting the clause for notices of street processions in the West Midlands County Council Bill. That clause was thrown out by the House. The West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire authorities decided to drop the requirement from their Bills. It is regrettable that the promoters of this Bill have not done likewise.
The promoters of the Bill have made great concessions and have come in a conciliatory manner to the House. The notice has been reduced from seven days to three. Provision has been made for a variety of street processions. The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required for prosecutions under this measure or for any attempt, incitement or conspiracy. Those are good concessions. However, that does not alter the fundamental objection to the clause.
Private Bills are not the place for public order legislation. The fact that there is this historical anachronism is no justification for continuing them. It is not enough for the promoters of the Bill to argue—as they do, for example, in paragraph 8 of their statement—that similar provisions are now in force in all areas

371
of Merseyside other than parts of Knowsley, St. Helens and Sefton, which were previously in Lancashire. If this House merely re-enacted previous legislation without examining its worth, we should still be hanging people for stealing sheep. It is as simple as that.
The promoters argue that existing byelaws have worked well on Merseyside. Nobody doubts that. They argue that they are generally recognised, not only by local authorities and the police but by the organisers of such marches, to provide a desirable element of control for the good of all concerned.
Let me pay a tribute to the record of Merseyside on marches. In my boyhood, when Liverpool was, to a degree, recognised as the capital of North Wales, the area was famous for its marches, which were always peaceful. We have a good record. Our record compares favourably with that of the West Midlands. There is an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc in the argument. In the same period, other big cities had no such byelaws and managed satisfactorily.
It is important to recall the words of Lord Scarman when he dealt with notices of street processions at the Red Lion Square inquiry:
" It cannot be said too often that our law assumes that people will be tolerant, self-disciplined and willing to co-operate with the police. The assumption is still sound: that is why the police go unarmed, and also why, with no legal requirement of notice, the police are notified in at least 80 per cent. of the cases."
Certain people in Liverpool have notified the police of marches. But other people in other areas, when there is no such requirement, also notify the police. It is not clear what this provision in the Bill is meant to achieve, unless it is aimed ultimately at only allowing demonstrations with police permission—which the promoters deny.
Lord Scarman went on to say:
" There are some who—law or no law—would never give notice; but they are on the very fringe of our society and should not, I suggest, force upon the law a largely unnecessary requirement, which can at times be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens. In the few cases where no notification is given the police have so far experienced no difficulty in finding out that a demonstration is planned. An effective demonstration needs a degree of advance publicity: the police are seldom ignorant of what is planned. I do not recommend, therefore, this change in the law."
372
He was applying this to the whole country, and especially to the situation in Liverpool. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is especially concerned, on behalf of the police, with those who intend to break the law. It is difficult to frame any legislation to deal with that. Although he was talking about proposed national legislation, Lord Scarman's arguments have even more weight in relation to this Bill.
0Under the Local Government Act 1972 we have a wonderful opportunity to sweep away all the obsolete provisions that exist in Private Acts covering places around the country and to replace them with something more attuned to modern conditions. It is not enough to argue that the provisions should remain because they have always existed and have always worked reasonably. It is highly undesirable that matters of public and general importance should be decided by local authorities promoting Private Bills. The powers of the police are of national concern, and should be uniform.
The hon. Gentleman argued that there should be uniformity throughout Merseyside. That was accepted by Government supporters. Let us enlarge on that argument. There should be a national practice in respect of this matter. If there should be uniform practice in Merseyside, why not throughout the country? It is wrong that these matters should be dealt with in Private Bills. If there is a case for notice to be given to the police and for exemptions to be made, it should apply to Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool—and even to Montgomery, although we do hold many processions there. The matter should not be dealt with under a Private Bill. Private Bills re-enact, often without thought, provisions that were made in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, when conditions were different.
If the House decides to carry out the Instruction in my name, it will not mean the end of public order on Merseyside. We already have a Public Order Act which covers the whole country. It deals with the civil laws of trespass and nuisance, which limit people's right to demonstrate, and to which the hon. Member referred. We have time to look at this matter calmly and dispassionately on a national scale, and that is an aspect with

373
which the hon. Member did not deal. If he is arguing—as he did cogently—that different parts of the Merseyside county should be dealt with in a particular way, why should that not apply to the country as a whole? It is an issue which goes to the root of the matter of law and order. If it is right that the police should have notice—this is disputed by Lord Scarman—surely there is a case for this to be applied to the whole country.
I did not understand the argument of the Home Secretary the other day when we were debating the West Midlands Bill and he said that although he would oppose such provisions in London, he did not oppose them in the West Midlands.
Mr. David Hunt: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for giving way. He said that Scarman disputed the fact that notice should be given. If I quote from paragraph 154 of the Scarman report, the hon. and learned Member will observe that Scarman said:
" Demonstrators should, whenever possible, give notice to the police and accept limits upon the time and routeing of their demonstration as a necessary condition for the protection of their right to demonstrate."
What we are saying on Merseyside, on behalf of the promoters, is, first, that the invocation of the Public Order Act 1936 has to be the subject of an approach to the Secretary of State for an order banning a particular procession. On Merseyside we are talking about continuing what has, in effect, been in existence in Liverpool and in the rest of Merseyside since 1974, although not in law. But I am informed by the deputy chief constable that everyone has observed this provision as if it were in operation throughout the area.
When the hon. and learned Member disputes our right to have this provision on Merseyside, we respond by saying that we have had it for many years in Liverpool, where most of the marches take place. Let us now re-enact it on Merseyside, because it works.
Mr. Hooson: Lord Scarman discovered that 80 per cent. of marches are notified officially to the police, in any event. I know that it is Lord Scarman's view that this provision is not necessary. It is a provision by which those who are preparing
374
lawful marches can cheerfully abide. It has no effect whatever in dealing with those who intend to break the law or to use a procession as a means of expressing violence in one form or another. If the provision is not necessary, why have it? I do not dispute that people on Merseyside have become used to certain procedures taking place and might continue to use them whether or not the provisions were enacted.
My quarrel is not particularly with the promotors. I take the view that the matter should be dealt with nationally. If Scarman is wrong in his view, the need for notice of processions should be dealt with by a Bill affecting the whole country. It is wrong for law and order provisions to be slotted into Private Acts, as they were in the old days.
Mr. Eldon Grffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying, with Scarman, that the vast majority of processions are notified voluntarily and that there is no problem in that respect. The problem arises in that small minority of processions where no notice is given, for the precise reason that those concerned desire to cause disruption. There is the rub.
Mr. Hooson: I understand that most troubles have been caused with properly notified marches which people infiltrate and use for a different purpose.
I want to deal now with the exemption which has been rightly given in the Bill for funerals. The greatest problem in the West Midlands was that caused by the funeral of an IRA bomber. It is impossible to legislate for that kind of thing. The provision is entirely cosmetic, and we should be having a debate on whether it is necessary to have this kind of provision nationally. It ought not to be brought in a Bill of this kind.
Mr. Reginald Eyre: I was not sure about the hon. and learned Gentleman's position concerning the difficult problem of funeral processions. Was he saying that they ought to be allowed?
Mr. Hooson: I think that the Liverpool promoters are right in exempting funerals from the provision. Nevertheless, there is the one funeral in a million which is used as a means of expressing a certain viewpoint and causing the kind of trouble

375
that the promoters of the Bill have it in mind to prevent.
I want to turn now to a different matter which I have been asked to raise. The Liverpool Corporation Act 1966 was promoted by the old county borough of Liverpool. Its aim was to authorise the lord mayor, aldermen and citizens of Liverpool to construct street works, namely, an urban motorway. The decision was taken at a time when such road building was still in vogue, before the calamitous results of similar schemes in other cities were perceived.
The Liverpool city council apparently does not want this road any more. Its policy and finance committee passed a motion urging the Secretary of State for the Environment to hold a public inquiry. It has even offered to pay half the cost. The city council passed a resolution last week opposing any inner ring road. But apparently the county council wants it, and, as the highway authority, seeks to gather up this Act under its wing through the County of Merseyside Bill, namely, part II of schedule 3 and schedule 4.
The county council is apparently presuming a 44 per cent. increase in motor cars in the city, yet there is expected to be a 24 per cent. drop in population. In the inner city, 270 acres already lie derelict. Much of the recent decay of the centre of Liverpool can be attributed to the proposals for this road. The Liverpool Echo suggested that if the road were built it would be like a Berlin Wall. The county council has changed the title of the road from urban motorway to inner ring road, but the effects will be the same. One thousand jobs would be lost if the project were to go ahead. The money could be far better spent on some of the other pressing problems which face the city.
The Liverpool Corporation Act was moved by the then city council. The present city council opposes it. Yet if these provisions for the county of Merseyside go ahead, it will be helpless. It is only right that it should have the right to decide to put an end to something that it originally promoted. Leaving out all references to the Liverpool Corporation Act 1966 in the County of Merseyside Bill will leave the decision to it. I hope that the Committee will look into this matter in much greater detail.
Mr. David Hunt: I am most grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman finished his speech, or is he giving way?
Mr. Hooson: As you rightly discern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have finished my speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) must be losing some of his energy. He spoke for only an hour this time.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am concerned about the major clause in the Bill on street processions. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) has performed a useful task. He has set out to establish that the problems of Merseyside are different from the problems contained in the other county council Bills. That is extremely important. A lot of negotiations, if we are not to use the word"dealings ", have taken place behind the scenes about this clause. Those negotiations had gone fairly smoothly. It was then suggested, at least by Cheshire and, informally, by the West Midlands, that they should have the same provision in their Bill as was put into the Merseyside Bill. That immediately presented difficulties for those people who were talking.
The Merseyside Bill is very different from the other Bills. Whatever conclusion is reached tonight, it should be firmly established that a difference exists in two measures. There have been powers within Liverpool, dating back to 1912, which were introduced mainly to deal with sectarian marches. Most of that problem, I would argue, has disappeared. But there is a case for saying that those problems did exist in Merseyside. Provisions were made to deal with them. On the whole, those provisions have worked without causing difficulty.
It is important that the House should recognise that this difference exists in respect of Merseyside. What is decided tonight should be seen clearly as applicable only to Merseyside. It should not be used by other promoters to argue that because the House has agreed this provision for Merseyside it should be extended to other parts of the country.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. I would like to get this clear on the record. Did he not make the point during the carry-over motion on 1 August last year that those who objected to these Bills wanted to separate and distinguish the Merseyside Bill? This point has been made throughout the debates on these Bills.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that. We also made clear in the carry-over debate that not only was there a difference in Merseyside because of the problem of the measures introduced for Merseyside but that there was also a provision in that Bill, but not in other Bills, for byelaws. Byelaws do a great deal to modify the original legislation.
I cannot find much evidence on Merseyside of any problem arising for any organisation within the existing law. It was interesting that the trades council and various other bodies were not actually aware of what the law said but had always given notice. They were acting voluntarily, not knowing that byelaws were in operation.
I should like to mention a case involving an organisation called"Reclaim the Night"which applied to carry out a march today. I can see good reason why the police did not want that organisation to be engaged in a demonstration tonight because a significant football match, I understand, is taking place in Merseyside. I can appreciate the difficulties that an organisation such as"Reclaim the Night"may have experienced.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend know what the organisation is?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, I do. I am trying to explain briefly. It is a women's rights organisation which has been worried that considerable parts of large cities have been areas where it has not been possible for women to go alone. That organisation is trying to demonstrate that its members should have the same right as anyone else to go peacefully about any part of a city. Their ideas are reasonable. I understand that similar demonstrations have taken place in parts of London and the West Midlands and that it was intended to carry out a demonstration in Merseyside tonight. I understand that the organisation was told that its demonstration could not take place. I can think of
378
good practical reasons for that decision. I should have thought that for the purposes of publicity, it could have picked a different night. This is the first example I have encountered where there appears to have been difficulties under these regulations.
Mr. Eric Ogden: I have been seeking information on the point my hon. Friend has raised. This may be the appropriate moment to mention it. The people concerned gave full notice of their intention to hold a procession and demonstration for their cause. The deputy chief constable pointed out the difficulties of night processions through those areas at that time. My hon. Friend has referred to other activities taking place. I understand that there was an exchange of ideas and differences of opinion and it was agreed that there would be a meeting tonight, which is probably now taking place in the Rialto in Liverpool, and that further discussions would take place between the chief constable and the organisation with a view to holding a demonstration that would be safer, more appropriate and more public than a procession at night. Negotiations have resolved the difficulty. There has been common sense on both sides.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I hope that both sides appreciate that free negotiations are taking place. I hope that I shall be assured that under the provisions in the Bill there will no police powers to stop such a demonstration if the organisers insist on it going ahead. However, I stress that there should be co-operation between those who want to hold a procession and the police.
We must ensure that there is a right to hold a peaceful demonstration even if the vast majority of society does not approve of the aims and objects of the demonstrating group. Although I object to the notice, I firmly believe that it is the duty of anyone organising a procession or demonstration to give maximum notice to the police.
I have continually stressed the provision that I should like to see, although I realise that it is difficult to insert it in legislation. I believe that the police should be given as much notice as anyone who is asked to take part in a demonstration. That seems to be the common sense

379
approach. If a person organises a demonstration and he wants to make it a large procession, he will have to issue handbills or send out advertisements. Before that process is started notice should be given to the police.
At the same time, it is important that if organisers want to give their supporters only short notice of a demonstration they should still be entitled to go ahead with the demonstration. Good examples are the demonstrations that took place during the Suez crisis and the Cuba bomb crisis. If there is another major international event, people may feel that they want to demonstrate quickly. In those circumstances three days or two days notice would be totally inappropriate.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is not there a practical problem? If, for example, two or three different organisations of opposite political ideological persuasions want to hold demonstrations with little notice, each organisation may decide to demonstrate in the same place. It is a difficult problem if they all want to have their demonstrations at the same time in the same place. If that is allowed to happen, it is asking for trouble. One of the arguments for notice is that it allows the police to enable each group of demonstrators to hold its procession in its own way without coming into physical conflict with other groups.
Mr. Bennett: I accept that argument. I shall deal with it later in my speech. I want to discuss counter-demonstrations and whether they should be encouraged or discouraged.
Mr. Ogden: I am informed by the deputy chief constable's office that as far as it is able to ascertain there were no spontaneous marches during 1978 within the area for which the Merseyside police are responsible.
Mr. Bennett: During that period it was illegal in most of the area, with the exception of the part of it that used to be in Lancashire, to hold spontaneous demonstrations, although it is my impression from talking to one or two shop stewards in the area that there have been several occasions when shop stewards have organised demonstrations outside a factory that have led to people marching to other factories. As I understand the legislation, that would be
380
illegal. It is said that the police exercise common sense and do not take any action. I do not think that that is right since it means that those groups which take no notice of the law get away with it and those people who abide by the law are stopped from doing something.
May I have an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that both under the Bill, and under the byelaws, there will be no power to stop a procession other than by the use of the Public Order Act 1936 provided that notice has been given? That is important. In the case to which I have referred the indications were that the demonstration would be stopped. I now know that it was held after negotiation.
The next matter concerns the spontaneous procession. It seems that that is covered to an extent by the byelaws. I wish the promoters could have provided us with an up-to-date copy, though I am assured that my copy is that from which the promoters are working. It is stated that the watch committee, which I now assume to be the police authority, can give authority for the short notice demonstration and that the byelaws can specify that one day's notice be given. Two questions need to be asked here. The watch committee has two jobs. It is supposed to look after the interests of the police and the demontrators. I can understand in this context the concern of a policeman who is told that his Saturday leave has been cancelled because a demonstration has been organised at short notice.
I wonder whether some body other than the police may be more appropriate to act as the arbitrator on whether a demonstration should be allowed to take place at short notice. If under the special provisions of the Bill a demonstration can take place provided that one day's notice is given—the provisions seem to cater for the spontaneous demonstration—can notice be given without specifying a time? That would mean that if an organisation wanted to have a quick demonstration the watch committee, or some authority delegated by it, could approve the demonstration without requiring notification in precise terms.
There appears to be a specific contradiction between the Bill and the existing byelaws. This involves the question

381
whether an organisation, or a person, should be held responsible for a demonstration. Clause 34 uses the words"no person"but the byelaws use the words"person, body or organisation ". The Bill suggests that one person takes on the responsibility for organising a demonstration or procession. It implies that a specific person shall be responsible for everything that happens on the march or demonstration. It would be fairer if that responsibility was shared by a corporate body because it is difficult for an organiser of a demonstration to accept responsibility for the behaviour of everybody who might choose to join in.
I should have thought that specifying a"person, body or organisation"is better than specifying a single person. That would be a substantial improvement.
There is a conflicting opinion about counter demonstrations. The police inform me that they prefer a counter demonstration to be organised for those who disapprove of the aims of a particular demonstration, than for them to stand on the pavement and shout abuse, or, as happens unfortunately on some occasions, hurl missiles at those who are demonstrating. The police prefer a counter demonstation to be kept apart from the original demonstration.
If one insists that notice is given and the organiser of a march give the minimum notice, it is impossible for another group to organise a counter demonstration. That means that there is no opportunity for people to express an opinion against those who are demonstrating. The only opportunity is for them to act in a disorganised way.
There have been many incidents recently when a counter demonstration to a main demonstration has been organised. When those two organisations have been kept apart—often with considerable difficulty—a correct impression has been created about the balance of opinion between the two groups. This has gone wrong when one group processes and another tries merely to disrupt that procession.
I realise that these are difficult matters for the police, but there are advantages in the counter demonstration or procession being properly organised. A provision for giving notice makes the organisation
382
of a counter demonstration difficult, if not impossible.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I see the force of the hon. Member's argument. Does he accept that the type of people who become most excited over processions and who stand on the sidelines jeering and occasionally throwing bricks are, by definition, difficult to organise? It would make sense if one could take the dissenters and put them together behind banners. But life is not like that.
Mr. Bennett: I accept what the hon. Member says. I was not suggesting that events are anything like as neat as that. But if one can find a focus for the counter demonstration it is less likely that people will go to the demonstration merely to be disruptive. When we remember recent demonstrations, we can see that many people strongly object to the views of certain demonstrators but they equally strongly object to violence. They need a peaceful way of expressing their views. Such people will be attracted to a counter-demonstration and prefer that to forming a crowd on the outside of the main demonstration.
Mr. Eyre: Does the hon. Member agree that the three-day notice would give time for the organised counter-demonstration of the peaceful kind of which he appears to be in favour? If he does not think that that amount of time is correct, how much time does he think should be allowed for a peaceful demonstration?
Mr. Bennett: I have obviously not made myself clear. Any time limit makes it difficult for a counter-demonstration to be organised. If the group organising a procession gives the minimum notice—whether it is three weeks or one day—the group which wishes to organise a counter-demonstration cannot give the appropriate notice. Often the group organising the original demonstration seeks publicity before it informs the police and that allows a counter-demonstration to be organised. But if the regulations are applied strictly, whatever the time limit, as long as the minimum notice is given, no other group can legally organise a counter-demonstration. That is one of the problems with any time limit that is included, although in this Bill it is circumvented to a certain extent by the provision in the byelaw which says that down

383
to a period of one day, given the permission of the watch committee, a counter demonstration may be organised.
We are told that a concession was given; that prosecution would take place only with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and also, I think, the fine would be reduced. I do not really see that as a concession, because I am not particularly concerned with those people who break the law. What I want to see is a law abiding society, and therefore I am particularly concerned with those groups of people who would not go ahead with the procession because they believed they were breaking the law. I am not so concerned with the group that would go ahead anyway and therefore might fall foul of the law. Although I see that there are some arguments for that concession, I do not think that it is a particularly useful one.
I should like to press the promoters of this Bill in this respect; if this debate is not concluded tonight and it has to be resumed on another night at seven o'clock, by then they could have their amended set of byelaws so that we could see available specific intentions in those byelaws. That would be extremely useful.
I must stress that I think it is very important that this House should protect the rights of the individual who wants to obey the law and to co-operate with the police. In my view, almost everybody on this side of the House has that feeling, and it is wrong to suggest that in opposing this we are in some way against the police. In fact, we are extremely sympathetic with their problems. What we want to see is a solution that does not cause them difficulty but preserves important rights that in many ways were established in this country at the time of Peterloo: the right to free assembly, the right to free passage through the streets, and the right to free speech.
There is a major objection to this type of legislation, and that is to bring forward a Bill of this nature that applies only to one part of the United Kingdom but has in it a whole set of measures that ought to have been dealt with as a national issue. That point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). If the question of processions is to be dealt with, it ought to be dealt with on a national basis.
384
As for some of the other clauses about which we have some queries, again it seems to me there is a very strong argument for them to be dealt with in national legislation and not piecemeal. Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 all deal with industry. I have dealt briefly with them, in an intervention, but one of the worst aspects of the aid to industry being given by local authorities is that it encourages individual firms to trade one authority off against another authority, simply to go round saying that those firms will go to whichever one of them offers the most aid. I think we can see the situation that has developed between countries over shipbuilding, where each country appears to be offering bigger and bigger subsidies to have ships built in their shipyards. It seems to me that a situation could develop very quickly in this country where local authorities would be vying with each other to offer better inducements for industry to go to their area.
I said in my intervention that I thought there was a very strong case for Merseyside to receive special treatment, and of course under national legislation it gets special treatment. But if I look through the provisions in some other Bills—certainly that of Greater Manchester; at the present moment Greater Manchester is asking for all sorts of powers to help industry—it seems to me that we ought to have national legislation on the amount of help that can be given by the Government or local authorities to industries to induce them to go to particular places.
We should agree national criteria as to why a particular area should be able to offer more or less favourable treatment and we should not leave it to local Bills when companies trade one local authority off against the other. In my view, there is considerable danger in having these sorts of powers vested in local Bills. A perfectly reasonable argument can be made for saying that some of the provisions taken out should be put back. Why should the provisions be confined only to small companies with fewer than 100 employees? What about the company that has slightly more?
Clause 11 deals with the provision of parking places in parks. This is an unfortunate development, and I understand that this is a common clause. In this society we tend to elevate the car to a

385
high position, but to give up one-eighth of the area of a park for use as car parking space is unreasonable. My knowledge of Merseyside is not sufficient to allow me to list all the large parks, but giving up one-eighth of the area of those parks to provide car parking space would change the character of the parks. People should be encouraged to walk rather than drive to parks. If we are to have car parking space in parks, that should be done by adding to the area of the park, not by reducing the area which is available for public enjoyment.
The Government should take a certain measure of blame for clause 23, which deals with the control of stray dogs. Since they received the working party report on the subject the Government have done little. Again, this is a national problem. There has not suddenly occurred a major problem in Merseyside. It would have been better to deal with the dog licence fee—which has not been raised for almost 100 years—and to grapple nationally rather than piecemeal with the question of stray dogs fouling the pavements and paths. I could argue about street trading, which is fairly controversial, taxis and the signs on taxis. All these matters illustrate the unsatisfactory nature of legislating piecemeal with varying provisions for each locality.
I hope that the House will give careful consideration to the passage of the Bill, having heard the Chairman of Ways and Means, who seemed to suggest that rather than use this opportunity to debate individual clauses on the Floor of the House we should vote against the Bill on Second Reading if we had a reservation about any clause. The House should be careful about giving the Bill a Second Reading without receiving more assurances from the promoters than we have received.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that the debate must finish at 10 o'clock.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I hope that I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) by saying that I go some way
386
with him in what he said about the need for a national approach to some of the problems contained in the Bill. But I disagree with him that the vast majority of the clauses can or should be dealt with on a national basis, that is to say, in the House of Commons.
The Bill is an enormous compilation of clauses, dealing with everything from the power to order the alteration in the size and shape of chimneys, to the control of rats and mice, the securing of unoccupied buildings, firemen's switches for luminous tube signs, false statements to obtain accommodation, and so on. It would be wholly wrong for the House to attempt to deal with this multitude of detailed matters which are at the heart of local government.
Having served as a local government Minister with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) I am clear about one thing, and that is that we need to delegate—indeed, perhaps I can say devolve—very much more decision-making in this House to our—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We shall have no referendum on that.
Mr. Griffiths: We need to delegate and, indeed, to devolve, to local government many of the things which are not strictly the business of Parliament and which are far better handled by responsible local authorities than they ever can be by this place. Parliament ought to have regard to major issues concerning the country. Certainly it is not for us to deal with mice or rats or, indeed, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North suggested, the fouling of pavements. I cannot think of a more distasteful subject to be dealt with on a national level.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in these Bills about three-quarters of the clauses are what are called"common clauses ", and are included in all the county council measures that are brought forward? If they are common clauses, surely there is an argument for having a national Bill rather than dealing with those matters in separate Bills.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has a point. As one who has been associated with local government at national

387
level, I merely declare that the best approach is to push more and more of the decision-making on local matters down to local government and not to gum up this place with various details of this type.
I am particularly glad to be able to say a few words about Liverpool. I grew up quite close to Liverpool, and I have an intense personal attachment to what is a wonderful city. I can remember, as a child in the middle 1930s, being taken to Liverpool to see the"Berengaria ". When writing the composition in my 11-plus examination, I think it was in 1935, I wrote about the view from the top of Lewis's. I remember what a splendid view it was—at that time. One of the wonders of the world to me as a child was the Mersey tunnel. To be taken through it was a remarkable experience.
Mr. Graham Page: What about the overhead railway?
Mr. Griffiths: Indeed, the overhead railway, as my right hon. Friend suggests, was part of one's youth. I feel an intense nostalgia for what was a splendid city.
Many years later, when I went to Liverpool as a Minister, I remember a very proud moment when I was played up the steps of Liverpool city hall by the police band. I felt all my youth coming back, and I felt intensely proud. At the same time, I am bound to say that, as this Bill clearly demonstrates, Liverpool is a city with grievous problems. There is dereliction, crime and unemployment, all of which stain the reputation of Liverpool.
I can recall that in Government we tried—as indeed the present Government are trying—to meet some of the problems of Liverpool. I remember going there on behalf of the Government and being able to provide to the Merseyside corporation substantial new grants for open space. We agreed to the new dock, the large and very important Seaforth dock. We were able to improve the River Mersey and lower the level of pollution. I mention these matters merely because here we have a Bill where the Merseyside county council is carrying forward a lot of good work to try to deal with some very difficult problems.
I want to deal primarily with the clauses that have attracted attention and which, if I am not mistaken, a number
388
of hon. Gentlemen would like to delete. I say at once that I find clauses 33, 34 and 35 very difficult. I find it hard to judge how best we should proceed. I have consulted the police service about this—the Police Federation, with which I have a connection and which I declare. I should also say to the Home Secretary that some months ago I spoke to the chief constable of Liverpool, for whom I have considerable admiration.
I should like to make a point about the police in general. In regard to public processions, the police are neutral. The fact that they happen to be protecting a procession of the extreme Left or extreme Right ought not to allow anyone to imagine that they are supporting that procession. I well understand that television very often gives the impression that the presence of the police alongside a march implies that they are in favour of it. That is absolutely not the case. The individual police officer, whatever he thinks of the particular procession that he is protecting, is required by his oath of office and by his duty to remain totally uninvolved politically.
Virtually without exception the police observe the oath of office never to become politically involved—to uphold the law without fear or favour, malice or affection. It is important to realise that it makes no difference to the police whether a procession is of the Left or of the Right. They are politically neutral.
The difficulty that I face in regard to these clauses is twofold. First, I do not particularly like legislation by exceptions. I listened very carefully to the list of exceptions, including the Salvation Army. I understand that in Committee there will be introduced exceptions in respect of the Church Lads' Brigade, the Boys' Brigade, the Scouts, the Girl Guides and a number of other bodies.
That is quite right. But I can imagine that still further bodies might like to be excepted. As a matter of principle, I do not like legislation in this House which is handled by exception. Sometimes it is necessary to do so, as we all know from long experience, but I have some reservations about the Bill, where one specific organisation—the Salvation Army—is mentioned and where a number of other organisations are to be imported in Committee. Yet we do not know how many

389
more—it might be the Conservative Party or the Labour Party—might want to be included. Therefore, I am not very keen on this method of procedure.
Similarly, I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about the need for a national approach. I think that the Home Secretary would probably take a similar view. The law is a seamless garment. It cannot differ from place to place. If we are to have effective enforcement, the citizen needs to know that whether he be in Liverpool or Bury St. Edmunds, Leeds or London, the law is the same and that the powers and procedures of the police are identical.
I have never favoured a national police service, but I am very much in favour of a consistent police service, which is recognised by the public to have the same powers, procedures and methods throughout the country. Unless one has that, one is destroying that invisible confident relationship between the police and the public that is crucial to their effective operation.
Mr. Ogden: Does not that also call for a condition in which the police forces in each area are equal? If conditions and laws are supposed to be equal, the strength of the police force in one area ought to be the same as that of another area. The difficulties in respect of Liverpool came about partly because we had the Liverpool and Bootle constabulary, whereas now we have the Merseyside constabulary. The traffic control conditions of a procession in Merseyside, where there is a shortage of men and where there are difficulties about changing shifts, are very different from Metropolitan London, where there is almost a reserve of manpower.
Mr. Mikardo: Oh, come, come.
Mr. Ogden: Groups of people are kept together for a particular purpose. I shall not specify that, although it is known to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). In that respect there is a kind of reserve in metropolitan London which is not available on Merseyside.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but he must not tempt me into discussion about the adequacy of police
390
strengths as between one part of the country and another. The Merseyside police have a shortfall in manpower, but the shortfall in the Metropolitan Police is even greater. The Home Secretary is the police authority in the metropolitan area, and he would not accept that there is a reserve in London that is not available in Liverpool. Both forces have problems. The manpower in the police services needs to be increased so that it can do the job. It is not fully able to do so in Liverpool at present.
Mr. Mikardo: I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the necessity for uniformity of standards. That point was put by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). But the necessity becomes greater when legislating by exception. It is difficult to justify exceptions in some places that do not apply to others. By what logic does one except the Church Lads' Brigade and not the Jewish Lads' Brigade or the Muslim Youth Organisation?
Mr. Griffiths: Although we have a gulf between us, the hon. Gentleman has exactly caught my thought. That is why it is objectionable to legislate by exemption, although from time to time it is the only practical way to proceed. That is the first of my objections. If I am allowed to get through my process of logic, I shall end up supporting these clauses, but I want first to illustrate my difficulties in getting there.
My second objection is that I would prefer the matter to be dealt with on a national basis. The present situation is a complete muddle. I have a list of the existing local Act precedents for provision to require notice of public processions, and it is extraordinary. Fourteen days' notice is required in Middlesex, seven in Edinburgh, three days' notice, excluding Sundays, in York and Bourne mouth, two days' notice, excluding Sundays, in Accrington, Llanelli, Birkenhead, South Shields and Aberdeen, 36 hours' notice, or by midday on the next day but one, excluding Sundays, for Ilfracombe, Clacton, Crewe, Redcar, Swinton and Bootle, and so on. It is 24 hours' notice excluding Sundays for Morley, Halifax, Rotherham, Tynemouth, Bath, Bolton and a large number of others. This is a muddle. We need to rationalise and tidy it up on a national basis. If the Home

391
Secretary had unlimited parliamentary time and draftsmen, I am sure that he would prefer some sensible amendment to the Public Order Act to achieve a consistent arrangement throughout the country.
These clauses I confess cause me problems. But on balance I favour their remaining in the Bill and the Bill proceeding, first, because we are living at a time of rising crime, increasing terror, grievous problems of public order and an undermanned and overstretched police service, and anything that would appear to weaken the powers of the police service to maintain public order should therefore be resisted. If the six clauses were struck out, that would weaken the ability of the Merseyside police service to cope. We must stand firmly with them and do nothing at this dangerous time to weaken the powers of law enforcement.
Mr. Rooker: Surely the Merseyside police force today is less under strength than it was when the Tories left office. Also, it has had a 10 per cent. increase in manpower in the past four years. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) thinks that this matter is so important that he has had to come here today and present the Police Federation brief, why did he not do the same for the West Midlands County Council Bill on 6 February? I am sure that the hon. Member has been told by the Police Federation to come along here and earn his corn.
Mr. Griffiths: I shall ignore that singularly cheap and uncalled for remark. Perhaps I should say, so that the hon. Member will know in future, that there is no Police Federation brief on this Bill. In fact, until this morning, when I spoke to a representative of the federation, it had not considered the Bill. The Police Federation is organised as a national body and its joint central committee would not usually deal with a local Private Bill. I am speaking tonight because I have knowledge of the Police Federation and of Liverpool, and because I have had some experience of local government when I served for four years as a Minister. Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his remark.
Mr. Rooker: All I asked was: where was the hon. Member on 6 February?
Mr. Griffiths: The Police Federation expresses no view on either the West Midlands County Council Bill or this Bill. I am expressing my view, which is no less significant than the hon. Member's.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: All that my non. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked was why, if the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) takes these matters so seriously—and he made some rather strange remarks about these grievous times and doing everything to protect the police—he was not here when exactly the same clause was under discussion and was debated and voted upon in the West Midlands County Council Bill on 6 February. Surely he felt just as strongly about that.
Mr. Griffiths: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) feels that it is so important for him to mind my parliamentary business for me. I shall conduct my affairs according to my own judgment. Perhaps he would be wise to do the same.
I turn to my other reason for believing it right that the Bill should stand as it is. I have already said that nothing should be done at this stage to weaken the powers of the police. I know that the chief constable feels strongly about this and that it was with some reluctance that he agreed to reducing the period of notice from seven days to three days. From a police point of view, that is a considerable concession. It is right that this House should not deliberately remove from the police powers which they think necessary for the maintenance of public order.
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether Liverpool is different from anywhere else. Perhaps it is. Historically it is different, because the original Liverpool police were given powers that were quite exceptional when compared with those of all other police services, save the Metropolitan Police. These powers were given mainly because of the port. The Liverpool police had some special duties to perform arising from the importance of the old port of Liverpool. These special powers were built in and continued.
Also, there are special problems relating to the annual parade of the Orange Order. That is an enormous event. In 1977 there were 102 separate

393
processions in the streets of the county. Of these, 86 were organised by the Orange Lodge or by similar organisations and 40 of those started in Liverpool. The 12 July parade starts in Liverpool and is usually about 4,500 strong, accompanied by more than 40 separate bands. It requires the regular deployment of about 600 police officers to secure the maintenance of public order.
No one disputes that the police receive regular notice of processions. The organisers let them know the routes that will be followed, the programmes that they have in mind and, generally speaking, there is a high level of co-operation. So much so that the existing local Act powers which are subsumed into the Bill have not been breached. There has been ready co-operation, for example, between the Orange Lodges and the Merseyside police, and I know no example of the fettering of impromptu processions. I do not like the word"spontaneous"because such processions are usually the most organised.
There are occasions when, although notice should and could be given, it has not been, and that is done with the precise intention that the procession should cause maximum disruption of ordinary life. Those occasions are rare, but they do happen and have led the Liverpool police to say that they think that the notification requirement is desirable.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If disruption has occurred, can the hon. Gentleman tell me on how many of those occasions prosecutions took place?
Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Bennett: Regarding the disruptions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, how many prosecutions took place where notice was not given?
Mr. Griffiths: I do not know whether prosecutions took place for failure to notify. I suspect that there were none, because the police are sensible in these matters. There were undoubtedly prosecutions against individuals who broke the law and caused mayhem. That is as it should be.
I should have preferred to see a national approach in the Bill. There is
394
a need to revise and bring up to date the Public Order Act. Just as a chief constable has to apply to the Home Secretary if he wants to ban a public meeting, so there may be a case for providing that he should come to the Home Secretary if he wants to ban a procession. That would be a national approach and it is one that I should adopt in any proposals for reform of the Public Order Act.
The reality is that we are dealing not with national legislation and the Public Order Act, but with a Private Bill brought in by Merseyside county council, because the local government reorganisation Act laid the obligation upon that council. The council carried out that obligation at great expense and with a great deal of thought.
The issue is simple. Are the objections that I have stated sufficient to justify throwing out the Bill? I do not think that they can be. I hope that the promoters have heard what I and other hon. Members have said about clauses 33, 34 and 35. I am sure that they will take notice of our remarks. However, that cannot be a reason for taking away from the police service powers that it has found to be useful and believes will continue to be useful. It certainly is not a reason to reject the Bill out of hand.
9.25 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): It may assist the House if I intervene at this stage to give the Government's view on clauses 5 to 8.
While the Government welcome the participation of local authorities in promoting industrial development in their areas and have acknowledged the role that they can play, we consider that public general legislation rather than individual local Acts should provide the appropriate framework for this work. We have said that we would be ready to consider proposals for public legislation to give local authorities powers in this area.
The fact is that additional powers taken piecemeal in local Acts serve only to distort the priorities set by the Government for giving assistance to areas of special need, including the assisted areas and the inner cities.
The Government do not wish to deprive the Committee of the opportunity to consider the arguments, but both my

395
Department and the Department of Industry will make clear in our reports our reasons for opposing those clauses which seek to extend the powers already held by local authorities in Merseyside. I would not wish to underestimate the importance that is attached to ensuring that existing regional and inner city priorities are maintained in this and other Private Bills now before both Houses.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Some of my observations on the Bill will be a little less than wildly enthusiastic, and on that account I have perhaps an even greater duty than I would otherwise have to add to the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) on his speech in moving the Second Reading. He had clearly done a massive piece of research and given a great deal of thought to the matter. He is particularly to be commended for the patience and courtesy with which he allowed himself to be interrupted so many times by myself and my hon. Friends.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman marred an otherwise splendid speech by a passage at the end in which he seemed to be rebuking my hon. Friends for having a careful look at the details of the Bill. He complained that, because of that careful look, some officers of the Merseyside county council were inconvenienced, had to do a lot more work and were not able to choose the work that they would like to do. The hon. Gentleman got his lesson in the facts of life from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
The obligation on the House to ensure that there is a real, exhaustive, bona fide, careful examination of all the matters that come before us is much greater in significance and much more important to the wider interest than is the personal inconvenience felt, and amount of overtime worked, by officers of the Mersey county council or any other local authority.
However, in spite of that marring of an otherwise splendid speech, the hon. Gentleman has served the Merseyside county council very well. The least that it can do in recompense is to give him the freedom of the county or, even better—and what I would prefer—a permanent season ticket to Anfield.
396
We have been looking closely at the Bill, and the hon. Member for Wirral should not reprove us for doing so. He must bear in mind that, in addition to the considerations put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the strange procedure that we have for Private Bills—a procedure rightly described by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery as archaic—ensures that the opportunity for an individual hon. Member to make his views known about the details of a Bill are much less than is the case under the procedure for Public Bills. That is why what could reasonably be objected to in the Second Reading debate on a Public Bill as being a matter for the Committee stage cannot be so readily or justifiably objected to in a Second Reading debate on a Private Bill.
May I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to suggest to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure that when the Committee has finished its current discussions it might take a little time to look at the strange and archaic procedure for dealing with Private Bills, which results in taking up more of the time of the House than is necessary, a great deal more trouble and expense for Bills' promoters than is necessary, and which at the same time does not provide all the opportunities that should be provided for a careful consideration of what is proposed?
The sponsors of the Bill are not responsible for the nonsenses of our procedure. We should not treat the Bill in a hostile way on that account. I put that suggestion to the Minister as I am sure that a proposal or hint from him to the Chairman of the Select Committee would go much further than one coming from me or any other Back-Bench Member.
I shall not intervene in the discussion that was initiated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and continued by my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port, North (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) about clauses 33 and 34. I refrain from doing so not because I am not interested in the provisions of and the problems which arise from, those clauses—indeed, I am interested in them—but because I am much less qualified than the three hon. Members whom I have mentioned and many others to deal with the matter. I am sure that there are

397
others who can pursue the complexities of that part of the Bill very much better than I can.
I wish to direct my attention to a few other points. In reply to the observation of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I say that neither my hon. Friends nor I want, in the least, to prevent the Bill being enacted. We think that it contains many good features and that it is a desirable Bill from many points of view. If it comes about, because we are carefully probing the details of the Bill, that it does not prove possible for us to reach a conclusion on Second Reading tonight, that does not, by any means, kill the Bill. It provides an opportunity for further reflection about some of the difficulties which manifestly exist. Anybody listening to these proceedings for the first time tonight without any prior knowledge or parti pris in advance could easily have understood from our speeches that not all is shipshape and Bristol fashion and that there are some things which need to be looked at a little closely.
In my judgment, it would not be a tragedy if it were necessary for the Bill to come back—I hope with no undue delay—because that would give time for reflection and for the sponsors to consider what has been said and, where they think they have good answers to objections which have been raised, to make those answers known to Members of the House.
In particular, I reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port, North that, if that does come about, in the short intervening period the sponsors should make available to us the bye-laws which are referred to in the Bill and which, as hon. Members have said, make the Bill different in a very important respect from some other rather parallel ones that we have had before us for consideration, and which, on the whole, are very much to be welcomed. We should know better how far we could go in welcoming them if we knew precisely what they were. At the moment we do not.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The real difficulty is that although most of us have been able to get a copy of the existing byelaws, what we should like is a draft of those byelaws which the authority would submit
398
to the Home Secretary if the Bill went through with the two clauses in it.
Mr. Mikardo: I had appreciated the difficulty, which my hon. Friend mentioned, of having to work from byelaws that were promulgated in 1912, which is a fair old time ago, and before most hon. Members present here this evening were born. I was born a few years before that, but very few other hon. Members present here tonight were born in 1912.
There is no guarantee at this moment that the byelaws which the county council would promulgate if the Bill were passed would be those byelaws, or anything like them. They might be the same, although I should have thought that if it were the intention of the county council that they should be the same it could have saved a lot of time by telling us so. But equally, and more probably, they could be very different. They might be more lenient in some respects, and they might be stronger in some respects. They would have to contain all these exceptions which were reeled off by the hon. Member for Wirral, and perhaps some others as well.
I have already pointed out, in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, that there are some obvious incongruities in those exceptions. We really ought to have a look at them and see what they are. If the county council is saying to us"Do not worry, chaps. All your fears will be allayed, all the doubts you have expressed will be resolved and all your sleepless nights will become as sweet as honey because we shall get rid of your fears by promulgating byelaws ", we had better not buy a pig in a poke. We had better see what they are.
Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend speaks of sweetness and light and of milk and honey. No one is more disarming—and dangerous—than my hon. Friend when he is indulging in sweetness and light and being most reasonable. I happen, with other Merseyside Members to have been deeply involved in this matter since November 1977, and we appreciate that the heart of the objection is clause 34.
Each time some of us make a move towards the opponents of clause 34, whether on seven days or three days, another demand is made; another territorial claim and another statement is put forward. In

399
August, on the carry-over motion, no request was made by anyone for copies of tie byelaws. In all the discussions, until yesterday, there were no requests for copies of the byelaws, probably because there are no model copies of the byelaws. Now hon. Members say"As a further concession we might give you the Bill if we had a copy of the byelaws ". I am only asking my hon. Friend, in the same reasonable way as he approached this matter, to consider the difficulties of those who have persuaded the county council to make many concessions over the Bill. So far at least some of my hon. Friends are not able to support us.
Mr. Mikardo: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. He must not talk about our saying"We will give you the Bill if…". We have no powers to give the Bill. The Bill is not within our gift. Nor is the withholding of the Bill, if there is such a thing, within our gift. I said at the beginning of my observations that none of us is opposed to the Bill. I intend to talk about other clauses, apart from clauses 33 and 34. We believe that some parts of the Bill are ill-considered. There are quite a number of clauses and subsections—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: There may not be a possibility for someone like myself, representing a Merseyside seat, to make clear on the record my reply to the kind of allegation made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who seems to regard this patchwork approach to legislation as undesirable. So do I. In that case, there is a strong argument for taking this clause out of the Bill. After all, the West Midlands Bill has already been through the House, and by a decision of the House a similar clause was taken out. The hon. Gentleman did not know that He thinks that this issue is important, but it was not important enough for him to be present for the West Midlands Bill, or even important enough for him to be here to vote against the deletion of that clause.
I want to put on record that I do not want to see the Bill defeated. Everything in the Bill is acceptable and, in many cases, desirable. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) has made conciliatory, constructive and helpful proposals. But there are certain proposals in this clause
400
which particularly affect my constituency. In one half, the Ormskirk half, no notice will be required for a demonstration or procession. In the other half, affecting people in Aintree, Kirkby, Lydiate and Rainford, no notice is required at present, but under the Bill notice will be required. This is an anomalous situation. My constituents in the same party, or members of the Conservative Party, within the Ormskirk constituency, can organise a demonstration in Ormskirk and not have to give notice—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The Chair is getting alarmed at the length of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I did not think that the Chair had noticed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair temporarily may have been thinking about other things, but the Chair turned back and found the hon. Gentleman still on his feet.
Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend for his brief intervention. What makes me particularly grateful is that it eases my conscience a little. I am well aware that I am speaking on a Bill that is of more direct and immediate interest, on the face of it, to hon. Members for Merseyside constituencies than it is to me.
My justification for intervening and for considering the Bill closely is based precisely on the reason that was advanced so well by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, namely, that these matters have repercussive effects, one on another. Provisions, for example, about aid to industry, which were spoken about by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, are of great interest to all inner city areas, including the borough that I represent, which is working closely on such matters. There is considerable general interest well beyond the boundaries of Merseyside.
Mr. Martin Flannery: There are other Bills—for example, the South Yorkshire Bill, which I shall not refer to in detail—that have similar provisions. We have had discussions about seven days' notice and relaxation to three days' notice. I am confused, and I hope that my hon. Friend will

401
give me his opinions. Why should there suddenly be a relaxation from seven days to three days? That implies that seven days' notice was not important. There is a saving clause—I do not know whether this features in the byelaws—that allows for spontaneous demonstrations. Most strikes and many demonstrations happen spontaneously. It would De a violation of democracy to prevent that happening. Will my hon. Friend drag together the diffused arguments and try to explain to me why there is such tremendous variation? In one Bill we find one provision, and in another Bill there is a different provision. In one Bill there is provision for seven days' notice, and in another there is provision for three days' notice. It is most confusing.
Mr. Mikardo: I hope that my hon. Friend will acquit me of any discourtesy if I resist the temptation to reply to his intervention.
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: If my hon. Friend had been in the Chamber earlier—I say that in the greatest kindness—he would have heard the explanation. Is it not correct to say that Merseyside Members, in conjunction with the metropolitan council and others concerned, have had concessions made which, as I understand it, satisfy Labour Members of the Liverpool area?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: No.
Mr. Crawshaw: If that is not correct now, it was correct when there was the relaxation of notice from seven days to three days. That is why the concessions were made. The seven days' notice was preferred, but concessions have been made that will satisfy the genuine concern felt by hon. Members about these propositions. I thought that I would get that in as it is obvious that I shall not be called to speak in the debate.
Mr. Mikardo: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has canvassed all the Labour Members for Merseyside. I very much doubt whether there is unanimity among them on the provisions in the Bill.
It is the County of Merseyside Bill, but because of the commonality of causes in so many Private Bills these matters are for the whole House to decide. That has been said this evening over and over
402
again from both sides of the House. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) should say, even if he knows, which I am sure he does not, that all Labour Members for a certain area take one view. It should not be implied that that means that every other hon. Member has to fall in line with that view. However, I wish to move on as there are a number of provisions in the Bill on which I wish to comment.
Mr. Arthur Latham: Is my hon. Friend of the view that, apart from it being wrong that Merseyside Members alone should decide the issue—I know that that has not been suggested and that we have not reached devolution for Merseyside—there are important implications for other parts of the country? In London, for example, we are concerned that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is asking for greater police powers. The enactment of any measure such as the Bill now before us might be an encouragement for him to press for greater powers, which many of us are reluctant to see introduced. Is he also aware that for the first time in many years the Commissioner, who comes from Scotland, has sought to impose a partial ban on the London Labour movement holding its traditional May Day march by altering the line of route against all past traditions and all practices of previous commissioners? Has it not got to the stage where groups of non-Londoners can come to London and impose unacceptable conditions?
Mr. Mikardo: I agree that the decision of the Commissioner about the May Day procession was beyond any conceivable justification. I say to my hon. Friend what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—that I have laid upon myself a self-denying ordinance about clauses 33 and 34. I dearly want to talk about something else, and I wish that my hon. Friends would not stop me from talking about something else.
Miss Richardson: I do not want to stop my hon. Friend as I am sure that he has much to say about the other clauses, but since clauses 33, 34 and 35 have been referred to by other hon. Members will he comment on the fact that, whether or

403
not there is dispute between those Members who represent the Liverpool areas, there is a considerable body of opinion within Liverpool which does not welcome them? The president of the Liverpool trades council has written a letter to the legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties in which he says that he opposes clauses 33 and 34 because they are unnecessary and represent a limitation on democratic rights. He says that they are against the interests of trade unions and community organisations. He points out that as a matter of courtesy and convenience local organisations which are mainly trade union and labour movement bodies, advise the police, but they see no need for a statutory requirement.
Mr. Ogden: If my hon. Friend will allow an intervention on an intervention, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will also confirm that in the evidence given to Merseyside Members by the district Labour Party it used the phrase
" clauses for which there is no stautory provision "
when there had been statutory provision for exactly the same clauses on Merseyside from 1912. If the district Labour Party does not know the laws under which it operates, it does not know the facts and why should we justify its conclusions?
Mr. Mikardo: My two hon. Friends in their respective ways have merely confirmed that which I hazarded a guess a few moments ago, namely, that there is no more unanimity in Liverpool about this matter than there is in many other parts of the country. Liverpudlians are a lively crowd and they tend not to agree with each other about anything. I have heard some dispute as to whether Anfield is a more pleasant part of the city than Goodison. I even know some Liverpudlians who do not think much of the Beatles, so there is no reason to suppose that they will be unanimous about this.
Now, please, may I do what I have been trying to do for the last 10 minutes and say something about part II of the Bill, on which I ventured an intervention when the hon. Member for Wirral was moving the Second Reading, and on which he kindly and courteously gave way? I am not very happy about part II
404
of the Bill. I made a mistake about clause 6 and I apologise for that error.
Mr. David Hunt: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman in that I may have misled him over clauses 7 and 8. They do not apply to small firms. Clause 7 authorises a local authority to carry out infrastructure works for any industrial undertaking, and clause 8 authorises the guarantee of rents for any industrial building. I hope that that puts the record straight.
Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I was about to make the same point. Clauses 7 and 8 could be used for the benefit of powerful companies which should not be financed at the expense of ratepayers. The hon. Member for Wirral said that local authorities can always judge whether there is a genuine need, but I have some reservations about that. Governments of both major parties have made grave misjudgments about whether a putative recipient of public pay really deserves it.
I am not against the proposals in part II. In Tower Hamlets we are seeking to do exactly that. I am much involved in the work of assisting small companies in this and other ways. I am the chairman of the Tower Hamlets centre for small business which exists to encourage and strengthen small businesses. I do not have to declare an interest because it is strictly an honorary office.
Clause 5 and 6 are fine in their support for small firms, but I am worried about whether clauses 7 and 8 can provide benefits for companies which are not deserving recipients of largesse from the ratepayers. I am also worried about clause 9 when taken in conjunction with the other clauses. It states:
" This Part shall cease to have effect at the end of 1984."
Let us suppose that on 31 December 1984 a project for assisting a company is in midstream. Let us suppose that the company has made dispositions which depend upon that project and upon assistance from the county council. Let us suppose that a local authority is undertaking building for the benefit of that company, that there is a bit of slippage in the programme and that on 31 December 1984—a date pregnant with significance—the building is only half completed. The council would then have to stop building

405
under the terms of clause 9. That example induced me to say earlier that parts of the Bill have not been thought through.
I turn to clause 36, which worries me. It gives powers to a police officer to search any person who may be reasonably—
Mr. David Hunt Mr. David Hunt rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 55.

Division No. 90]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Alison, Michael

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Nelson, Anthony

Armstrong, Ernest

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Neubert, Michael

Arnold, Tom

Glyn, Dr Alan

Newton, Tony

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Goodhart, Philip

Ogden, Eric

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Goodhew, Victor

Onslow, Cranley

Awdry, Daniel

Goodlad, Alastair

Page, John (Harrow West)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Banks, Robert

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Bates, Alt

Grieve, Percy

Percival, Ian

Bell, Ronald

Griffiths, Eldon

Perry, Ernest

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Grist, Ian

Pink, R. Bonner

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Blaker, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Raison, Timothy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hannam, John

Rathbone, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Brittan, Leon

Hawkins, Paul

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Hayhoe, Barney

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

Rhodes James, R.

Brotherton, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hordern, Peter

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Ridsdale, Julian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hunter, Adam

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Buck, Antony

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Bulmer, Esmond

James, David

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Cant, R. B.

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

Sainsbury, Tim

Carlisle, Mark

Jessel, Toby

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Jopling, Michael

Shepherd, Colin

Churchill, W. S.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Silvester, Fred

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Judd, Frank

Skeet, T. H. H.

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Spence, John

Clegg, Walter

Knight, Mrs Jill

Stanbrook, Ivor

Cockcroft, John

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, John

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Coleman, Donald

Lawrence, Ivan

Stradling Thomas, J.

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Le Merchant, Spencer

Tapsell, Peter

Cope, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Costain, A. P.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Cowans, Harry

McCartney, Hugh

Tebbit, Norman

Crawshaw, Richard

McElhone, Frank

Temple-Morris, Peter

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Macfarlane, Neil

Tinn, James

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Dewar, Donald

Madel, David

Trotter, Neville

Doig, Peter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marten, Neil

Waddington, David

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mates, Michael

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mather, Carol

Wells, John

Dykes, Hugh

Mayhew, Patrick

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Whitney, Raymond

Elliott, Sir William

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wiggin, Jerry

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mills, Peter

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Farr, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Winterton, Nicholas

Fell, Anthony

Moate, Roger

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Monro, Hector

Woodall, Alec

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Montgomery, Fergus

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Younger, Hon George

Ford, Ben

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Fox, Marcus

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Neave, Airey

Mr. Anthony Steen.

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Buchanan, Richard

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Beith, A. J.

Buchan, Norman

Clemitson, Ivor

Corbett, Robin

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spriggs, Leslie

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Stoddart, David

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McKay, Allen

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Flannery, Martin

McNamara, Kevin

Tierney, Sydney

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Madden, Max

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Forrester, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Ward, Michael

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mikardo, Ian

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Grocott, Bruce

Newens, Stanley

Whitlock, William

Hardy, Peter

Noble, Mike

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Heffer, Eric S.

Parry, Robert

Woof, Robert

Hooley, Frank

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Young, David (Bolton E)

Hooson, Emlyn

Richardson, Miss Jo

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Lamond, James

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr. J. W. Rooker.

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Sedgemore, Brian

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.
Read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Capital Gains Tax Bill [[Lords], the Agricultural Statistics Bill [Lords], the Wages Councils Bill [Lords] and the Electricity (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]

ADJOURNMENT
Proposed proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed.
It being after Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.14 pm
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates provisions relating to capital gains tax in the Finance Act 1965, in subsequent Finance Acts and in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. The Bill is pure consolidation and makes no changes in the present law. However, an opportunity has been taken to correct some small inconsistencies and obscurities in the existing legislation.
The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has examined the Bill with its usual exemplary thoroughness. It has become almost common form on these occasions to pay a tribute to the Committee's industry and learning, but that does not render it any less merited. In its report to this House the Committee was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and represented the existing law. It adds that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
The House may be relieved to hear that I propose to adopt that comforting counsel. If I may do so within the rules of order, may I spare the time of the House by saying that these remarks apply equally to the next two Bills?
10.14 p.m.
Mr. Daniel Awdry: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for his very kindly remarks. I think that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills fulfils a very useful function, and I hope that its work will continue to flourish and expand.
It may save the time of the House if I confirm that this Bill is pure consolidation and that that also applies to all the other Bills before the House tonight. From the Opposition Front Bench, may I say that we welcome the Bills and that we have no objections to raise.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Sanding Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

WAGES COUNCILS BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put

411
forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
10.20 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I beg to move That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation measure that incorporates amendments to give effect to certain recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. They deal with matters that do not affect the main purpose of the Electricity (Scotland) Acts. It consolidates a number of enactments relating to electricity in Scotland. Apart from the amendments that remove certain anomalies, as I have already mentioned, the Bill makes no change in the existing law.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. Hon. Members will recollect that its proceedings were reported to the House by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awday). They indicated that there was no point to which the attention of this House should be drawn.
Mr. George Younger: I welcome the Bill. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for his statement that it does not involve any change in the law. I should like his assurance that consolidating these various electricity enactments into one Bill in no way alters the separate entity of the two Scottish electricity boards, that they are as separate after the Bill as they were before, and that their relationship is as clearly spelt out in the Bill as it previously was. Concern about this has been expressed from time to time over many years. It should be clearly put on record that that in no way changes the position and that the boards remain separate.
The Lord Advocate: There are the small anomalies which I mentioned that have been removed as a result of recommendations by the Scottish Law Commission, but the Bill does not change the
412
thrust of the Electricity (Scotland) Acts at all.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 31 January be aproved.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
  Question agreed to.

TRAFFORD (URBAN AREA ASSISTANCE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]
10.24 pm
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to air the difficulties confronting the borough of Trafford, and in particular Trafford's exclusion from aid under the Inner Urban Areas Act. On Friday 9 February the Under-Secretary of State visited Trafford to see the problems of the authority. I think he will agree that although we live north of Watford we are civilised, we were friendly, and I think he was impressed by the case that was put to him. In the town hall afterwards he stated that Trafford was a borderline case. He also said that care must be taken to see that whatever jam there was was not spread too thinly. That is all very

413
well for areas which getting a share of the jam, but it is of no comfort to Trafford, which is getting nothing.
Neighbouring authorities, such as Manchester and Salford, benefit substantially from the Inner Urban Areas Act. Why should an adjoining area within the Trafford boundary be excluded? In my constitutency, which is in the south of Trafford, we have the Broadheath industrial estate, which is the only significant source of employment in the area. It employs 8,500 workers, but since 1971 more than 2,000 jobs have been lost on the estate. At present there are 216,000 sq. ft. of vacant industrial floor space on that estate, but most of this requires refurbishing if it is to be successfully marketed. There are also 30 acres of available industrial land where expansion and development have been impeded by inadequate infrastructure—particularly sewerage and drainage facilities.
To try to improve the situation the Broadheath joint consultative committee was set up. This committee consists of employers, representatives of the trade unions and Trafford councillors. Any help that we could have obtained from the Inner Urban Areas Act would have been more than welcome, but it seems that the Government are not particularly interested.
Trafford's main claim to aid under the Act is based on conditions in the northern part of the borough, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the end of the debate. In this part of Trafford, adjoining Manchester and Salford, the problems are virtually the same as in those other two areas. The only difference is that Salford and Manchester receive substantial Government finance to cope with their problems, whereas Trafford has to cope on its own. I feel very strongly about this treatment of Trafford, because Manchester and Salford are beneficiaries of what I can only describe as overlapping aid. They are helped by the inner city needs indicators, and they are equally helped by the rate support grant needs factors. Therefore they receive aid on the same factors from two separate sources.
Perhaps the Minister will explain tonight why so much aid is channelled into
414
certain areas, whereas an adjoining area with exactly the same problems, is not only deprived of aid under the Act but sees its rate support grant cut drastically. Trafford council has heeded the exhortations of the Government over the past few years. It has been financially thrifty and has tried to look after the ratepayers interests. For its pains it receives £2,500,000 less under the rate support grant than it received two years ago. Perhaps the Minister will compare that with the £2,500,000 extra in real terms which Manchester is getting under the rate support grant and the £1,100,000 extra which Salford is getting. This money is in addition to £10 million allocated to Salford and Manchester under the Inner Urban Areas Act.
I do not begrudge the help going to Salford and Manchester. I realise that these places have serious problems. But Trafford also has these problems. I am anxious to know why certain authorities are treated so favourably, when a neighbouring authority is treated so shamefully. I suspect that there is political bias. I find it strange that Labour-controlled councils do so well under the Labour Government, while a Conservative-controlled council is treated so disgracefully.
I have already said that many of the problems are in the northern part of Trafford, and indeed the Trafford council recognises this. If the Minister checks, he will realise that 65 per cent. of Trafford council's expenditure is devoted to the northern part of the borough. This part includes Trafford Park industrial estate, which is the largest in the country. In 1975 there were 37,500 jobs in Trafford Park, 80 per cent. in manufacturing industries. One job in five was taken by residents of the inner area, thus making Trafford Park their single most important source of jobs.
There are problems on the estate and on 9 March the Trafford Park industrial council wrote to the Secretary of State. Since 1966 there has been a loss of 16,400 jobs in Trafford Park. We should remember that this is the oldest industrial estate in Britain. Therefore, there is a legacy of industrial obsolescence. In Trafford Park, 600 sq. ft. of buildings are over 60 years old. A further 300 sq. ft of buildings are over 40 years old. So much could have been done if there had

415
been help under the Inner Urban Areas Act to improve the environment and to create new employment.
Much remains to be done: first reclamation of derelict land; secondly, improvement of the appearance of some of the land for future development—at the moment it is overgrown and neglected and does not offer an attractive aspect to a would-be taker of premises—thirdly, improvement of traffic access, and fourthly, provision of service facilities—particularly shops for workers.
Unfortunately, the Government's strategy seems to be to encourage new industry into the inner areas of Manchester and Salford. I believe that that will be to the disadvantage of the Trafford Park industrial estate. In view of the employment that it provides for so many people in Manchester and Salford, the exclusion of Trafford Park from the Inner Urban Areas Act has no justification and is completely illegal.
This year domestic ratepayers are faced with a massive 25 per cent. increase. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) are present tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford has represented the area for only a short time, but he has been left in no doubt about the anger of the ratepayers at the way in which they have been treated by the Government. The massive increase has not been caused by the squander-mania of Trafford council. The council has followed the Government's guidelines and watched expenditure closely. Therefore, feelings are running high in the area. The Trafford Owner Occupier Ratepayers' Association—a non-political body—has taken the unprecedented step of paying for space in the local newspaper to point out to the residents that the enormous increase facing them is entirely the responsibility of the Government.
A short while ago the Secretary of State for the Environment said that rate increases should be kept to single figures. I should like the Minister to tell me how Trafford council can be expected to achieve that, with the rate support grant slashed and with no hope of help under the Inner Urban Areas Act. The only way in which rate increases could have
416
been kept to single figures would have been for the council to reduce its services. I should like to know whether that is what the Government are seeking.
I hope that the Minister recognises the anger that is felt on the issue. We ask not for preferential treatment but that Trafford should be given its fair share of the rate support grant and that our plea for aid under the Act should be re-examined to remove the sense of unfairness that is felt.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford will follow up my arguments, because his area is greatly affected by the exclusion of Trafford from the benefits of the Act. I hope that the Minister will provide us with hope that something will be done to remedy the imbalance.
10.35 pm
Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) for allowing me to intrude briefly in this debate for which we both applied and which he was successful in obtaining. He has raised a matter on which there is great strength of feeling in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the three constituencies that include the Trafford district of Greater Manchester.
We are discussing the inequity in the distribution of taxpayers' money. It is not the Government's money, though they often pretend that it is. It is taxpayers' money, and it is as much the money of the taxpayers of my constituency as it is of those in other constituencies. We are clearly being discriminated against by the Government in the application of aid under the Inner Urban Areas Act.
There is a strong case for the whole Trafford area to be included under the provisions of the Act, but I wish to enter a special plea for my constituency, which has suffered most in recent years. It is an area of industrial decline and environmental decay.
A total of £10 million has been offered under the Act to Manchester and Salford, which surround my constituency. At its eastern extremity my constituency is no more than half a mile from the centre of Manchester, and it is instructive to compare the positon in Old Trafford with that in Salford, which is benefiting under the Act.

417
Trafford Park and Old Trafford have 4 per cent. of their population living in seriously overcrowded conditions, compared with 3·3 per cent. of the population of Manchester and Salford. The proportion of population from the New Commonwealth is a major indicator of the needs of an area, and in Trafford Park and Old Trafford 11·85 per cent. of the population is in that category—three times the level in Manchester and Salford. Such a large concentration of immigrant families, who require many special facilities, imposes a much greater burden on the local authority. Successive Governments have recognised that areas of high immigrant concentration ought to have additional aid, yet our area is being deliberately denied help, even though it has three times the immigrant population of Salford and Greater Manchester as a whole. I hope that the Minister will refer to that.
In Trafford Park and Old Trafford 25 per cent. of the population are single parents, compared with 19 per cent. in Manchester and Salford. The proportion of pensioners is almost equal, with Trafford Park and Old Trafford having 11·8 per cent., and Salford and Manchester 11·7 per cent. We have 27 per cent. of our population included in socio-economic groups on low incomes, compared with 19·3 per cent. in Manchester and Salford.
It is only in the proportion of homes lacking basic amenities that Manchester and Salford marginally exceed Trafford Park and Old Trafford. A total of 39 per cent. of homes in my areas lack such amenities, compared with 45·5 per cent. in Manchester and Salford.
In all the other parameters which I should have thought were central to the consideration of an area's worthiness for inclusion under this special legislation and aid we have graver problems in that part of Trafford than are found in the rest of Manchester and Salford, which receive generous handouts from the Government. The effect of aid being denied to Trafford will be serious, combined as that is with the fact that just 100 yds across the Manchester Ship Canal aid is being freely given to Salford.
Already we suffer from a serious decline in employment. At the height of wartime production, Trafford Park, the
418
oldest and largest of all Europe's industrial complexes, employed 80,000 people. Even until the early 1960s 60,000 people went to work each day in Trafford Park. Now that figure is down to well below 40,000. More than 20,00 jobs have been lost in Trafford Park over the past couple of decades. I should have thought that that consideration was worthy of note by the Government.
Coupled with our exclusion from the grant under the Inner Urban Areas Act, we find that our needs element and resources grant have been slashed by £2½ million by the Government over two years. It is ironic that almost the identical sum should have been accorded to the city of Manchester. There was £2½ million extra for the city of Manchester and £1·1 million extra for Salford. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be wrong to suggest that there was anything remotely party political about that. I hope that the Minister will at least do us the courtesy of answering that point.
Many people—not all of whom are members of the Conservative Party—have a shrewd suspicion that the matter is being gerrymandered by a Labour Government to benefit Labour councils in Salford and the city of Manchester and deliberately and blatantly to discriminate against a Conservative-controlled council which has scrupulously followed the Government's guidelines, unlike some other councils which have preferred to spend as though there were no tomorrow.
As a result of this discriminatory policy the Government are placing in jeopardy the jobs of people in the constituencies of Stretford and Altrincham and Sale. Our area provides the main source of jobs for the residents of Greater Manchester and Salford. They come into Trafford Park each day to earn their bread and butter. If the industrial estate is to be discriminated against, it must be widely known throughout the area where the responsibility lies and what the consequences will be. The decline of jobs and employment will accelerate in consequence of this discrimination.
We are here this evening to press the Government to reconsider their decision and to include preferably all of Trafford, but at least Trafford Park, Old Trafford and parts of Stretford, in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will go out of his way to make clear that there is no party

419
political bias against the residents of Trafford and that they may benefit even under a Socialist Government.
10.44 p. m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): It is useful to have this opportunity to review in the House the relationship of our policy for inner cities and the problems of Trafford. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) for raising the matter. I have taken a personal interest in Trafford's situation, and, as he said, only a month ago I visited the borough to see some of the problems for myself, and I might add, I was received very cordially when I was there.
Both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) concentrated their attention on the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. They both referred to the rate support grant. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was present when I met representatives of the borough council on 9 February, and on that occasion I undertook to write to Trafford about its treatment in the recent rate support grant settlements. I hope to write soon, and I shall send the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford—and also to his hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who represents part of the area—a copy of my letter to the borough on that matter.
I turn now to the Inner Urban Areas Act, because I think that in the wider context within which this matter has been considered the House may find it helpful if I give a brief outline of the Government's policy in selecting districts for designation under the 1978 Act.
Faced with limitations on the amount of resources which are available for use in the inner cities, we have had to follow a policy which is deliberately selective. We have decided that the best use can be made of the resources which are available if they are concentrated on the areas with the most severe problems, with the aim of bringing about substantial improvements as quickly as possible. The strength of that conviction finds further expression in the fact that, even within the districts designated under the Act, we have made provision for some powers to be focused on smaller areas still.
420
I refer, of course, to the special areas and improvement areas. We have established an order of priority. In England, the seven partnership areas are our first priority. They are faced with urban problems on a massive scale and of severe intensity. Because of this, they have been given the largest allocations from the urban programme.
Next come the 14 programme authority areas, which have been invited to prepare programmes for action in their inner areas. They have also had substantial resources allocated from the urban programme. This two-stage selection of those areas was generally accepted as recognising just where urban problems were at their most intractable and pressing. Most people agreed that these areas deserved priority in any policy which aimed to tackle deprivation, which is the main symptom of those problems. All the partnership and programme areas were designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act.
The most difficult stage of selection then followed. The Government had to decide which other districts to designate under the Act. Hon. Members will recall that the Act gives local authorities in designated districts powers to help industry and commerce in their area by means of loans and grants. We had to face the fact that resources were limited. It was clearly not going to be possible to designate every district with significant problems. This would have meant, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said, spreading resources so thinly that their effect would have been negligible. The Government were determined that the Act should have a real impact wherever its powers were used, and this again led us to restrict the list of designated districts.
Including the partnership and programme areas, there are now 43 designated districts in England, five in Wales and nine in Scotland. Those districts were chosen on the basis of the scale, the intensity and the concentration of their urban problems, and we are as reasonably convinced as we can be that we have included those districts where the problems are most severe. By the same token, we have excluded for the present those districts which were not so severely disadvantaged. But the Government are well aware that there are other areas with

421
significant inner area problems which could benefit from the use of the powers in the Act if the resources were available.
Trafford is one of a number of boroughs and districts which, as I said when I was in Trafford, we regard as borderline. I have been anxious to examine as many of these cases as possible, and I have now received deputations from several of them, including Trafford. In many instances, as in the case of Trafford, I have visited the areas to see the situation for myself, and I found the visit to Trafford particularly instructive.
For example, I know that Manchester county council has identified Trafford as an area with one of the worst concentrations of problems. But, by and large, the area has a low percentage of socio-economic groups with low incomes. I know, too, that it has a high percentage of ethnic minority groups, as the hon. Member for Stretford said, but again there is not a high percentage in the area of dwellings which lack basic amenities. Indeed, I know from my visit that the housing action areas have generally been successful. I am aware, too, of the importance of the Trafford Park industrial estate to the Greater Manchester area and to the Manchester and Salford partnership area.
But the impression which I gained in travelling around it was that there was a good deal of economic activity, some firm proposals for future development, and a high proportion of larger firms which showed every sign of being firmly committed to staying in the area. I have no doubt that they will be ready to co-operate with the council in promoting the economic viability of the area in the way which I believe they have already co-operated in making environmental improvements in the industrial park.
I am also aware of the problems at Partington and in the Broadheath area of Altrincham. But I think we have to recognise that they are on a limited or relatively limited scale. I know that there are many such areas around the country. But they cannot at this stage be the first priority for statutory recognition, though I have no doubt that the local authority will continue with its existing powers to alleviate the worst problems there.
422
I do not think I need continue further with this catalogue of problems because I want also to indicate something of what the Government have done in the area. For example, in 1977 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of resources to help the construction industry. In that package the borough of Trafford was allocated £415,000. Last year's allocation to the borough, under the housing investment programme, was increased by 17 per cent.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we recognise Trafford's problems. But I must also tell them that we are at present unable to consider adding to the list of designated districts. There are a number of districts with cases roughly comparable with that of Trafford. All have inner urban area problems, and I should very much like to be able to include them in the list of designated districts. But present circumstances forbid that, as I hope I have made clear. I am sure hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that it would not be possible to designate one or two of them on a piecemeal basis.
I have told Trafford that when the question of extending the list of designated districts arises at some time in the future its case will be most carefully considered. In the meantime, I hope that the borough will continue its efforts to improve its inner urban areas with the powers that it already has available to it. As I have often said to districts which make representations, the Inner Urban Areas Act is not the only route to economic regeneration. To listen to Conservative Members, one would have believed just that. The Act is very much intended as a supplement to local authorities' existing powers.
Powers of land assembly—
Mr. Montgomery Mr. Montgomery rose—
Mr. Barnett: My time is a little limited.
Powers of land assembly, traffic management, planning powers, education and housing powers can all help in local industrial development. My Department issued advice in 1977 to local authorities on ways of tackling industrial problems in these areas using existing programmes. The resources available through the Inner Urban Areas Act are not, of course,

423
negligible. But in cash terms they do not add proportionately very much to local authorities' budgets. I hope it will be realised that if we were to designate more districts they would add even less. Moreover, the suggestion that local authorities should look carefully at the problems of their areas—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Marquess of Tweeddale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE SHAPLAND REPORT: RECOMMENDATIONS
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in putting into effect the recommendations of the Shapland Report on the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, and in particular the recommendations relating to bounties.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government's examination of the recommendations contained in the Shapland Report is at an advanced stage, and I would ask the noble Earl to remain patient for a little longer, until the Government are ready to announce their decision.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that, I hope, satisfactory reply, in that one will have to wait for it. Is the Minister aware that the bounties were fixed in 1967, and that everybody in the TA is waiting breathlessly for the first ever increase in their bounties?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, an increase in the training bounty is one of a large number of recommendations that the Government are considering.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware, not only that the TAVR are happy with the report but that it would be very much appreciated if, if and when the decision is reached, the report could be published at the same time?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the report is an internal document which, regardless of its classification, which is "Restricted", it would not be appropriate to make available.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that the contents of the Shapland Report, though it is restricted, are known widely to one and all in the TA? Would he also bear in mind that, if the decision about levels of bounty is that they should be in any way less than what has been recommended by General Shapland, it will cause immense consternation in the TA and may well be counter-productive?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Earl's question, the Department has not made copies of the report available to the Press. I cannot answer for reports which appeared in The Times when that paper was in circulation. With regard to the training bounty, the Government recognise the arguments for increasing the level of training bounties for members of the Volunteer Reserve Forces. The case for this increased expenditure must of course be weighed with other factors, but these are all being taken into account.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand from my noble friend that the report is restricted? May I ask him, further, whether, in the event of the Government arriving at some conclusions, it is not essential that we should know the reason why? Why should it be restricted?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is, I can confirm, as I said earlier, a restricted document. It is an internal, departmental report made by the Ministry of Defence, though of course I may say that the Council of the TAVR Association was represented on the committee.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that General Shapland signed the report on 7th June 1978, and that there may therefore be a very good reason why its contents are so widely known—because nine months have elapsed since he signed it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am afraid I do not understand the implications of the noble Earl's question.

FALKLAND ISLANDS:SEISMIC SURVEYS
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the report from the seismic survey of the Falkland Isands area has yet been analysed, and if so whether it suggests the possible presence of hydrocarbons.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the data from the seismic surveys around the Falkland Islands are still being evaluated. Until that evaluation is completed I am unable to say whether it will offer the prospect of hydrocarbons being present in commercial quantities.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which does not differ very much from the one we had from Lord Strabolgi on the previous Question—namely, that consideration is at an advanced stage—may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that it is unusual for a seismic survey to remain undigested very long, particularly if, as is widely reported in the trade at the present time, this is a very encouraging report? Why is it that its analysis has taken so long in this case?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am advised that the science of seismic interpretation is such that anlaysis is a lengthy and continuous process as different techniques are applied to the data, to new information; but we expect to have an analysis of the data in the near future, although I cannot give a precise date.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord go a stage further and tell the House whether there is any prospect of issuing licences for exploration?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, I could not possibly go that
492
substantial step further, although I appreciate what lies behind the supplementary question from the noble Earl. I would ask him to be patient a little longer. My right honourable friend would hope, in due course, to indicate the broad results of the analysis of the surveys which have been made available to Her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is "due course" a matter of weeks, months or years?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I said I could not give a precise date. Even a mathematician and a geographer of the noble Earl's repute should not press his luck too far.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that some 70 per cent. of all NATO's strategic material and some 8 per cent. of the West's oil supplies come round the Cape of Good Hope route, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the current air/naval defence system along the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, Tristan da Cunha and the Ascension Island chain, thus protecting the great Cape routes?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, these considerations, strategic and otherwise, are very present to the mind of Her Majesty's Government.

ACAS APPEAL: COST TO PUBLIC FUNDS
2.43 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 when they propose to honour the undertaking given by Lord Wallace of Coslany on 17th January 1978 to provide information as to the cost to public funds of the appeal by ACAS to this House in the Grunwick case.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that I wrote to him as recently as 12th

493
February on this matter. I said then that I appreciated his concern that he had not received an answer to his question and that the reason for this was, as I understood from ACAS, that the question of costs was still before the Taxing Master and that as yet ACAS had not received a bill of costs. That remains the position. As I said in my reply on 17th January 1978, I will write to the noble Lord when the information is available.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and indicate the breathless anticipation with which I await further communication from him, may I ask whether his Answer means that ACAS have no idea now, 18 months since the dismissal of their appeal, what their persistence in this appeal has cost the British taxpayer, and also whether the private citizen successful in these proceedings has yet received his costs?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am unable to answer immediately the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. So far as ACAS is concerned, the whole matter rests with the Taxing Master. The Government have no influence or powers to deal with the Taxing Master. He must decide; and until that decision is reached we are unable to help the noble Lord. Heaven knows! I should be only too pleased to be able to give the noble Lord information on this matter, for I appreciate his anxiety.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord in a position to say how much ACAS have earmarked in their reserves in anticipation of what the Taxing Master may decide?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I cannot do that. We cannot direct ACAS, as we cannot direct the Taxing Master. Whether ACAS has put any money aside, I am not prepared to say. I do not know. Therefore, the noble Lord will have to think of some other supplementary question.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I help with that further supplementary question? Is the noble Lord quite right in saying that the Government cannot tell us a little
494
more accurately the state of play over the taxation? Will he perhaps take the best advice available—the source of which is sitting now smiling at me on the Woolsack and, no doubt, wondering what led the noble Lord to be so ignorant of the matter?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I shall be only too delighted to consult with the smiling adviser on my left, but that will have to be after Question Time. The noble and learned Lord would not expect me to give an immediate reply.

THE PENAL SYSTEM: ADVISORY COUNCIL
2.48 p.m.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: 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 when the members of the Advisory Council on the Penal System will be appointed, and what questions will be referred to them.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has the question of the reappointment and work of the Advisory Council on the Penal System under active consideration and hopes to make an early Statement.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that encouraging reply, would he not agree that this body, constituted by people of exceptional experience and knowledge in penal matters, has built up a remarkable record of service over the last 11 years and that, with the exception of its most recent report, all its major reports have been implemented in full or in part; and that its suspension for the last 12 months has denied the Government and the public a most valuable contribution in penal matters in a period of anxiety about crime and punishment? May we hope that the noble Lord's statement will be implemented very quickly?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, I will certainly confirm what he has said about the importance and value of the work of the Advisory Council and of its members and, without going into specific detail, I can confirm that some of the nine reports in particular which have come out over the past 12 years or so, have led to substantial changes and improvements in policy matters.
So far as the further point of my noble friend is concerned, I am happy to be able to confirm what I have already indicated: that a Statement by my right honourable friend is hoped to be made quite soon. So far as the delay that has occurred in recent months is concerned, there had been an intention, as my noble friend will know, to invite the council to consider a particular matter concerning prisons, but there has intervened in the meantime the report of the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee in another place which led directly in part to the appointment of the May Committee of Inquiry. Both of these bodies are dealing with those matters.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may we not have a sweepstake on which of these stalled horses is going to win the race: the Shapland Report, the Falkland Islands hydrocarbons, the taxing of ACAS or the Advisory Council on the Penal System?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I regret to have to confess to the noble and learned Lord that I am not a betting man; but there is one Member of your Lordships' House who is frequently here who perhaps can give us both advice on this important matter.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, referring to the original Question, may I ask whether the questions which will be referred to the council will include the whole of the penal system, in view of its absolute failure today, the number of recidivists, the crowded prisons and those prisons which ought to be pulled down now as being utterly unable to deal with the problem of crime?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, so far as prison matters
496
directly are concerned and the particular points in relation to those that my noble friend has referred to, many of those matters are within the remit of the inquiry now being conducted by Mr. Justice May. I am afraid I am not able to say precisely what the council, when reconstituted, will be invited to consider; but I can go so far as to indicate that it is likely to be a non-custodial matter in character. One possibility which has been suggested by the Advisory Council itself has been connected with financial penalties. Without pre-empting anything that my right honourable friend may decide, I believe that is one of the matters he is considering as a possibility. I shall bear in mind what my noble friend has said.

KIRIBATI BILL AND MINISTER'S VISIT
2.51 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question, of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the recent visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Pacific in connection with the Kiribati Bill."
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my honourable friend Mr. Luard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, returned yesterday from his visit to the Pacific, where he had discussions on Rabi Island with the chairman of the Rabi Council of Leaders, before an audience of some 500 members of the Banaban Community; with the vice-chairman of the Rabi Council in Tarawa; with the Prime Minister of Fiji, the right honourable Ratu Sir Kamesese Mara, in Suva; and with Ministers of the Gilbert Islands Government in Tarawa. I should like to pay a tribute to my honourable friend for undertaking this arduous engagement at short notice.
On Rabi Island, the chairman of the Rabi Council read out to him a letter underlining the strength of Banaban feelings that they should be separated from the Gilbert Islands before the latter became independent. My honourable

497
friend replied to the points raised in his letter, and made three specific proposals: first, suggesting wider powers for the Banaba Island Council; secondly, to establish an independent commission to review the safeguards for the Banabans, and, thirdly, a treaty with another Power or Powers concerning the rights of the Banaban people. He emphasised that Banaban rights would be protected irrespective of where sovereignty lay. He also expressed the hope that the 150 Banabans who were shortly to leave for Banaba would conduct themselves on the island in an orderly way. The chairman of the council replied that the council was not prepared to discuss anything but separation.
In his discussions with the Prime Minister of Fiji, the latter made clear that his Government did not wish to accept a role which would involve having to choose between their Gilbertese and Banaban friends, by participating in international arrangements to safeguard the interests of the Banabans within a unitary Gilbert Islands State.
Finally, my honourable friend saw Gilbert's Government Ministers in Tarawa. They reaffirmed that their people could not agree to the separation of Banaba; but they were ready to enter into a treaty with another Commonwealth Government concerning the rights of the Banaban people. In particular, they stated that they were willing to make arrangements whereby another Commonwealth Government should act on behalf of the Rabi Council so that claims or complaints concerning their rights should be resolved amicably or by independent mediation or by judicial process. Furthermore, the Gilbert Islands Government confirmed they were ready to agree to an independent tribunal reviewing the special Banaban constitutional provisions three years after independence. The Ministers also agreed to examine the Fiji Ordinance which sets out the powers of the Rabi Island Council as a possible model for the Banaba Island Council.
My honourable friend's visit demonstrated once again Her Majesty's Government's determination to explore all possible avenues of agreement. The Gilbert Islands Government have demonstrated their willingness to consider any proposals to protect Banaban interests. If the
498
Banabans will only give it a chance, I am sure that they will not find any of their fears for their future on Banaba are justified.
2.56 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that we are also grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for undertaking this journey and very sensibly going to look at this very difficult problem on the spot? Is the noble Lord aware that we also appreciate the intense difficulty in resolving this problem in which the only acceptable solution to one party involves fragmentation of a small part of a small community and its dependence on another community no less than 1,400 miles away? Does he agree that the nub of the problem is the unwillingness of the Banabans to accept that any guarantees can be relied upon, and will he accept our willingness to try to demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case, possibly in one of the ways which have already been outlined by the Minister in the Statement? If the noble Lord will forgive me a fourth supplementary question, may I ask him whether those three proposals were made before or after the Banabans stated that they would consider nothing but independence? As it is written in the Statement, it would appear that it was made after that Statement. One would imagine it might better have been made before.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, may I say—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: This is a Question, not a Statement!
Lord McNAIR: We on these Benches are sorry that the visit of the Under-Secretary was unproductive. Am I right in understanding that we are not to have another Statement before we take the Committee stage of this Bill on Thursday? If there is anything more to be said by the Government, it would be enormously helpful if we could hear it before Thursday. May I ask the noble Lord, in conclusion, whether he has considered the possibility in this increasingly explosive situation, which seems to be deteriorating rapidly, of a cooling off period and postponement of independence, which might enable the

499
two sides to get closer together, which is the wish of us all?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most appreciative of the tone and content of the two supplementary questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the Liberal spokesman. If I may address myself to what the Opposition spokesman said, he has put the essence of this difficult problem very fairly indeed. I greatly appreciate the measured and temperate terms in which he has put it to the House. As to guarantees, within the accepted position of transferring this territory as it is to independence, which is common form in the practice of Her Majesty's Government, whatever Government are in power, there is no limit to the length to which Her Majesty's Government themselves will go to reassure this community on the right of access and landholding, which is not in question at all. In my fairly lengthy experience these reassurances are really without precedent as they now stand. But we are most receptive to anything which is suggested which may gild the lily (if I may put it that way) and so are the Gilbert Islands Government. They have proved to be most forthcoming to my honourable friend in the conference. So on the question of guarantees, I cannot imagine what further guarantees he or I could invent but, if anybody can invent them, I am wide open to any suggestion.
As to the present situation, I cannot substitute one explosive situation for another. What we have now is admittedly a small community with very strong feelings, whose demands are entirely at variance with the equally deeply-held convictions of a much larger community; and it is poor practice to seek a solution in the face of threats of violence. One must examine the facts, do one's best and try to achieve a solution of battles which gives something to everybody even though it is quite impossible to give everything to anybody.
I hope that the House, which, if I may say so without presumption, has a reputation for looking at these very difficult constitutional questions, will join me in Committee stage on Thursday and hear us out. Let us give this excellent Bill a fair wind, because there are other stages here and in another place where the
500
continuing negotiations, as I see them, following what my honourable friend has been able to achieve, can proceed without prejudice to the final outcome of the Bill. I think we shall have rendered a service to Parliament and to this country if we send this Bill in due course to the other place, because there are elongated stages in both Houses when all these questions can be minutely discussed. I will do my best to meet the views of the House in this matter and, indeed, in response to the Statement I have given, a number of noble Lords have referred to the possible involvement of this country beyond independence in assisting the implementation of these assurances. I think noble Lords will realise that, without being able to be quite specific, I have indeed listened to what was said on Second Reading.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that Her Majesty's Government have taken almost unprecedented steps to try to resolve these problems within the association of Ocean Island with the Gilbert Islands, is not the result of this visit quite clear—the Banaban people will not accept anything except their independence from the Gilbert Islands? Would not Her Majesty's Government therefore do better now to pursue the search for a method by which that might be satisfied without leaving the terrible problems of Ocean Island unrelieved?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as the House knows, I have very great respect for my noble friend's record and judgment in these matters; but when he says to me that the outcome of my honourable friend's visit to the area was to re-emphasise the strength of feeling of the Banaban community, I must say to him that the visit also emphasised once more the overwhelming rejection by the Gilbertese community of fragmentation. Here we have an excellent Chief Minister who regards this country with affection and respect, and his fellow Ministers, anxious to move without further postponement to independence within the Commonwealth, and enthusiastic for it. It is a question for my honourable friend and for me: do we substitute for the satisfaction of a profoundly concerned minority the dissatisfaction of an equally profoundly concerned majority? I am sure that my noble friend, who has taken

501
part in Africa and Asia in similar discussions and who has contributed notably to constructive compromises, will look again at his own Amendment. It is not for me to advise him—he has always advised me and continues to do so—but between now and the Committee stage I hope that my noble friend and others will look at the Amendment standing in his name, and ponder in fact whether this is the way to do the maximum possible good for the Pacific area as a whole.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, while recognising that every possible safeguard has been offered, can the Minister spell out how in practice it would be possible for another Commonwealth country to intervene in the Gilbert Islands should the worst fears of the Islanders—however unlikely they are to happen, and they are unlikely—be realised? What could they do?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Gilbert Islands Government—that is the self-governing authority in the present dependent State of the Gilbert Islands—have themselves said to my honourable friend that they would accept the appointment of a Commonwealth country; and, bearing in mind what was said in the course of the Second Reading debate in this House, may I remind your Lordships that the United Kingdom also is a Commonwealth country. They have said that they will accept a Commonwealth country which, as a friend of the Banabans, could supervise the implementation of these very massive and intricate guarantees as to access, land holding and all the rest of it. They, a prospective independent sovereign Government, have said this. It is an example to many more developed countries, because they are prepared in the interests of amity to accept an outside friendly intrusion to supervise how this works for three years, say, and at the end of that to agree to a special review body, perhaps nominated by two Commonwealth countries and probably with a chairman—I do not know—nominated by the Commonwealth Secretariat, to make an assessment on how this has worked and at the end of the day to say, "It has worked pretty well" or, "It is not good here and there but it can be improved" or, "It has not worked".
There is the way to bring together the deeply-felt convictions of the Gilbert
502
Islanders, who number 56,000, and the Banabans, who number about 2,500. Let them proceed together, possibly under the supervision of a friendly Commonwealth State, and then at the end of, say, three years they could have an independent assessment of how it has worked. This may well be a good example from the Pacific to the Atlantic and other parts of the world on how to do these things. I profoundly hope that the Banaban community and their leaders—sincere and deeply religious men—will ponder very carefully before they return to Ocean Island and try to promote their case, however deeply felt, by violent action. My honourable friend has given very good advice to them. Their interests and their future will be very carefully considered by this House, by this Government and by any successive Government, but I profoundly believe it is within the confines of this Bill—an excellent Bill for all these Islands—that this can best be done.
Lord HALE: My Lords, can my noble friend take this a little further? I am not trying to press him on controversial matters; I am seeking an explanation. We are to have a debate in two days' time about which we ought to know something. Is the proposal that this Bill should be passed in this Session substantially in its present form? If it is, how can a review take place after three years without the consent of all the parties, which does not seem probable? In relation to the question of some semi-fiduciary interest by a Commonwealth State, was any particular State discussed as appropriate—for example, Nauru?—or was it left just at large that the many nations of the Commonwealth, now very many, could furnish some suitable State?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. My honourable friend, who had a wide-ranging discussion with all concerned mentioned, and his partners in the discussion mentioned, from time to time a number of possible countries, including this one, such as Fiji and Nauru; and, of course, as we heard last night, there are 40 members of the Commonwealth. So we are not in any way nominating anybody—we should not want to do that from this House—into another independent country. All I can say is that I certainly will not rule out the United Kingdom. We do not

503
want to intrude, but we are ready and willing to do anything. I do not think there will be any lack of nominations. Perhaps there might be a little difficulty in persuading the nominators to act. It is one thing to argue a case; it is quite another to come forward afterwards and say, "We will lend a hand". We have argued a case in this country, as so often we do. We also say that we will come forward and act and help. I can speak for the United Kingdom. But other countries were suggested.
As to the constitutional and legal point which my noble friend, quite rightly, raised, the Bill does indeed go forward. If there were to be this arrangement about a supervisory friendly Power coming in, then I imagine that it would be by agreement or treaty, with a separate document. I also imagine that there would be a separate document for setting up the review body at the end of, say, three years. I do not think there is any difficulty about the modalities of this. I hope that there is no difficulty about everybody concerned agreeing to this course. I can answer for this country. I believe that I can answer for the Gilbert Islands Government. I very much hope that the friends of the Banabans, and I count myself as one, can in due course answer for the Banaban community to join in on this. It will be well worth their while to do so.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as we are bound by the procedure of a Question, and as a number of solutions put forward obviously require discussion in detail, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be to the convenience of the House to conduct this discussion at a clause stand part stage in the Bill, when we eventually get to it?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): Yes, my Lords; I think that that is a constructive suggestion. My noble friend has fully answered many questions, and we are to discuss this at Committee stage. I hope that we can now proceed.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord opposite—
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend, whom I admire so much, that I hope he will appreciate that we have had quite a long discussion on this subject. Let us proceed, as we have a lot of business.

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
3.13 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. (Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution of Central Council]:
Lord SMITH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert (",and not less than four shall be registered medical practitioners appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the medical profession.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment to Clause 1, I think it will be helpful at the outset to say that the arguments that I shall put forward are precisely those which I shall employ later on in relation to the Amendments which are in my name to Clauses 4, 5 and 7. It will therefore save much of the time of the Committee if I am permitted to advance these arguments in detail now in relation to Clause 1, and when we come to Clauses 4, 5 and 7 perhaps I may move those Amendments with some brevity, without repeating in detail—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? As I understand the Marshalled List of Amendments, if the noble Lord is to speak to the first Amendment, which he is in the process of doing, I think it will be necessary for him to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
Lord SMITH: I thank the noble Lord. May I so do? I think it will save the time of the Committee if I deal with these arguments in detail now, but not on a second, third and fourth occasion later on. Each of these four Amendments relates to a failure of the Bill to draw any distinction between the medical profession and other disciplines which might provide members of the Central Council, the boards and the midwifery committees—very important committees indeed—and I should like to explain why it is my belief that it is necessary to alter this state of affairs.
I should start by saying that it is important to me to make clear my motives in moving Amendments, so that they should not be misunderstood. The objectives of the Bill, which surely are those we would all support, are to provide the best possible training for nurses, midwives and health visitors and, provided that all three of these groups are satisfied that their interests are properly looked after, then I and, I am sure, other noble Lords will be very anxious to see the nursing profession achieve their ambitions through the swift passage of the Bill. Having co-operated with and helped colleagues in the nursing profession for a great number of years, and enjoyed doing this, I should not want in moving Amendments to be seen to be introducing conflict where I believe none exists, and I hope that when I have spoken the Minister may agree to look again at this matter without dividing the Committee on the issue.
In referring to the membership of these important bodies—the Central Council, the boards and the midwifery committees—what the Bill says in regard to the Secretary of State's own appointments is this:
"The Secretary of State's appointments shall be made from among persons who either are 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".
It is not too much to say that the medical profession was unanimously appalled at the thought that, in the organisation of the training of the nursing profession, the whole of medicine can he regarded as just one of a number of possible disciplines
506
that might be useful, lumped together in the Bill under the general heading:
"… education, medicine or other fields as … will be of value".
I should regard it as quite impossible to contemplate the organisation of the training of the nursing profession, other than in the context of the total care of the sick.
The reason why these two professions are so interdependent is that those within them have a common objective—not degrees. not diplomas, not the intellectual satisfaction of examinations, not the advancement of science for its own sake, but, much simpler than that, the interests of patients. This is why the nursing profession is the closest of all to the medical profession. Indeed, modern medicine would be as ineffective without good nursing, as would modern nursing be irrelevant, except against the background of enlightened medicine. We are linked together as no two other professions are, and to ignore this close and key relationship is a serious omission which I believe should be corrected before the Bill passes.
I am, of course, well aware of the arguments which have been put forward from time to time against singling out the medical profession in this way. One of them that I have heard is put like this: that surely this would place doctors in a special, different and privileged position and that therefore others would want the same. But doctors are already in a special and different position when it comes to helping the nursing profession. They always have been so. When the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, spoke at Second Reading, he rightly called this a key relationship. So far as the argument that this would place doctors in a privileged position is concerned, certainly it would not do so. I believe that there is only one group of people who should be privileged; namely, the patients.
The second argument that I have heard is that if doctors were singled out in this way, they would want to dominate the scene; they would want to dominate the nurses, whereas they should be running their own affairs. But the Central Council will have 45 members. If one inserted a minimum figure of four, as is done in this Amendment to Clause 1, although one knows that in another place

507
a minority gets its own way, surely that would not be so with a minority of four among 45, quite apart from the fact that in my experience doctors have no very great reputation for unanimity about anything.
Ever since 1931 when, as a medical student, I became aware of what the nursing profession did in hospitals for patients, it has been quite apparent to me that to try to get one's own way against the judgment of just one senior, experienced nurse is not worth the attempt. As a junior, I was too frightened to try, although as a junior I knew that I was always right. As a surgeon in my middle years, I did not bother to try because I knew that I should be defeated and that this could be because the case which seemed so good to me might not appear to be so good as all that to others. And as a senior in this position, I would first examine my own judgment to see where I might perhaps have gone wrong.
So far as dominating a roomful of the most experienced of senior nurses is concerned, I would venture to think that few Members of this noble House have had the experience of attempting this, and I can assure your Lordships that it is just not on. I have frequently had the pleasure and privilege of sitting in committee with colleagues from the nursing profession and, one among many, I have invariably found that within minutes I appeared to have got them just where they wanted me. Domination of the nurses by this small number of doctors among 45 is not only something which could not happen but also something which doctors would not seek in any way. They seek to be co-operative and to provide highly specialised advice at a time when medicine is becoming more and more complex. Year by year this specialised advice becomes more and more important.
The third argument which has been put forward is that to insert any figure at all would tie the hands of Ministers in their later appointments by order. But, in that it has been conceded already that there will be doctors on these important committees, how can it be wrong, if one grants that there is a special relationship, to insert a minimum figure of some kind? Some would go further and specify the particular kinds of doctor who are needed,
508
on which particular committees they should serve, and so on. I believe that this would be going too far, but to specify a minimum number seems to me to be right.
Frankly, I am hopeful that the degree of difference between the arguments I have put before your Lordships and the Government's stance at the moment is not so great as is apparent. The Government's view, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at Second Reading, is the same as mine on the importance of medical representation. But the Government's view is that it can be safely left until after the Bill has been passed to appoint by order any doctors who should sit on these various committees, whereas I believe that we should in some way emphasise the unique importance of the co-operation between these two professions. It seems to me that to insert a minimum figure is probably the simplest way, the actual figures being based upon the present representation of the profession on the bodies which are going to be replaced by these new committees. It is because the end point appears to be the same that I hope very much that the Minister may indicate some willingness on the part of the Government to look again at this matter, so that a Division of the Committee may be avoided and so that there may be some prospect of closing this gap in the Bill before we consider the matter again at Report. I beg to move.
3.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sure that all your Lordships have listened very carefully and with considerable interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has said. May I try to correct what may well be some misunderstandings. Very few of the Bills that I have been concerned with which have been before your Lordships' House have resulted in more discussion between the people concerned than this one. A good deal of thought has been given to what should go into the Bill.
I should like to remind your Lordships that the main purpose of the Bill is to establish a United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and to establish four national boards. The Central Council is to prepare and maintain a central register for qualified

509
nurses, midwives and health visitors and to determine, by means of rules, education and training arrangements. This is essentially a Bill for nurses, midwives and health visitors, and its purpose is to enable them to prepare for education, training and registration.
If one looks at the Bill, one finds that membership of none of the bodies to be established is prescribed, not even that of the council and the national boards. The detail and composition will be set out in subordinate legislation. The Bill does no more than give a general indication of the kinds of people to be appointed. For example, in the case of the Central Council, a maximum membership of 45 is set, and it is stated that the majority of the members are to be nominated to the council in equal numbers from each of the four national boards. This is designed to give the maximum flexibility for the future in deciding the precise composition of the boards.
I have listened with great care and I have had an opportunity—albeit a short one—of discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Smith. The whole purpose of the way in which the Bill is phrased is to enable the widest possible discussions and exchange of views to take place between the Central Council and the national boards as to who should be on them. This discussion has not yet taken place. It is merely the bones of the whole thing that we find in the Bill at present. If the composition was set out in detail on the face of the Bill, it would not be possible to alter it without an amending Act, and at the present moment we do not know, other than the fact that the membership of the Central Council and the national boards must consist in the majority of members of the three bodies for whom the Bill is designed.
I accept that it will be necessary to appoint people from the medical profession, from the educational field and from various other fields that have a real concern in nursing and midwifery and health visitors, but at this stage we do not know how many; we do not know what fields of skill and competence will be needed. If one sets out in the Bill the number of people to be put on these various boards and the Central Council, we may find ourselves in the difficult situation of not having enough room for
510
certain important interests and too much for the others. I said that, if the composition was set out in the Bill, it would not be possible to alter it without an amending Act, whereas if it is enshrined in subordinate legislation it is a relatively simply matter to make adjustments to meet the changed circumstances. Therefore, it would seem right to preserve this flexibility so far as possible.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who pointed out, during the debate on Second Reading in relation to the reference in Clause 4 to representation of the general public, that it would be wrong to spell out part of the composition of the new bodies without giving the full details, and, as I said earlier, to give full details would destroy the flexibility for the future. There is no doubt whatsoever that there will be medical representation on the council and on the four boards. In fact it is to be found explicitly stated in Clause 1(4) and in Clause 5(5)(b). It is clearly set out there that this is so. Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister of State have given assurances to that effect and have said in a letter to the Joint Consultants Committee—of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, was a member at the time—that there would be full consultation with the medical profession on the proposals for membership and on nominations, and this has been accepted by the profession. They know this and they have accepted the situation, but to set even a minimum number of medical members without any reference to the overall size and other representation on the bodies would create what could well be an impossible situation.
As I have said, it is enshrined in the Bill; it has been clearly stated by my right honourable friends and the medical profession and they have accepted this. I want to say to your Lordships, with great respect, that this is not the time to put in the Bill explicitly that there should be four or there should be three or there should be two representatives. That there will be representatives from the medical profession is not in doubt, but when the new structure is being established we must look at the requirements of the national boards and the Central Council and then appoint accordingly.
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether I might press the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, a little further on his reply. I think he made the point that no Bill has had more discussion beforehand than this one, and I am sure he is absolutely right and that it has had a great deal of discussion. But, judging from the amount of correspondence that I and my noble friends have received, it suggests that whatever the discussions may have been we have not altogether reached total agreement on how the Bill should proceed, because there seem to be a number of areas which are still not quite settled.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for sending me notes on clauses which of course are very helpful, and naturally I looked at the note on this particular subsection to see what it said. It is interesting that the wording is slightly different in the notes on clauses than it is in the subsection. It begins by explaining that the council will need to draw on expertise outside the nursing professions, in particular both medicine and general education, so that it actually reverses the order of the professions. I do not know whether there is any particular significance in that or whether it is just a drafting point. But it leads me on to wonder—as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is much more tightly drawn, either than the proposal in the Bill or the explanation given in the notes on clauses—whether the experts' advice in medicine could be from people with medical qualifications who are not doctors and whether he envisages a situation in which it would be possible, within the terms of the Bill as it is now drawn, not to have any doctors on it at all and still to have medically qualified people.
Reading again the report of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, it seems to me that it is intended in his proposal which is set out at page 190—where it says,
… non-nurse members should include, among others, doctors, people with knowledge in the field of general education, health service administrators, financial experts"—
to make it quite clear that it is doctors who are being referred to. It is important that we should clear up the point. We are talking about doctors, and not somebody with just a medical qualification but who is not a doctor.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may, I should like to deal with that point. The noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that she has received, and she knows that I and others have received, a vast amount of correspondence; but I would suggest that she has not received one letter in which there has been a demand for a specific number of doctors on any of the committees. I certainly have not had one.
To answer her other point, let us be quite clear about it: When we speak in the Bill of medicine and the medical profession it means what I should have thought it was quite clear that it should mean; that is, that this is a medical practitioner—not an educationalist with a medical degree or anybody else with a medical degree but somebody who is a practising member of the medical profession. Having regard to the importance of the Central Council and the national boards, I should have thought that it would need to be somebody who had a very real skill and competence over many years. That is the understanding on my part, and it is the understanding on the part of my colleagues, the other Ministers in the Department and everybody I have met so far.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I have listened with considerable sympathy to the argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in regard to having medical practitioners represented. However, I should like to ask him a question about the wording of the Amendment. It refers to:
"… not less than four shall be registered medical practitioners appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the medical profession".
What exactly is meant by "consultation with the medical profession"? I can fully understand that there ought to be medical practitioners there, and I also accept the reasonableness of my noble friend's argument that it is almost inevitable that there will be and that the number will probably be in excess of four. I think the total number that there can be of these appointed members is something like 21; I think there have to be 24 from the other bodies, unless I have done my arithmetic wrong. Consequently, there are bound to be a number of medical practitioners. But if they have to be appointed after consultation with the medical profession they

513
will then be put into the same category as those people who come from the different branches of the nursing profession, which are actually nominating their people. Here one would have a further degree of nomination, and I should like to ask: Who would do the nominating?
Lord SMITH: If I may answer that question, the normal method of consultation in regard to matters of this kind is, of course, through the channel which exists between the Department and the Joint Consultants Committee. I was not going to refer to this committee, but the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has already done so. I therefore feel that it is perhaps not irrelevant to say that the medical profession has been most anxious to make its views known in this matter during the two years that the Briggs Co-ordinating Committee has been preparing for the future legislation. The only trouble was that every attempt by the medical profession to be represented was not accepted, and during the course of these two years' unavailing struggle a letter was received which did not exactly cause a great deal of pleasure among the profession. It said:
"The Committee recognise the part the medical profession could play in nurse education and training".
We thought "could play" a rather offhand dismissal of the traditional help and co-operation which the profession has always sought to give and continues to wish to give. I imagine that, if indeed these appointments occur later after consultation, it will be the normal consultation which exists now through the Joint Consultants Committee.
Lord BRIGGS: At this particular stage in the bringing into life of a council which has not existed before, I find it very difficult to conceive of the Secretary of State himself being willing to nominate less than four members of the medical profession. I should like, too, to reiterate that certainly when I produced my own report the committee was considering not merely people who are concerned with medical education but representatives of the profession actively involved in different aspects of medicine, and related indeed to the different groups of committees which are set up or proposed in this structure. I do feel, however, that
514
at this particular stage and after very long discussions it would be extremely unwise to add clauses referring to numbers of particular groups. It seems to me that it would be much better to work on the basis of trying to secure some kind of effective understanding between now and the time when the first members are appointed. If any one particular group of people seeks in relation to this rather complex structure to secure statutory numbers for itself, this seems to me to be rather the wrong way of setting out to secure the objects of the legislation.
I regard the relationship between the doctor and the nurse as being a key relationship, and this goes far beyond the question of nursing education to the actual conditions of work in which the nurse finds herself or himself. But, if one once begins to put numbers in, there will also be difficulties in trying to lay down, for example, how many people should he concerned with education, where they should come from, and what should be the consultative groups with whom one would have to discuss in relation to those people. One of the most serious problems in relation to the future of nursing is the improvement in all kinds of ways of nurse tutoring and the taking of a really effective look at the role of the nurse tutor in terms of changing conditions in medicine and changes in the nature of the educational system and the way in which this approaches the learning process.
I am disturbed, therefore, although I fully understand Lord Smith's concern, that at this particular stage there should be a wish to insert numbers and to refer to a formal consultative process. I cannot conceive, however, of any Secretary of State ever finding himself in the position where, with this size of council, there would be fewer than four people concerned with medicine, not in its educational aspects but in its scientific and other aspects. There, it seems to me, the key relationship stands.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I want to ask my noble friend whether this particular subsection (4) is not too loosely drawn to be really effective in the way we want it to be. Let me read a passage from it:
"The … appointments shall be made from among persons who either are nurses, midwives or health visitors …".

515
It does not say there shall be nurses, midwives and health visitors; it merely says that they shall be drawn from among those classes, which does not seem to me to be an all-inclusive way of expressing it. Then it goes on still further to cast doubts as to whether those three classes are legitimately entitled to be on the committee, because it says:
"or have such qualifications and experience in education …".
So on the one hand you have somebody who is among the nurses, midwives and so on, and on the other hand you have people who are qualified in education. It goes on again "or other fields …", as the Secretary of State may decide.
So first of all you have three classes mentioned, and then you choose somebody from among those three classes; it does not stipulate that you shall include somebody representing each one of those classes; then it goes on to say you shall have that or something else, and then you can have something else. It looks to me as though we want a little more precision in the drafting.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Lord will allow me, in case others have not read Schedule 1, I should say that the subsection to which my noble friend has referred has to be seen in relation to Schedule 1, which says under paragraph 1(2):
"The persons nominated by each of the Boards shall include at least two practising nurses; one practising midwife; one practising health visitor; and one person engaged in the teaching of nursing, midwifery or health visiting ".
So it is clearly set out and that is the compulsory minimum. The composition of the boards will, of course, include many more of each of those.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask one question, to which I think I must know the answer, but I feel it would be relevant in enabling the Committee to make up its mind. Would I be right in supposing that the Secretary of State would make his appointments under subsections (4) and (5) only after the nominations had been received from the national boards, and that he would have in mind the possibility of representing all those who need to be represented on the Central Council? Secondly—this will depend very much
516
on the maximum that is set—is it envisaged, as a possibility at any rate, that the national boards might nominate a doctor?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We must bear in mind as regards the setting up of the national boards and the Central Council that the Secretary of State will have a good say about the nominations. As I have already pointed out, he has made it perfectly clear that certainly the medical profession will be represented. However, at this stage I cannot say what the proportion will be. My noble friend who sits behind me, Lord Wynne-Jones, when referring to 45 said that there must be a majority of 23 as against 22. One must envisage that the membership of the national boards as well as the Central Council must have a much higher number of health visitors, midwives and nurses because it is their particular concern. Therefore, one envisages that there will be more than just a simple majority of 23 to 22 because, of necessity, there must be more nurses, midwives and health visitors.
As regards the question of whether the national boards will be able to nominate a doctor, at this stage I do not know because in the early stages it will all be done by agreement with the Secretary of State until the whole matter is established. Once it is established the Bill provides for elections every so often.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to ask a question arising on Schedule 1. It lists the numbers and types of nurses, but it does not mention the district nurses. It may be that, as I am to raise the matter on Amendment No. 3, we should discuss it then, but it is extremely important that the list of nurses in Schedule 1 should certainly mention district nurses, because that is a most important and slightly controversial matter that has been raised in connection with the Bill.
Furthermore, I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said about the relationship between the medical and nursing professions. It is obvious that he is entirely right about that. I also support the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in not wanting to insert a number. I think that it would be better to leave the number out. However, not to mention the medical profession, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has said, is a grave error and I hope that

517
it will be clear to anyone who reads the Bill after it has become an Act of Parliament that the medical profession is a vital ingredient. If that is not so it will be a one-sided Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think that one is entitled to suggest that the Bill does not specifically mention the medical profession. It says:
"Qualifications and experience in … medicine",
but that is interpreted to mean the medical profession. If I may say so, it has been made perfectly clear time and time again, by both my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Health when they have discussed this matter, that there is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the people who have been closely connected with the matters—the co-ordinating body and all the other people with whom we have been associated—that that is precisely what it means; it means medical profession, and not someone who has a medical qualification as an offshoot of something else.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, mentioned the question of district nurses. There are various types of nurses but they come under the heading "nurses". A moment or two ago I set out under Schedule 1 the minimum number of two nurses and one each from three other groups. However, there are mental nurses, district nurses and ordinary general nurses, but they are all nurses. I think that the various factions of the nursing service will, in fact, find their way on to the national boards and the Central Council.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that we have all listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said. No one doubts for a minute his great sincerity about this matter. However, it is the job of the House during a Committee stage to make absolutely clear what in fact the Bill will say. The noble Lord is right in saying that it is not his intention, the intention of his right honourable friends in another place, or indeed of anyone who has been involved in the drafting of the Bill, that "medical profession" shall not mean what it is generally taken to mean—that is to say, qualified medical practitioners—and that they are not to be included on the General Council. That, I think, is the point that
518
is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Briggs. The fact of the matter is that, as we know, when people come to interpret the law they do not read Hansard and take into account what has been said during the Committee stage of a Bill, or indeed at any other stage; they take into account what the Bill actually says. It is our job in law to make clear Parliament's intention. For, should a case arise where something was being put into effect not as Parliament intended, there is nothing, so far as I can see, to prevent it from happening.
I absolutely accept that perhaps Clause 1 is the wrong place in which to move the Amendment, and perhaps it ought to be moved in relation to the Schedule to the Bill, or drafted in a somewhat different manner to include somewhere in the Schedule to the Bill "qualified medical practitioners", or whatever may be the precisely correct terminology. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord would take the matter away and look at it again in the light of the general discussion which has been expressed in the Committee. I am sure that we are all absolutely in agreement on the principle of what we want to achieve. Our doubts are that the Bill may be so drafted as not to make that clear at some future date. We feel that we ought to try to get the Bill drafted as correctly as possible. I wonder whether the noble Lord would take the matter away and look at it again?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is not a device, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, that I want to accept. In the ordinary way if there were any real doubt or a possibility that anything that I had said was not likely to take place I would he happy to do so. I point out to your Lordships that I said at the very beginning that the composition of the boards and of the Central Council will be set out in subordinate legislation. That means that an order must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It will be a negative procedure order. It will be available for some considerable time. If any Member of your Lordships' Committee feels that it does not reflect accurately what I have said today and that it is in any way suffering from any shortcoming, there is no reason why that order should be accepted; it can be rejected. Bearing in mind that there is no doubt in the mind of

519
the parliamentary draftsman who has drafted the Bill, and no doubt in the minds of my right honourable friends that it is the medical profession and it will be the medical profession, I should have thought, with very great respect, that it would not be unreasonable for me to say to the noble Lord Smith, that I hope he will feel able not to press the Amendments, but to withdraw them because I feel that I have given all the assurances that it is possible for anyone to give. If the subordinate legislation seems to fall short then the remedy is in the hands of both this House and another place.
Baroness YOUNG: There is always a difficulty about subordinate legislation on a Negative Resolution. One would have to vote against the entire order, and if one disagreed with just one particular point, one would not wish to vote against the whole order. I take the noble Lord's point. Of course, it is possible for this House to vote against an order, but it would be an unusual procedure. What one cannot do, of course, is to amend an order, and, if one did not like it, that is probably what one would wish to do. That is why it is very important to try to get this matter right at this stage.
Lord SEGAL: There is one very important reason why we should support the whole principle of flexibility at this stage. As I see it, the representation on the council should not be entirely on the basis of all the interests affected by this Bill receiving adequate representation. What is so important from the point of view of the training of nurses is not only the qualifications of members on the board, but that they should also have a gift of teaching and an understanding of the difficulties under which our nurses of today have to work. The question of teaching arises in addition to their manifold routine duties of nursing in the wards and the care of patients. As I see it, it is not so much an essential principle of representation as a full understanding of the difficulties facing the nursing profession.
That is why at this stage, when there is such a wide consensus of opinion, I think that it would be wise to preserve the principle of flexibility. Although it would be quite wrong for me to make
520
any suggestion at all to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who moved this Amendment, if it requires further consideration, perhaps it might be withdrawn at this stage and, if necessary, be considered at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps this suggestion would help the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. If the noble Lord feels able to withdraw these Amendments, perhaps he and I—and, if necessary, anyone else—could meet between now and the next stage to see whether we can clarify the situation.
Lord SMITH: Until the very last moment I was seriously disappointed that we had not got any further and that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, did not appear to believe that the Government could look further at recognising this very important relationship between two professions. However, a great many important remarks have been made. It is now clear that we are talking about medical practitioners. We are all agreed that there must be a sufficiency of those on all these important committees. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, was particularly helpful.
I welcome the suggestion that between now and the next stage of the Bill there can be some further conversations so that these matters are put into their right perspective, and so that this relationship, which is so important to me and to many Members of this Committee, is strengthened. In view of that suggestion, and because I shall want to read the record of this debate carefully, it would not be right to divide the Committee at this stage. However, if necessary, I shall return to the matter later on. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to raise one small point here. It arises in relation to Clause 1(6). I think I am correct in reading Schedule 1 as saying that the chairman, who would be appointed initially by the Secretary of State, would serve for a term of three years. Is that correct? It does not seem to be specified

521
in the Schedule. As the first chairman is an appointment made by the Secretary of State, it would be helpful to know for how long the appointment would stand. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, cannot immediately answer that question, perhaps he would be good enough to write to me about it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that the noble Baroness is perfectly correct. That is my understanding of the position, but, if that understanding is wrong, I shall certainly let her know.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Functions of Council]:
4.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2,line34,at end insert—
("( ) The powers of the Council shall include that of providing, in such manner as it thinks fit, advice for nurses, midwives and health visitors on standards of professional conduct.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the second Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear that the council has the power to provide advice to the professions as a whole and to individuals on matters relating to professional conduct. The Amendment fulfils a commitment made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State.
I think I am right in saying that the original Amendment was moved by the Opposition in another place on Report and required the council to provide guidance for the professions. I understand that that was not acceptable because of the likely difficulties that would arise in interpreting the legal status of such guidance. Some might interpret that what was not expressly prohibited with regard to professional conduct might, by implication, be permitted. Guidance provided by the council could not, however, be expected to cover all the circumstances where misconduct might arise.
The present Amendment has much the same wording as is to be found in Section 5 of the Medical Act 1978. Debate on that Act covered the identical ground, and it was finally agreed then by both Houses that the best approach in that case was
522
for a power rather than a duty to provide advice. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to accept the explanation for this Amendment given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and to agree with the point that he makes. I rise really to say that it seems perhaps ironic that this should come as an Amendment at this stage—although one appreciates the reason for it—when, in a very disturbed society, the one group of people who seem to be exercising the highest of professional conduct are, of course, the nurses; they are setting an example to everybody. It would be a good thing to place this on record at this time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord WYNNE-JONES: With regard to this clause, which sets up a new authority which will, I understand, take full charge of training and standards of training throughout the nursing profession, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell what will happen in the interim period. Presumably this new council will not be set up overnight. At present I think that there are some five or six bodies which control the education of the different branches of the profession. Is it visualised that these will disappear—as the Bill says they will—when the Bill becomes an Act, or is it supposed that they will continue in existence and that there will be a period before the new council is set up?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones is perfectly right; the dissolution of the six main existing bodies—which I shall not set out—is to be found in Clause 21. There are also three smaller bodies: the Joint Board for Clinical Nursing Studies, the Joint Board for Clinical Nursing Studies in Scotland and the Panel of Advisers for District Nursing Training. Like all the other existing training bodies, they will cease to exist once the new bodies are fully operational.
As I said a moment or two ago, Clause 21 provides for the dissolution of these bodies. However, there will have to be a hand-over period during which the

523
new bodies prepare to take over the work of the present bodies. I think one realises that this will be a complex operation as there will be a need to harmonise the differing practices—for example, registration, the use of computers—between the various existing bodies. Only when this process is completed—and I want to emphasise only when this process is completed—will the present bodies, including the General Nursing Council, be dissolved. I am not going to try to predict the exact timing of this hand-over, but I think one has to face the fact that it may take two years; thus, the General Nursing Council is unlikely to be dissolved before the end of 1981, as we see the situation.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I wonder whether my noble friend can give us a satisfying assurance on the little point I shall raise. What will be the status after this Bill has passed of, first, State registered nurses, and, secondly, State enrolled nurses? Will they have the same standing in their profession that they enjoy today?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Under the new structure there will be the registration of all nurses. At the present moment the registration applies to the State registered nurse, but under the new structure it is envisaged that all groups of nurses, whether they are State registered as we understand the term today, whether they are enrolled nurses, whether they are mental nurses, and so on, will be registered. As the noble Lord will know, one of the recommendations of the Briggs Committee was that there should be a common training given to all nurses. I think the Briggs Report, if I can quote it accurately, suggested that the common training for all nurses should be about 18 months, and then they could go on for higher qualifications and specialisation. In answer to my noble friend, the registration will be a registration for all nurses and the new structure will mean that they will all have in future the common training.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Standing committees of Council]:
[Amendment No.3 not moved.]
4.13 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No.4:
Page 3,leave out line 8.
The noble Baroness said: I have not moved Amendment No. 3 because it has been overtaken by Amendment No. 4. For the convenience of the Committee, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 14. These two Amendments in fact cover the same point as Amendment No. 3 but I think on a better drafting of it. The history of these Amendments is quite a long one but they deal quite specifically with district nursing, and they of course refer to the point that my noble friend Lady Elliot referred to under Clause 1, among other matters.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing forward the Government Amendment No. 10 on the Marshalled List, to which we shall be referring later, and that deals with the complicated question of health visitors. The other complicated question has been that of district nurses. It is a matter on which I am sure we have all received a great many letters. I think that these two Amendments would meet what they are seeking; namely, to have their education and their professional body which would be of a similar status to that of both the health visitors and of the midwives. I understand that their particular reason for seeking these Amendments is that the panel of assessors of district nursing (the body which is at present responsible for district nurse training) in fact covers the whole of the country and gives uniformity to district nurse training nationally, and district nurses are keen to maintain this particular arrangement that they have at the moment.
I think that they have been under some misapprehension and some concern about what happened in another place. They believe that the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, Mr. Moyle, undertook to set up this joint committee. I hope, therefore, that in putting down these Amendments the Government will view them sympathetically and that this may be something that they will feel able to look at and, if the Amendments are not correctly drafted, would feel able to come back at a later stage with corrected Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I shall not deal at this stage with Amendment No. 10, which I shall be moving in due course. What I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that we gave her Amendment a good deal of consideration and we have looked at it from every angle. If I may put it like this, we think that it is reasonable and we agree with it in principle. Ministers have, in another place, repeatedly given undertakings that they would use the powers in Clause 8(4)to establish a joint committee for district nurses which is what the district nurses themselves want. Though the present wording of the Bill is quite sufficient to achieve this, the continuing reference in Clause 3(3) to district nursing as a possible Central Council-only committee is a little confusing and may have cast doubt on what precisely Ministers intended to do. Let me be quite frank about it, the noble Baroness's Amendments clarify the situation and are therefore acceptable in principle.
We realise that district nurses have for some long time wanted to see some clarification of this kind in the Bill. There have been certain difficulties, but I have taken advice on the wording of the noble Baroness's Amendment. I understand that it is not so much defective—I think I am right in saying that—but that it does not appear in its proper place in the clause. I am bound, if I may say so and your Lordships will understand, to accept the advice that I am given. If the noble Baroness is prepared to withdraw Amendments Nos. 4 and 14, then we shall certainly come to your Lordships at the next stage with these particular Amendments worded as we understand from parliamentary draftsmen they should be worded and in the place in the Bill where they should be found.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for what he has said. Not being a lawyer, I have never yet managed either to draft myself or to get anybody else to draft an Amendment which parliamentary draftsmen considered to be correct. Therefore, I am only too happy, once the principle has been agreed, to leave it to him and his advisers to redraft the Amendments and, more important, to insert Amendment No. 14 into the correct part of Clause 8. What is important to
526
the Committee, and what we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for—as I know, his personal intervention in this matter—is that the principle is agreed. I am sure that the district nurses will be grateful for this. On those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.19 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: On the clause as a whole I have been approached and I have had some considerable correspondence on the subject of training of nurses for the mentally ill and those with mental handicaps. Clause 3(3) is really an enabling clause in that it enables the Secretary of State to constitute other standing committees, including mental nursing; district nursing will have its own committee, but mental nursing remains in this category. First, the fear is that this is simply enabling legislation and that there is no guarantee it will happen. Secondly, nursing care for the mentally ill and those with mental handicaps is of course extremely important. There' is no doubt that where there have been difficulties in hospitals which have called for inquiries, they have nearly all been mental hospitals and many people are concerned about the training and qualifications of everyone undertaking what must be very difficult and worrying work. Perhaps the Minister would comment on those points. Again, if he does not wish to do so at this stage of the Bill, I should be happy if he would either discuss it or write to me on the matter. The point about the training of those involved in mental nursing is important and it would be helpful to have the Government's view on the matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is no problem in my replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She is right to say that this is enabling legislation and that there may be doubts in people's minds as to whether there is any intention to create such a standing committee. In Clause 3(3) five are set out—training, clinical nursing studies, district nursing, mental nursing and occupational health nursing—and they are there because it is recognised that they are each making a

527
very important contribution to the community. At present we in the Department are engaged in giving a good deal of attention to the problems of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped and have come to the conclusion that much more needs to be done in this field so far as training for mental nursing is concerned. If I remember rightly, this point is made quite strongly in the Briggs Report.
The reason why we are not setting up standing committees specifically at this stage is that this is a matter in which a good deal of work has been done and a good deal of thought and consideration is being given at this stage to the mental situation, if I may call it such. When we are looking at the construction of what is necessary in the future we want to be better informed and better armed than we are at present, but I can assure the noble Baroness that we feel strongly about this, and I am in a position to say that, in view of the time which the Department is giving now to the whole question of mental nursing.
Baroness YOUNG: Before we leave this point, may I ask the noble Lord if he feels that the national boards will be so constituted as to include someone who has experience of or is qualified in this particular matter of mental nursing and the nursing of the mentally handicapped? I ask that question because not in the Schedules, not in Clause 1 and not in this clause, is it made clear. Is this something else that would be left to the judgment of the Secretary of State or the council?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This is one of the reasons why I was asking that we should remain flexible. Many interests have to be provided for so far as the national boards and the Central Council are concerned and I should be very surprised if, in the setting up of the national boards and the Central Council, for which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have a large measure of responsibility in the initial stage, something so important as mental nursing will not be considered because of the situation we find the country in at the present time.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [The Midwifery Committee]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): In calling Amendment No. 5, I have to point out that if that Amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No.6.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("midwives") to end of line 22.
The noble Baroness said: I realise that I shall perhaps be twitted by the Minister for this Amendment because he will realise that this was one which was introduced by the Opposition and discussed in Committee in the House of Commons. I am therefore, entirely on my own, going against my colleagues in the other House. I regret that this provision states that two members of the general public shall be added to the midwifery committee. I think this is based on the misunderstanding that the midwifery committee have control over trends in obstetric practice and the provision of facilities for home confinement, whereas that is not the function of a statutory body. The addition of two lay members could seriously reduce the midwives' majority. I feel very strongly that if some midwives were unable to attend, for example because of their professional commitments, there would be a majority of non-midwives, and that might result in decisive votes being cast by lay or medical members and thus it would be very difficult to ensure that the midwives have responsibility for their own professional affairs.
All will agree that we are of course always interested in having consumer interests taken into account, but one must remember that midwives are themselves consumers in this profession, and if this is to be achieved by direct representation written into the Bill, then surely all the other committees referred to in the Bill should have similar representation, not just midwives. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, in her place because she commented on this matter, as we see from paragraph 1659. If the Minister cannot accept the whole Amendment, I hope the woman will be taken out because we do not want statutory women on these committees.
We are getting tired, particularly since the Sex Discrimination Act, of the placing of women into special categories. I am also fortified by what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, himself said in column 1681:
"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".—[Official Report, 19/2/79.]
That cannot be achieved if the midwifery committees are hived off as a separate enterprise. I believe that what is happening is that certain organisations—the National Childbirth Trust, the Birth Centre and the Association for the Improvement of Maternity Services—are thinking that if this goes forward as it is everybody will be forced to go into hospital, and they are very much against that. I believe it is a misconceived idea and I therefore hope the Minister will agree that these points should be thought about again with a view to removing what in my view is a totally unnecessary and unfortunate addition to the Bill.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I apologise for not being here for the Second Reading debate; I was delayed in Dallas. Having been the president of our local midwives and knowing that our future generations will be reliant on the skill of the midwives for safe delivery into the world, I believe Clause 4 needs amending rather than that we should simply leave out from "midwives" in line 20 to the end of line 22. In stating that one of the lay members should be a woman, it leaves this appointment open to abuse and any woman, whether or not she has any interest in or knowledge of childbirth, could be nominated. Surely it ought to be stated that the lay members should have a special interest in improving the maternity and childbirth service.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I have received many letters from midwives and health visitors throughout the country. They are concerned for their specialised professions. They do not like the Bill, and they already feel that there has been much disharmony between the nurses, midwives, and health visitors. It seems that the Bill is already doing the opposite to what it sets out to achieve. Instead of uniting the professions, it is putting up barriers of defence. I hope
530
that, after the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, the professions will be happier.
Lord BRIGGS: I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in her attempt to delete the last part of the phrase in question. Having received many letters from people concerned with the midwifery profession, my impression is that there is not the degree of discontent that has just been suggested. When the Briggs Report was produced there was a considerable number of midwives on the committee, and the report has received the support of most of the midwifery organisations. I feel that the idea of having two members of the general public, at least one of whom must be a woman, is really quite wrong, and rests on a misapprehension of the nature of the midwifery committee. This is the only place in the Bill as it stands where the phrase, "general public" is used. It is very difficult to see why at this particular point in the logic of the reorganisation the general public should be mentioned in this part of the Bill, if they are to be mentioned, and not mentioned elsewhere. I dislike very strongly the proposal that one of the members must be a woman, and I hope that we shall get rid of the last part of subsection (1) of Clause 4.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I rise to support the Amendment and I find myself in rather a similar position to the noble Baroness because certain members of my party supported the Amendment in the other place. I believe that they did so because they had misunderstood the purpose of the Bill itself on the question of the representation of women and the general public on a teaching and training council. I find it difficult to accept that the present wording should remain in the Bill, particularly in view of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in our debate on the first Amendment, which laid great stress on retaining the complete flexibility of the establishment of the various bodies and committees. I believe it is essential that your Lordships should remove the words in accordance with the Amendment.
I believe that there has been confusion in the minds of some people about the purpose of the Bill, and that the fear that the entire practice of home confinements might be influenced by the Bill is a

531
mistaken assumption. People ought to be reassured if they consider what has happened in the past. A letter in the Guardian from the Birth Centre supported the Amendment because it was felt that there was a risk that community experience in midwife training might be curtailed, but it should be borne in mind that it was in 1960 that the practice of hospital deliveries was established as the trend in obstetrics. That was the aim at that time. Nevertheless, as late as 1977 the new syllabus for midwifery training, which was circulated to the training schools, contained exactly the same length of community training as previously. Therefore, I believe that people can be reassured that no midwife would want the kind of training in which she was not capable of functioning both in hospital and in the community. Furthermore, I consider that the references to the statutory woman and the general public in the clause are quite wrong.
Lord LEATHERLAND: The speeches of the two noble Baronesses have indicated that this is not a party matter. Both the other parties are split on this question, and probably there will be differences of opinion in the Party for which I speak. The Royal College of Midwives is absolutely against the provision as it appears in the clause in its unaltered form, and the college has suggested that the two lines which the noble Baroness wishes to have deleted, should be deleted. It may be asked why is the provision about lay membership of the committee to be applied only to midwives. It is not to be applied to any of the other categories dealt with by the Bill. Nothing is said about applying the provision to health visitors, mental nurses, or district nurses. It applies merely to midwives. Why should they be singled out in this way? That is what the Royal College of Midwives is asking, and it is also asking that the provision be deleted.
I have never personally required the attendance of a midwife, and I do not suppose that I ever shall. But I was for many years the president of my village's district nursing association and I got to know a considerable amount about the activities and duties of the midwife. The poor girl had to turn out at night on her bicycle and ride across fields. She
532
had to carry it over ditches and so on. Thus, I have very great sympathy with midwives, and I feel that the attitude which the Royal College of Midwives is now taking is the right one.
I do not ignore the value of the general public, but in this respect their views can be made known in other ways. There is something to be said for having a few men and women on the nursing committee in a local village nursing association, but here we are concerned with a national committee with statutory authority, and in view of the fact that the Bill endeavours to make the midwives masters or mistresses of their own destiny, they should be left alone and allowed to get on with it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am glad to establish yet again that this is a Government of sense and reason. We accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
4.38 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: Along with other noble Lords, I have received many letters about the clause, which was inserted in another place at the Committee stage. In its original form it read rather differently because it was further amended on Report, when subsection (3)(c) was removed. There is no doubt that this has caused considerable concern to the midwifery profession, and I have received a great many letters on the point. The writers feel that what they were promised in their original discussion on the clause as it then was—involving a midwifery committee of similar standing to the present committees—has been watered down. Thus, under the clause as it now stands the midwifery committee will in effect be able only to make proposals to amend and revoke the rules which are referred to in Clause 15. This situation has caused concern to midwives. Would the noble Lord care to explain to your Lordships why the changes have been made to the original clause, and does he feel it is true that the functions of the midwifery committee have been altered and watered down by the subsequent Amendments made on Report in another place?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was not aware that the noble Baroness was going to raise this, but in point of fact I thought it might well be advisable at this stage, and whether or not the matter had been raised by the noble Baroness, to say something about the relationship (if I may use that expression) between the midwifery committees of the Central Council and the national boards, and the extension to midwives of the Amendment in relation to health visitors in Clause 8. I welcome this opportunity because I hope it will clear up some of the misunderstandings and perhaps soften some of the feelings which have been expressed.
When what is now Clause 4 was introduced in the Commons, it originally provided for direct consultation on matters relating to midwifery practice between the Central Council's midwifery committee and those of the national boards. This arrangement was strongly opposed by the non-midwife interests, who felt that it was not constitutional for there to be formal links between a subordinate committee of one body and a subordinate committee of another: formal contacts should be between the parent bodies. Such an arrangement would tend to give the midwives a sense of independence and a sense of total separation, which would be counter to the fundamental unifying intent of this Bill.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State accepted that, by providing for what amounted to a parallel hierarchy, albeit in a relatively narrow field of responsibility, midwifery was in effect being hived off, and thus the aim of unification was being undermined. The clause was subsequently amended to make it clear that the formal process of consultation lies between the parent bodies, the Central Council and the national boards. This is not to imply that there will not be a great deal of informal day-to-day contact among the various midwifery committees, which will be of great value; it merely requires that, when it comes to the stage of formal consultation on the making of rules, this should follow the procedure through the parent bodies, who have the ultimate responsibility.
In looking at the revised wording (I am talking now of the present wording) in Clause 4, it is important to look at the wording of Clause 7(4). Clause 4 deals
534
only with the requirement of the Central Council to consult national boards on the recommendations of the Central Council's midwifery committee, but if one looks at Clause 7(4) one sees that a clear duty is placed on national boards, when they are consulted in this way, to seek the views of their midwifery committees. That is very clearly set out. Thus, all the midwifery committees will have an opportunity to comment, and the net effect will be much the same as under the original wording, except that the national boards will also have had an opportunity to express the views of their own committees—and that would seem to be perfectly reasonable when each of the national boards has a midwifery committee. This must surely be to the advantage of all concerned, as the national boards, having been obliged to play some part in the preparation of midwifery practice rules, will have to become aware of what is involved and will gain a greater understanding of the unique features of midwifery, which in the long term can only be to the good of midwives.
I think that perhaps there is no need for me to say much more, unless I refer briefly to the Government Amendment to Clause 8, which specifies what is involved in the procedure of consultation so far as the health visiting joint committee is concerned; that is, that when the committee has been consulted on any matter the council or board shall not act until they have received the recommendation of the committee on that matter. The midwifery bodies, including the Royal College, argue that if it is necessary, in the case of the health visiting joint committee, to spell out what is involved in the process of consulting—that is, in Clause 8(3)—it is equally necessary to do so in Clause 4(2) and Clause 7(3), dealing with the midwifery committees, the wording of which is virtually identical. This is an argument which I think it is on the face of it difficult to resist. I do not think there is need for me to say anything more, and I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to the noble Baroness.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful for that reply. It is, I think, a very important matter. Following up the last point that the noble Lord made, there is a difference in fact, as I understand it, between the provisions. The difficulty so

535
far as the midwives are concerned is, if I have understood it properly, that in Clause 7(4) there is in fact no obligation on the national board to forward the views of the midwifery committee to the Central Council, whereas in Clause 8 there is an obligation. In that sense, there seems to be a difference of treatment from one body to another. If there is a difference, perhaps the noble Lord would look at it; and perhaps this again is a matter about which we might consult before the next stage of the Bill, when he will have had the opportunity to take advice on this point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should be glad to do that, because I am not sure there is really any fundamental difference. I should like to look at the wording and take advice on it.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: May I ask the noble Lord to whom the midwifery committee is responsible? I think this is the question, is it not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As far as the Central Council is concerned, there is a midwifery standing committee appointed by the Central Council, and therefore it has some responsibility to the Central Council. But there are, as the noble Baroness knows, four national boards and each of the national boards, for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, also has a midwifery committee which will feed its views and observations into the national board. The national board is represented on the Central Council, and there is no reason why the midwifery committees should not feed the midwifery standing committee. So I should have thought that there was ample opportunity and ample scope for the midwifery discussions at the national board level to go not only to the midwifery standing committee but also to the Central Council
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Standing committees of Boards]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
4.49 P.m.
Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("or by the Secretary of State by order").
The noble Baroness said: With regard to the midwifery committee again, I feel that there are too many regulations in this particular clause. First,
"Each Board shall consult its Midwifery Committee on all matters relating to midwifery …";
and then,
"the Committee shall, on behalf of the Board, discharge such of the Board's functions as are assigned to them by the Board or by the Secretary of State …".
I do not see how they are ever going to get anywhere when they do not know whether their functions are going to be assigned to them by the board, which I think should be the final body dealing with this matter, or by the Secretary of State.
I should like the noble Lord to let me know at what time the Secretary of State might come in and perhaps change, or not agree with, some of the functions which had been agreed by the committee on behalf of the board. Perhaps he could let me know why in this Bill so many functions are undertaken by the Secretary of State by order. I dislike all these Secretary of State orders in so many Bills. It depends upon the Secretaries of State at the time whether they are sympathetic to the objects or not and whether they have enough time to look into all the details. In this Bill there are many clauses which are guarded or finalised by the opinion of the Secretary of State. I should like to ask how Clause 7(3) will work. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that there is some misunderstanding here. It is not that the midwifery committee, or for that matter (going down to Amendment No.2) the council and each of the boards shall consult the joint committee and so on; this will be the normal functioning of (shall I say?) the committees and the joint committees. It is that the power vested in the Secretary of State to assign functions to standing committees as well as to their parent bodies is there very much as a kind of reserve, a long-stop, as a safeguard for the minority or specialist groups for

537
whom the committee is established. In the case of these Amendments, they are the midwives and the health visitors. It is to be expected that the parent bodies will assign functions to their specialist committees which will have the necessary expertise; and there is no reason to doubt that they will do so.
However, in the unlikely eventuality of a parent body not assigning a particular function to its committee when perhaps it should do so, there would be the possibility of the Secretary of State making that assignment to ensure that the specialist committee has a proper remit. It is merely done to give protection to minority groups who may have certain things that ought to be considered. If the matters that they want considered are not going to be considered by, say, a particular board or joint committee, and the Secretary of State's attention is drawn to it, he can then say: "Please consider this matter". There is no ulterior motive in this. It is a power which I am sure the Secretary of State would be glad not to have to use. But it is important. I am tempted to say that I do not think that the noble Baroness realises how important it is. The Secretary of State should be in a position, if his attention is called to something which affects one of the minority groups within the nursing, health visitors and midwifery organisations—a matter that ought to be considered and which for one reason or another is not considered—to give a direction.
Furthermore, there are so many things going on outside: reports coming out which impinge upon the medical profession and on the nursing professions and which are things that ought to be considered; and if they are not being considered the Secretary of State in the interests of the community could ask for them to be considered. It is a power which I know he himself would hope he does not have to use. It is a good safeguard, first, for the community and, second, for the minority groups. I hope that the noble Baroness in the light of what I have said will feel it desirable that the clause should remain unamended.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I realise and understand what the noble Lord has said, but it could work the other way. If the council want to do something and the Secretary of State did not want it
538
to do so, could the Secretary of State overrule what the council, whether it be the midwifery or the Central Council, recommend? Has he an overruling power? If he has then that seems to me to be rather dangerous.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have read the Bill—not that I understood it after reading it the first two or three times, and I would not pretend to know it fully now—and I know of nothing in the Bill by which the Secretary of State could countermand. The whole purpose is to create a structure (as I said at the beginning) for nurses, midwives and health visitors to do something for themselves about their own professional situation, standing, training and so on. This is all it is about.
Baroness VICKERS: I thank the noble Lord. He said it is something that they can do for themselves. Now we know that the Secretary of State has an overriding power. When he speaks about other legislation perhaps being necessary as the reason for having the Secretary of State involved, I hope that we shall not be having any other legislation in the near future that will affect this Bill. But in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Joint committees of Council and Boards]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if Amendment No. 10 is agreed I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos.11,12 and 13.
4.57 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.10:
Page 6,line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The Council and each of the Boards shall consult the Joint Committee on all matters relating to health visiting and shall not act on any such matters before receiving a recommendation of the Joint Committee which shall be made within such period of time as the Council or Board shall specify; and the Committee shall, on behalf of the Council or of any Board, discharge such of the functions

539
of the Council or the Board as are assigned to it by the body otherwise charged with those functions, or by the Secretary of State by order.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to begin by saying that I have been able to discuss this Amendment with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and also, although I have not been able to discuss it personally with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, or the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, I wrote to them fully on this matter because I think that one can say that we are of one mind on this. This Amendment, which has the virtually unanimous support of the organisations represented on the Briggs Co-ordinating Committee, including those representing health visitors—that is, the Health Visitors' Association, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors—has been introduced to fulfil the commitment given by the Minister of State in another place that if a better form of words could be found by the health visitors or anybody else that was acceptable, it would be written into the Bill.
In fact, a satisfactory form of words has been found; hence the Amendment standing in my name. It will resolve one of the major problems which has faced us in the Bill: the need to give reassurance to, and allay the fears of, health visitors. Health visitors are in a very special position within the nursing professions. Whereas the vast majority of nurses are concerned with curing ill health, the primary role of the health visitors is its prevention. This means that they work in a very different way from their hospital colleagues, and in a way that is not always fully understood by those used to working in hospital environments. This, I think, makes some of them feel somewhat isolated and vulnerable. Throughout the preparations for this Bill they have expressed anxiety that if their training was the responsibility of bodies on which hospital nurses predominated, their special needs for training might not be fully recognised. That is why the Bill provides for a specialist committee—the Health Visiting Joint Comittee—to be established under Clause 8 so that there can be a single source of expertise available to all the new bodies; that is, the Central Council and the four national boards.
However, despite the existence of this expert committee, the health visitors continued to have real and serious reservations. They wanted to be sure that the joint committee would indeed be a powerful body, whose views and advice would be given the greatest possible attention by the parent bodies. This anxiety was, I think, understandable, though I do not think it was justified. However, in its turn it lead to an anxiety on the part of other groups, especially those representing the broad range of general nursing specialties, that the health visitors were seeking autonomy, or at least a right of veto over the decisions of the new bodies, something which would destroy the fundamental, unifying purpose of introducing a new structure. If the new Central Council and national boards did not take the ultimate authority on all matters relating to the education and training of nurses, midwives and health visitors, they argued, what was the point of creating them? Thus, the understandable fears of the health visitors became—and I am not putting it too highly when I say this—a major challenge to the Bill.
That is why I am so pleased that, at this relatively late stage in the Bill's passage, agreement has been reached on the form of words which does not constitute a threat to the supremacy of the new bodies and yet gives health visitors that all-important assurance that their committee has a real role to play. The Amendment achieves this by requiring that the council and boards shall not act on any matter on which the joint committee has been consulted until a recommendation has been received from the committee; and to ensure that work is not unduly delayed by this process, the council and boards are required to specify a period of time within which a recommendation is to be made. Obviously, this will vary according to the subject-matter in hand, and no doubt the council and boards, on the one hand, and the committee on the other, will be able to come to some arrangement if the time initially specified does not prove sufficient. These are matters to be settled between the bodies, and not prescribed in the Bill.
To summarise, the Amendment provides a neat formula which puts beyond doubt the position of the health visiting joint committee, and demon-

541
strates its importance, but leaves the powers of the council and boards unchanged. It has widespread support from those most closely concerned, and I should like to place on record the Government's appreciation of the strenuous efforts that have been made in order to resolve this tricky problem. The professions have, by their willingness to build bridges and reach agreement, enabled us to get this new structure in being and to work together for the future. This fulfils a pledge which my right honourable friend has given all along. I am grateful to all those who participated. On behalf of the Government, I should like to thank the health visitors for their consideration of the matter, and also to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lady Vickers for their co-operation. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that I speak on behalf of my noble friends as well as myself in saying that we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing forward this Amendment at this point. It is very gratifying to everyone that it is an Amendment based on agreement between the professionals and one which they are happy to accept. This is the most important point of all about it. We on this side of the Committee are very happy to accept it, and in those circumstances, because the point has been so well met, we shall of course withdraw our Amendments. I am very happy to support this Amendment.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: May I say on behalf of all those who have been interested in this Bill in a totally inexpert way—in contrast to those who have moved Amendments—that this is an excellent example of how the Government and the various groups which had points made to them (which the Government did not at first seem to have met in the Bill) have collaborated and so have produced the result in which we all rejoice. From these independent Benches I should like to show my admiration for the work which has been done by the groups who put down Amendments, and for the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in making it possible for those groups to come together and to have that extra time which has enabled this result to be achieved. In passing, we in the Committee might pat ourselves on the back, because
542
in the other place they did not find time to get the agreement which, through the collaboration of both sides, has been achieved here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: We now pass to Amendment No.14.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No.14:
Page 6, line 38, after ("Boards") insert ("in particular a District Nursing Joint Committee").
The noble Baroness said: The substance of this Amendment has been accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, so I do not wish to move the Amendment at this stage.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The Question is, that Clauses 9, 10 and 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: On Clause 11, there is a problem of clarification. I may be incorrect here but I think there is a misprint in the Bill. I should like to draw the Government's attention to what was said on Report stage in another place at col. 488, when the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Moyle introduced an Amendment. It would help both for record purposes and in regard to the Amendment if I repeated his short speech. The Minister said this:
"I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 8 after 'kingdom', insert 'or elsewhere '.".
He went on to say:
"This amendment is aimed at clarifying an amendment of my honourable friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in Committee which I accepted in principle, so as to make crystal clear the conditions under which people from overseas could be accepted for registration in this country. Unfortunately, my honourable friend's amendment was technically defective because it omitted the words 'or elsewhere'. This amendment puts the position right".—[Official Report, (Commons) 7/2/79.]
The Minister moved this Amendment in another place but it now, unfortunately, does not appear in the Bill, despite the fact that it was agreed to. I do not know whether the Government would like to comment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not in a position to comment. When I get Hansard tomorrow I shall have to read what the noble Lord has said. I shall look at the quotation and write to the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: This point which has just been raised—
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The Committee is really out of order. Clauses 9 and 10 have not yet been agreed to and we have jumped to Clause 11. The Question is, that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill?
Clause 9 agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The Question is, that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill?
Clause 10 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: I do not know whether it will assist the Government if I remind them that this was on the Report stage in another place on Wednesday, 7th February.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: Regarding the question of registration of people living outside the country, this is something which can be of considerable importance and it would be of great value to your Lordships if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would explain what the situation is going to be. There must be very many qualified nurses who are living outside the country and if they are not put on the register, if they return to this country their whole position is jeopardised.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am in some difficulty. I cannot reconcile what has been said in regard to Clause 11. I shall look at this and let both noble Lords know.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Removal from, and restoration to, register]:
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No.15:
Page 10, line 9, leave out from ("constituted") to end of line 10.
The noble Lord said: We turn to the issue raised in Clause 12 as to whether proceedings should be held in public. It is our view that this should not be the case. We believe that the Amendment, as set out, will represent an improvement and that the Government were wrong to make this proposal in the Standing Committee in another place. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on this. I think that nurses are particularly vulnerable to persons making accusations against them. Having been on hospital committees for some years and also now being a member of the League of Friends, I realise that somebody in a mental hospital may make an accusation which is quite unjustified but which has to be taken into consideration. Also, there are people who, when they are not well, feel abused in some way or other and accusations may be made by one individual nurse against another. I think it is unfortunate to have proceedings in public because the Press get hold of such a hearing and it is probably magnified unnecessarily and makes the life of nurses, even if they are acquitted, very difficult indeed. I hope the noble Lord may think that it would be very much better to keep these things out of the public eye. He may say that it has been done publicly before. On the other hand, we have not always had the media or the press so anxious; one remembers several recent incidents in Bristol, and I think it would be much better if things were done by the people themselves and then the results could be publicised. If the person is innocent nothing more need be said, but if they are found to be guilty then the findings can be made public. I hope very sincerely that the noble Lord will consider this, because I believe it would be beneficial for the nurses. They are having a very hard and difficult time at the moment and I do not think we want to add to their difficulties by having this in the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Amendment would remove the requirement that proceedings for a person's removal from the register should be held in public except in such cases as the council's disciplinary rules may specify. That requirement, if I may remind the noble Baroness, was originally written into the Bill at Report stage in another place in response to an

545
earlier Opposition Amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to this provision in the debate on Second Reading and suggested that disciplinary proceedings for members of other professions were not held in public. That suggestion is not correct in relation to the medical profession. Rules now made under the Medical Act 1956, as amended, require proceedings to be held in public except in so far as the rules provide—more or less the same words as in Clause 12. Where a particular delicate case was to come before the Central Council's disciplinary committee, there is no reason at all why it should not be heard in camera if the rules so allowed, and the rules could allow that. The main grounds allowed under the Medical Act rules for the exclusion of the public are where, in the view of the disciplinary committee, persons involved
"… would suffer undue prejudice from a public hearing",
or where
"… the circumstances and nature of a case make a public hearing unnecessary or undesirable".
The same approach could be taken by the Central Council when they come to make their rules. There is no obligation at all on the Central Council for saying that this proviso cannot be put in. They are free to make their own rules and they can adopt the same rules as are made in relation to the Medical Act, as I say. It could be public for those hearings where it is not going to do, shall I say, unnecessary or undesirable harm, and where it is, it could be heard in camera.
The important point is that by removing the requirement for proceedings to be held normally in public, the Amendment would not automatically lead to all proceedings being heard in camera. The Council would still be left to determine what they thought was best. The disciplinary committee of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales (the principal body currently concerned with standards of discipline and conduct in the nursing profession) at present holds its proceedings in public. There is a strong indication that the profession would wish to see public hearings continue, and there is a strong argument, in such cases of professional discipline, for justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done.
546
I think the noble Baroness ought to bear in mind that in the last analysis the Central Council can make or adopt rules of conduct, in certain conditions as already appear in the Medical Act, and can decide the kind of thing that must be heard in camera, and other things may be heard in public. I think that from a public relations point of view it would be desirable for that to happen, and that this Amendment should not be pressed.
Lord SANDYS: If my noble friend Lady Vickers agrees, I think it may at this stage be prudent to look at what the noble Lord has said and to make comparisons with the stipulations of the Medical Act 1978. As he rightly says, there is a close comparison and we should like to consider this further. With the leave of the Committee, I would seek to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Attendance by unqualified persons at childbirth]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could explain to me Clause 17(2):
"… a man who is a registered midwife shall not attend a woman in childbirth except in a place approved in writing by or on behalf of the Secretary of State".
I should like to know why this has been put in. I thought now that we had no discrimination and that it had been agreed that men can practise as midwives. It is going to be very difficult to follow this provision. Supposing the woman is in labour and is having her baby and the man is the only person there, how will he get approval in writing from the Secretary of State?
I did not put down an Amendment, but I should like to know the reason for including this. Surely, by now, sufficient men have been trained to be midwives]—I gather that a lot of them are very good at it—and I should not have thought that it was a very practical statement that a male midwife should have to get permission

547
in writing. Women do not always have their babies at an exact time. Will a man have to apply months beforehand? Will he have to send a telegram to the Secretary of State? How will this provision be enacted? I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could tell us why it is necessary to have this subsection in the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I recollect that some considerable time ago—it could be three years ago—I had to introduce some legislation in respect of the training of male midwives, and I believe that it was restricted to two places as an experiment. Subsequently, there were provisions controlling the use of male midwives and what is in Clause 17(2) is merely a continuation of the existing transitional provisions, which were made some time ago. If the noble Baroness looks at subsection (3)(a) of Clause 17, she will see that there are exceptions in cases of urgent necessity. But, as I say, this is merely continuing the provisional arrangements which were made some time ago, with the consent of the bodies concerned, and until this gets off the ground it is considered advisable to continue those provisional arrangements, bearing in mind that under subsection (3) (a) there are exceptions in cases of urgent necessity.
Baroness VICKERS: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. Does that mean that a man does not have to get permission, if the case is exceptional? It seems to me that three years is rather a long time, and surely, by now, it must be known how many men are trained and how many are capable of undertaking this work. Perhaps the noble Lord could look at this and at Report stage give me a slightly more definite answer, or write to me stating when we are likely to consider bringing male midwives on to the same basis as women midwives.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With great respect, this is not really a matter for this Bill. If the noble Baroness wants to know the position of male midwives, and how many there are, that could be answered by putting down a normal oral or written Question.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Jury service in scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I had no idea that midwives serve on juries in Scotland. Do they?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that the answer must be, Yes.
Lord AUCKLAND: In respect of this rather curious clause, which I must confess I have only just noticed, what is the position of other members of the medical profession, such as physiotherapists, nurses, doctors and so on? Does the noble Lord know whether in Scotland, in England or in Wales there is exemption from jury service? If not, as my noble friend has suggested, perhaps the noble Lord could tell us at the next stage of the Bill why this rather discriminatory provision has been introduced.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I understand that this clause is needed to replace the provision of the 1951 Midwives (Scotland) Act. Provision for the exemption of midwives in England and Wales was made in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 and in Northern Ireland under the Juries (Northern Ireland) Act 1974. Practising midwives are exempt, because they may be called upon to attend their patients at short notice.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Finances of Council and Boards]:
5.25 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) No person undergoing or seeking training, qualification, examination or certification as a nurse, midwife or health visitor shall be charged a fee under the provisions of subsection (1)above.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 19(1) provides for the Central Council and the national boards to charge such fees as they determine in connection with the training, qualification, examination and certification of nurses, midwives and health visitors. At present, as I understand it,

549
some nurses pay their own examination and registration fees, while others do not. Midwives and health visitors do not pay these fees. The effect of this clause, therefore, is that some nurses, midwives and health visitors will now, for the first time, be charged fees. The Government will say that they are protected, as the terms and conditions of service negotiated by NALGO and NUPE on the appropriate Whitley Council provide for the employing authority to pay the fees, and they will claim that this is a more effective protection than could be provided by an amendment of the Bill.
Inevitably, some part of those fees will go to the administrative costs of the central bodies. Local government officers feel strongly that such costs should be borne by central government or employing authorities, and not by individual employees. As the Boards are being established in the public interest, so that standards can be maintained, it seems only right that the public and not the employees should pay these fees. Local government officers feel that the protection offered by the Government is insufficient. If they are unable to accept the Amendment as tabled, I wonder whether the Government might consider an Amendment along the lines of a guaranteed reimbursement of fees. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government are by no means certain that this is what the professions, as a whole, want. Behind the Amendment is an essential question of principle; that is, whether or not nurses, midwives and health visitors should as a profession have the right to run their own affairs. The major bodies representing the professions feel strongly that they have that right, and that is a major reason for having the Bill. I suggest that the Amendment is undesirable, because I think that it would, to a very large extent, undermine that principle.
Those who spoke to the Amendment in another place argued that it was wrong for individual members of the profession to be expected to bear the costs of running the new machinery for governing the profession. The purpose of the machinery, it was suggested, was to provide an essential protection for the public against negligence or malpractice by those entitled to practise as nurses. As ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the public
550
has that protection rests with the health authorities who employ the nurses, the costs incurred, it was argued, in registering and disciplining the profession and in seeing that high standards of training are set, should be met not by individual employees but by the employing authorities or by the Government directly. That is the point which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has made.
The flaw in that argument is that it does away with the basis for any claim made by the profession that they should have the right to control their own affairs. My understanding of the situation is that a very large number of nurses, midwives and health visitors—I shall not say that I am talking about the majority, because I just do not know; we often use the word "majority" when we are not entitled to do so—view this as a kind of independence. It is their show; they want to run it, and they are prepared to pay the dues. It is a principle which is accepted by all other professions.
The proper and more effective way to solve the question of whether and to what extent Government should contribute towards the cost of the governance of the profession is through the Whitley Council negotiating machinery. Through the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council, the Government have already agreed that examination fees incurred by nurses in training should be met in full by their employing authorities on the students' behalf. Similarly, under Whitley Council agreements, health authorities pay 50 per cent. of the cost of student and pupil nurses' index fees. These arrangements are part of the terms and conditions of service of the nurses concerned. It is important to note that the fees, although paid for by Government funds, are in fact charged and credited to the individual nurses concerned. The arrangements do not apply to nurses in the private sector who themselves have to meet the full fees.
If there is concern that the provision in Clause 19(1) allows the Council and boards to charge individual fees without check, it is quite unwarranted. The provision empowers the bodies to charge fees only at such levels and in respect of such matters as the Secretary of State approves. The new bodies do not have a blank cheque, even though the Bill does

551
not state what fees nurses, midwives and health visitors can expect to pay in the future. The Secretary of State is bound to have very much in mind the possible repercussion of any proposals for drastic increases in fees. The whole question of fees, and who pays what, will be some-think which Ministers will in practice wish to watch with considerable care.
Again I have to ask your Lordships to return to the scope, the function and the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide an organisation for the three groups for their benefit so as to enable them to arrange their training procedures, et cetera. In the circumstances, it does not seem to be unreasonable that the Central Council should have the opportunity to charge a fee. I think I am right in saying that at present one has to pay a registration fee, and I do not envisage that the practice will extend much more widely than that.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: I accept a great deal of what my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has said. I realise that there is an impasse, but I was hoping that my noble friend might be able to say that one could look at the question of the reimbursement of fees by local authorities. I know that the view is that this question is better dealt with through the Whitley Council machinery than by writing it into the Bill. In view of my noble friend's remarks, inevitably I must withdraw my Amendment, but I shall have to consider whether or not to move a different Amendment on a later occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Central Council rules]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think it is necessary to say something about this clause in view of the correspondence that has been received by the Department relating to Clause 22, and in particular subsection (3). The clause is of a technical nature. There is one feature of the clause to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, since it represents
552
a significant change from the present position—namely, the requirement placed upon the Central Council, when making rules, to consult not only the national boards—that is obvious and almost goes without saying—but also more widely. Consultation is to cover the
"representatives of any group of persons who appear likely to be affected by the proposed rules".
This consultation would extend not just to professional and other associations but to health authorities. which have a very real interest in any proposals that have resource or manpower implications for the National Health Service.
In the past, there has been criticism that the Service has not been involved early enough in any proposals for change in training which could affect the way that the Service is run. The provision in Clause 22(3) should help to remedy the situation. We should certainly expect the Council to consult health authorities when they are contemplating major developments, but there is a further safeguard for health authorities. The Secretary of State must approve the rules before they can come into effect. I can assure your Lordships that it is not the habit of Secretaries of State to approve anything without consultation beforehand, certainly not in cases like the present one where there could be serious resource implications for the National Health Service. Thus, there are two points at which authorities can have an input and make their views known.
It is our belief that this arrangement will lead to a closer relationship and a better understanding between health authorities and the training bodies for nurses, midwives and health visitors, something which in the long run must be in the best interests of the Service, the professions and the patients. As I have said, we have received a certain amount of correspondence relating to this point which I thought I ought to bring to your Lordships' notice.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, because I was going to ask for clarification of this point. Having heard what the noble Lord has just said, I am somewhat reassured. However, it seems to me that the wording "representatives of any group of persons" cannot

553
possibly include health authorities. It is not "any group of persons" but a particular body, an authority, that has to be consulted. As I say, I feel slightly reassured by the statement that has just been made, but I still have some reservations as to whether or not health authorities should be specifically included here.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to look at this point to see whether we have gone far enough.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Citation etc.]:
5.39 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("except section 21(2)(which shall come into force on the passing of this Act)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 21(2) provides for persons who are members of either the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, the General Nursing Council for Scotland, or the Northern Ireland Council for Nurses and Midwives to continue in office after the passing of the Act until the relevant commencement order is made bringing into force the rest of the clause and dissolving these bodies. The amendment to the commencement provisions in Clause 24(2),as your Lordships will appreciate, is a necessary consequence—a point overlooked in another place—and it allows Clause 22(2) to come into force automatically on the enactment of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Constitution et cetera of National Boards]:
5.41 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No.18:
Page 19, line 22, leave out ("two years") and insert ("one year").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. In Schedule 2 we are dealing with the electoral scheme under which the Secretary of State has presented to him a situation whereby the boards are properly furnished with members. This is set out of course under Clause 5(1) and the four national boards—three of which, for England, Wales and Scotland have 45 members each and the Northern Ireland Board has only 35 members. As the Bill is drafted all of those have to be presented to the Secretary of State as nominations within two years.
It is our submission that two years is too long a period for this. For instance, if the Bill suggested that it was a period of, shall we say?, three years or more, the natural tendency of any body when originally set up—any major council—would be to say, "We have got plenty of time. Therefore, we shall not, in our initial work, attempt to make these nominations. We shall see how the committee settles down, we shall think about it, and then probably in the last six to nine months of the period to which we are committed"—that is, two years in the case of the Bill—"we shall put forward these nominations". I think the Government ought to give us very concrete evidence whereby the period of two years must be adhered to. We have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said on Clause 2, under which the functions of the council are dealt with, and of course it is one of their functions to ensure that the scheme is put forward. We believe it is a great pity if the Government extend the period beyond one year to two, and we hope that they will reconsider this matter. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I say this very kindly; I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is being realistic about this. When we consider what is involved, I believe it really is a physical impossibility to achieve in one year everything that is set out in this Bill. First, the creation of four national hoards; each of those boards to have its own midwifery committee, its own finance committee; there is a health visitors joint committee, there is the central committee and there is a finance committee of that; there is a standing committee and, as we have discussed this

555
afternoon, there may well be other committees. It is an enormous organisation. This has to be—not planned, because it has been planned—carried into effect. The present bodies have to continue. Once it has more or less taken shape there must be an appreciable hand-over period, and I think it is expecting far too much to expect to achieve that in one year.
Having said that, I should like to make it abundantly clear that the existing provision of two years is a maximum. I do not share the view of the noble Lord that because one sets it at two years people will not move in the matter for some considerable time. From my point of view, there is every reason to suppose that they will because the Secretary of State is personally involved in this, and it is expected—and rightly—that the council will give priority to the preparation of this scheme and will be able to submit a scheme to the Secretary of State in a reasonable period, well within the two-year period.
To insist that the task is completed in one year would cause a lot of difficulties, and it might easily result in an unsatisfactory scheme coming forward for approval. Preparatory work will need to be carried out by chief officers of the new body, and it will not be possible for the necessary staff to be in post and ready for work until some months after the bodies have been established. In arriving at the figure of two years—originally in the Bill and now restored as a result of a Government amendment at the Report stage in another place—I want to stress that advice was sought from the General Nursing Council of England and Wales, the only profession with any experience of preparing an electoral scheme on a large scale. We consulted them and we were advised, although I agree that their electoral scheme is not on so large a scale as will be necessary under the Bill, so that will add some considerable time. Their advice was that it would be unwise to accept a lesser period.
We have taken their advice because we thought it was prudent to do so. They have had experience and that is their advice; that is why I am saying that it ought to be a maximum of two years, but obviously everybody would like to get it out of the way much sooner. I hope that will go some way towards reassuring
556
the noble Lord, and, if I may say so, he is quite right to raise this matter. There has been much evidence in the past as to when this should come into effect, and perhaps sometimes we have not paid sufficient attention to it.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has been very forthcoming in this particular case in advising your Lordships of the discussions which have taken place outside. In view of the fact that he has given us this information, that it was on the advice of the General Nursing Council and the other important considerations which he has stressed, I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedules 3 to 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Adaptations for Northern Ireland and its National Board]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.19:
Page 25, line 14, leave out ("and 3,") and insert (",3 and 4,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak also to Amendment No.21. These Amendments are of a technical nature, but I can take them shortly. Schedule 6 contains the adaptations to the Bill which are necessary to meet the different constitutional position in Northern Ireland. These Amendments are consequential on Amendments introduced elsewhere in the Bill at Report stage in another place on qualifications of auditors. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.20:
Page 25, line 24, column 1, after ("(5)") insert ("(6)").
The noble Lord said: This is a similar Amendment. There should be a reference in that part of the Schedule to Clause 5(6). Clause 5(6) was added to the Bill at Report stage in another place, but the necessary cross-reference in Schedule 6

557
was omitted. The Amendment I am now moving makes good that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.21:
Page 25, line 45, at end insert—

("Schedule 4,Paragraph 3.

The Secretary of State.

The Department of Commerce for Northern Ireland.

Schedule 4,Paragraph 3.

Section 161(1)(a)of the Companies Act 1948

Section 155(1)(a)of the Companies Act Act (Northern Ireland)1960".).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.22:
Page 32, line 14, column 3, at end insert ("Schedules 1 and4.").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No.22 I should like to speak to Amendment No.23 also. These are technical Amendments. They are repeals which became necessary following the introduction of this legislation, which had been overlooked earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No.23:
Page 32, line 41, at end insert—

("1967). 80.

The Criminal Justice Act 1967.

In Schedule 3,Part I, the entries relating to the Midwives Act 1951 and the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
5.57 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This Bill was originally to have been introduced into this House by my noble friend Lady Phillips, but, unfortunately—or luckily for those of us in London—she now holds high office as Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, and therefore it was inappropriate for her to introduce the Bill on this occasion, as she did when this matter was last discussed in your Lordships' House some three years ago. Before that, your Lordships may recall that a Bill of a similar character was introduced on two occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
These Bills have all derived essentially from the report of the Craythorne Committee in 1964, which was appointed in 1961 by the then Home Secretary, Henry Brooke, to review the law relating to Sunday entertainments, sports, pastimes and trading. Since 1957, when the then Government introduced a Bill amending the 1950 Act in relation to closing hours and found it more controversial than they expected, successive Governments have treated Amendments to the Shops Acts as best left to Private Members' legislation, because of its controversial nature, and the history of subsequent attempts at legislation suggests that the subject has become no less controversial over the years.
Since a Bill to amend the 1950 Act was last under discussion in your Lordships' House various discussions have taken place between different organisations involved, trying to find a mutually acceptable formula for a Bill. Unfortunately, it has been found impossible to reconcile all the various viewpoints. However, I think it fair to say that the current Bill has more organisational support than ever before. That organisational support includes the National tourist authorities, and as chairman of the London Tourist Board I support the view that this Bill would be of benefit to tourism. This additional support has come about not only because of amendments to take account of various viewpoints but also because of changes in trading patterns that have taken place unrelated to the law. For example, the National Federation of Fish Friers for

559
many years resisted attempts to change Sunday trading law because friers contended that the restriction on Sunday sales of fish and chips helped them to retain Sunday as their day of rest. However, with the spread of Sunday sales by other traders this has eventually led to Federation policy being reversed so that they are now committed to trying to get for fried fish and chip shops the same freedom to sell fish and chips as is accorded to other traders.
This is not a wildly radical Bill which will bring about vast changes in people's life styles. It is a Bill which is aimed at placing on the Statute Book an Act which is easily understandable and enforceable, one which will remove various anomalies in the present Act and legalise various abuses of the 1950 Act which public opinion appears to have accepted should be allowed. The Bill has been drawn up by the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration, after widespread consultation. The Institute feels a duty to provide an Act which is understood by shopper and shopkeeper alike, is capable of enforcement and, while reflecting the times in which we live, preserves the basic purpose of the 1950 Act. The Institute itself neither advocates nor opposes Sunday trading. One of its main objects is to provide for uniform and proper administration of the Acts as they exist. The Institute has to be impartial but is particularly sensitive to and disturbed at the current abuse and exploitation of the provisions of the Act, particularly those related to Sunday trading, and what is more, is embarrassed by having among its membership those whose employing authorities have either stated publicly or covertly that they will not enforce the Act.
Why is there this confusion about the 1950 Act? The 1950 Shops Act allows the sales of meals and refreshments on Sunday, and this has been interpreted by the courts to mean that a person can buy the ingredients for a whole meal on Sunday. As early as 1939, in the case of London County Council v. Lees it was laid down that the Act did not prohibit the sale of bread, flour, confectionery, such as jam tarts and cream buns, veal and ham pies, as being within the expression "meals and refreshments" to be eaten on that day. A loaf of bread was held
560
to be a refreshment. Later, in 1956, Lord Goddard, then Lord Chief Justice, held that a raw kipper could constitute a meal or a refreshment, but packets of tea or matzo flour could not be used for refreshment until they had been treated in some way, and therefore could not be sold as single items.
In 1959 Lord Chief Justice Parker held that a pound packet of sugar could not be sold on a Sunday as a single item, but it could be purchased along with other articles of food when it was part of a "meal or refreshment". Such inconsistencies in the law make it very difficult for shoppers and shopkeepers to understand the law exactly. The particular anomaly to which I referred earlier—how one can legally buy fried fish and chips from any take-away food shop which is not a fried fish and chip shop?—highlights the situation. We also have the situation where a butcher can be open on Sunday to sell poultry, sausages, eggs, pies and game, but he may not sell beef, pork, veal or lamb. However, if one lives in Central London, one will not have much difficulty in buying packaged butcher meat from a delicatessen which is open on a Sunday. That, technically, would be an illegal purchase.
Another anomaly which arises under the Act is, of course, the special privilege granted to those of Jewish faith under Section 53 which also applies to the Seventh Day Adventists, which allows shops which are closed on a Saturday to open on a Sunday. However, despite that situation the shoppers and the shopkeepers do not have much to fear if they make or buy illegal purchases, because local authorities appear in some cases to have given up trying to enforce the Act. For example, on 10th July last year Mr. Stillwell, the town clerk and chief executive of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea wrote to a Mr. David Sandler in the following terms:
"Local authorities throughout the country have for some time been expressing their concern over the Shops Act 1950, which require action to be taken against shopkeepers who, although nowadays meeting a wide and increasing public demand in circumstances of changing social behaviour, nevertheless are operating outside the permitted hours. This is a dilemma which local authorities have not yet resolved, and the problem has therefore been brought to the attention of their representative body, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, requesting representations to the Home Office with a view

561
to amending legislation being introduced, which will allow a shopping service to the general public commensurate with the present demand.
In view of the special circumstances, including the widespread disregard of the relevant sections of the Shops Act, this Council have decided that, pending the outcome of their representations, it would be inappropriate to take action on specific contraventions brought to their notice in this Borough".
So, the Act is not enforced. On 31st October the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' General Services Committee decided to support the Bill. While the committee of the AMA considered that the Bill did not meet many of the points which had been raised by different member authorities, the Committee accepted that the Bill would at least remove the anomalies in the present legislation and facilitate the enforcement role of authorities. The Association of District Councils has also fully supported the aims and objects of the Bill.
I think that we should all be very concerned that there is an Act of Parliament on the Statute Book which is not being enforced. Either local authorities should be made to enforce it or it should be amended. I have already shown that enforcement is very difficult because of the terms of the Act. It should, however, be added that changing public attitudes to shopping on a Sunday does not encourage enforcement, particularly when unreasonably low fines tend to be imposed by magistrates for such breaches of the Act as there are.
The current Act does not apply to Scotland, as it was held at the time of the passing of the Act that it was unnecessary for an Act to be put on the Statute Book for Scotland in view of the influence of the kirk in stopping Sunday trading. Notwithstanding that, a situation has arisen where departmental stores in Scotland have opened on the three Sundays before Christmas to sell ranges of goods which they would be prohibited from selling if they were open in England. There has also been the establishment of Sunday markets in Scotland by market operators from this side of the Border, due solely to the fact that the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act do not apply to Scotland.
Faced with that situation one must consider whether it would be right to amend the existing Acts in line with current
562
public needs or to scrap them altogether. Certainly any proposal for a free-for-all would meet with overwhelming opposition. The Bill seeks to liberalise Sunday trading fully in respect of food and drink and medical, surgical and personal toilet requisites. It does not liberalise trade in such categories of goods as furniture, carpets, domestic appliances and clothing.
Only last week the National Consumer Council published a survey showing that public opinion had dramatically changed with regard to Sunday opening. A Home Office survey in 1970 showed that there was little support for the Sunday opening of shops. The National Consumer Council research was concentrated on what use shoppers would make of Sunday opening. The National Consumer Council also co-operated in a broadly similar piece of research carried out by Woman magazine. The respondents to the Woman survey were, not unnaturally, nearly all women. They also tended to be younger, better-off and more likely to live in the South-East than the random sample researched by National Opinion Polls. However, since women are more likely to be mainly responsible for household shopping than men, their answers may be more indicative of shoppers' attitudes than the national random sample.
In the National Consumer Council survey the percentage in favour of longer shopping hours in general was 33 per cent.—very much the same as in the earlier Home Office research. Interestingly enough, the Woman samples were much more strongly in favour: 65 per cent. of respondents wanted longer shopping hours. The NCC survey showed a marked difference in the general response by age: 52 per cent. of the under-25 age group were in favour of longer shopping hours, about 42 per cent. of the 25 to 39 age group. Not unnaturally, people who were working and people who had children were more likely to want longer shopping hours than those who were not working or who were without children.
The most important finding of the NCC research was that the percentage of people wanting to take advantage of Sunday opening was now substantial. The results from the survey showed that 21 per cent. of people would use food shops if they were open on Sunday. The Woman survey reported 43 per cent. As regards

563
chemist shops, the figures were 22 per cent. and 37 per cent. All the other categories of shops had percentage answer figures that were about half of those figures. The National Consumer Council believes that that shows that there is a substantial demand from consumers for shopping on Sundays, particularly for food and chemists' goods.
It is interesting to note that 46 per cent. of those in favour of longer shopping hours saw the main advantage as being "Giving working people more choice", while 45 per cent. of those against thought that people should be able to shop in the hours provided. That ties in closely with the fact that those who are working are those who are most in favour, and the people who are not are those who are most against.
One question inevitably raised is the likely effect on prices if more shops were open on Sunday. That is of course a matter of controversy. Some retailers suggest that prices are bound to go up because of the extra expense of staying open on Sunday with no increase in total overall sales. Other retailers suggest that spreading the shops' fixed costs—such as, premises, rates and so on—over longer opening hours will be more economical and that total sales will go up and prices will come down.
I know that these are matters which are of great concern to my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield. I am glad to see that he is to speak later in the debate. I know that he holds the view—and I have heard him use the argument on many occasions—that any extension in trading hours will inevitably lead to higher costs. In a sense that is true. Those of us who patronise late-night or Sunday-opening food shops in London know well that we have to pay more for our staple items of food there; and we are prepared to pay for that convenience, while doing the bulk of our food shopping during normal working hours.
Having been closely associated with the work of the Shopworkers' union for many years, I shall have much sympathy with and understanding of many of the things that I know will be said later in the debate by my noble friend Lord Allen. However, my view is that the union's opposition to this Bill is based on a false
564
proposition; that is, that the effect of the Bill will be to make seven-day trading the norm. I do not believe for one minute that that will happen. I believe that the multiples will keep to their present trading hours, partly because the Bill would prevent them from selling non-food items on a Sunday and partly because, to keep their competitive edge, they would not open on a Sunday. I am very pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury is also to speak; no doubt we may hear from him on this aspect of the matter as well. However, I believe that the Bill would lead to a spread of the small, higher-price convenience food shops, such as we know in central London at the present time.
In a statement circulated to various of your Lordships by the union, the union states that attitudes within the union,
"range from an uncompromising objection to the whole idea of commercial activity of any kind being permitted on a Sunday, to a belief that whilst modern conditions make some modification inevitable, these should be confined to demands of necessity and that the State should take appropriate measures directed to ensuring that Sunday does not, in effect, become just another trading day".
It is because of this that the Bill is here to ensure that Sunday does not just become another trading day. It is for that reason that much of what the union says about the working conditions of shop workers is unlikely to apply. Shopkeepers will not open for long hours on a Sunday at a loss. It is interesting to note that in Scotland, where the present provisions do not apply, I am told there is no evidence of higher prices.
The National Chamber of Trade has taken very much the same view as the union, but acknowledges the need for some change, particularly in relation to the sections in the existing Act relating to holiday resorts and fish and chip shops, and also for some changes relating to exhibition centres. Recently we discussed the West Midlands Bill which contains a clause to take the Birmingham Exhibition Centre out of the provisions of the Shops Act 1950. This is something which we shall have to examine further, because I have received representations from other exhibition centres saying that if these special privileges can apply to Birmingham, they should also apply to other exhibition centres.

565
I should now like to turn to the terms of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
"Clause 1 substitutes for Schedule 5 of the Shops Act 1950 a new Schedule listing the transactions for which all shops may be open on Sundays. The main change here is that the new list includes the sale of all kinds of food, including butchers' meat, for consumption on or off the premises.
"Clause 2 enables any local authority, by order, to allow shops within their area to be open for the sale on Sunday of the articles listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill".
Those articles are intended to be articles with a recreational purpose.
"This replaces Section 51 of the Shops Act 1950 which gave similar powers in respect of districts frequented as seasonal holiday resorts but which only applied to a maximum of 18 Sundays in any one year".
The reason it is suggested that this amendment should be made and the powers should be universally held is that it has become increasingly difficult to draw a
"distinction between a 'holiday resort' and other towns. Visitors are found on Sundays not only in the traditional holiday resorts but in many other tourist centres throughout the country".
As your Lordships were reminded in the debate which we had on tourism last year, the Shops Act 1950,
"is seriously hampering the development of tourism in inland areas. While … any inland area can obtain a designation as being a resort and therefore be entitled to open on 18 Sundays a year, this is unsatisfactory since, from a retailing point of view, consistent opening all the year round is necessary".
"The inland areas of England do not have the heavily seasonal pattern of visitors which is characteristic of the seaside resorts.—[Official Report, 25/1/78; col. 420.]
In the circular to which I referred earlier from the Shopworkers' union, the union states that the orders under this clause are at the discretion of the local authority. That is not so. The local authority may not and will not be able to make these orders without a direct request from the shopkeepers in a given area. If they agree, then the local authority must make the order whether it likes it or not. It is entirely up to the majority of traders involved. The Explanatory Memorandum continues:
"Clause 3 extends the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for shop assistants and certain catering workers employed on Sundays to all persons employed about the business of a shop on Sundays whether or not the shop is open for the serving of customers".
566
At present the Shops Act 1950 protects only those shop assistants employed on a Sunday in a shop which is open for the serving of customers. Shop assistants employed on stocktaking, window dressing and so on in a shop which is not open for the serving of customers under the present Act are not protected. The Bill will protect all shop assistants employed on a Sunday about the premises of a shop, whether or not the shop is open for business. This clause also substantially increases the penalties for contravention of the Act. Then,
"Clause 4 amends the Shops (Airports) Act 1962 so as to permit shops to open on Sundays at airports in England and Wales as designated by the Department of Trade".
We believe that this will help the tourist trade.
"Clause 5 provides for minor and consequential amendments to the Shops Act 1950 and for the repeals listed in Schedule3".
Finally, I should like to speak from the point of view of the tourist trade. We find that there is increasing competition from many other countries striving to encourage tourists to visit their territories. Therefore, it is most important, both for the British residents and for overseas visitors, that facilities available here should compare not unfavourably with those outside Britain. The present Sunday trading law can be annoying and irritating, both for shopkeepers and for their potential customers.
Although simplifications would be largely to the benefit of British residents, who make up the bulk of the visitors to places or centres of interest, they would also be to the benefit of overseas visitors. The relaxations enabling shopkeepers, if they wish, to provide an improved service on Sundays could help a growth in the visitor trade which would enable us to have more people profitably employed in hotels, restaurants, shops, places of interest and so on. I hope that I have managed to outline some of the pitfalls and problems which the present Shops Act faces, and hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
6.20 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be extremely grateful to

567
the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, first of all, for bringing forward this Bill and, secondly, for the clear and concise way in which he has outlined its provisions and has gone into the details and the effects of the provisions of the Bill. The House will, I am sure, look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Norrie. For my part I know that he has no small knowledge of the Bill's main provisions as they affect various sectors of trade which might be, and indeed are, carried out on Sunday.
From these Benches my comments would be brief. First, because there is a lengthy and expert list of speakers, and, secondly, since this appears to be fairly familiar ground for debates in your Lordships' House on this particular subject. I am reminded of a similar provision that was brought forward in your Lordships' House in 1936. I think there are various relevant items in the particular debates there. The noble Marquess of Dufferin and Ava introduced a Bill designed with the same objectives as the one before us today. Throughout its passage in your Lordships' House legal anomalies were produced. I regret to say that most of the anomalies which were produced then are still with us today 42 years later.
In those days problems arose over what was or what was not fresh produce, or what was food. The hoary question of tinned goods alongside similar fresh goods caused some dispute. But there was one valuable comment thrown up during the debate in 1936 and it was, as I understand, de minimis non curat lex. I understand this to mean that the law should not concern itself unnecessarily with trivia, but a Bill such as we have in front of us today is, I am afraid, very much concerned with trivia.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has explained most of the detail very clearly. I believe though that the trivia can have a serious bearing on the lives of thousands of people who are employed in shops and the distributive trades. Some of the trivia and the anomalies have been covered in various communications and one from one of the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord, the Association of District Councils. I think that they mentioned the case of Newberry v. Cohens (Smoked
568
Salmon)Ltd.,1956. During the course of that case the late Lord Goddard, who was then the Chief Justice, Pointed out that the Shops Act 1950, and its Schedules, was to a large extent unworkable. He continued:
"It is not fair for the shopkeepers, it is not fair to the inspectors who have to do their best to carry out the Act, and it is not altogether fair to the magistrates who have to try to interpret the law".
Further, there was the case of Binns v. Wardale in 1946. In this Mr. Justice Humphreys said that he was very much averse to the notion that any person should be convicted in this country—and this of course was England and Wales—on the terms of an Act of Parliament which was obscure and which even lawyers could not construe clearly. From my studies of the 1936 debate in your Lordships' House this question of Sunday trading went right back to 1677, so it has been with us for 300 odd years, and I see that the anomalies are perenially with us.
There were further anomalies that came up in the debate of 1936. One concerned a toothbrush which apparently was not an item to be sold on a Sunday in a chemist's shop since it was not a medical nor a surgical appliance and was not medicine. Further, a trader could not sell a ball alone; he had to sell a ball with a raquet or bat, or some means of propelling the ball. In 1936 apparently any trader who chose to sell one lone ball was liable to a fine of £5—a considerable sum in those days.
The debate in 1936 went further and there was a question as to what was food, what was fresh, and indeed the question of food gave rise to fodder which was given to domestic animals. A debate ensued as to the definition of a horse, whether it covered a donkey and/or a mule. Further, the definition was extended to cover domestic animals right down to dogs, and one noble Lord—indeed I think it was the ancestor of one of my noble friends, Lord Onslow—pointed out a defect in the 1936 measure that dogs were not covered, and could he not give his dog its dinner on a Sunday. The mover of the Motion, the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, pointed out that cats came into the same category and it was unreasonable that dogs should be treated as a separate item, and possibly a man who took a cat into a restaurant and gave

569
it a drop of milk would not expect to sec on his bill something described as "fodder for cat".
These may appear to be mere trivia, but I would suggest that it is the interpretation of these trivia that the Bill, as so clearly spelled out by the noble Lord, seeks to overcome and seeks to interpret in a reasonable way. I believe that the Bill has very serious effects on the lives of thousands of people employed in the distributive trade, but also on thousands of small shopkeepers and traders. It is this category of the trade which I find in general has welcomed the Bill and its aim of legalising what is done on a Sunday—and I regret often in defiance of the law—and where there seems to be a clear and strong desire for such trade to he carried on. It is this particular category of shopkeepers and traders which seems to me to deserve some consideration.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, as I have already spelled out, the Association of District Councils, have both given their strong support to this Bill. This is indeed reasonable since these local authorities have the specialised local knowledge of conditions in their particular areas, and these authorities take the responsibility of enforcing the law as it affects Sunday trading, and the authorities, and their inspectors above all, wish to be realistic in what can and what cannot be tolerated in the 1970s, 1980s, and possibly the 1990s.
I know that many butchers, both individual and organisations, are unhappy about butchers' meat being included in the provisions of the Bill, and other noble Lords will have detailed knowledge of the meat trade. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has special knowledge. I suggest that he would. We for our part certainly understand their fears that one small butcher could open on a Sunday and this would lead to general opening of all butchers, or shops, in that particular area, spreading throughout the land, since I would suggest that no one dare miss out on the opportunity for further trade.
It seems that general opening is not necessary, especially since this would entail seven day working, which would raise labour costs as well as causing pressure by employers on their employees
570
to work on a Sunday as a matter of course. Problems of this kind are especially clear in the larger chains of supermarkets. But the Bill is one which aims to clarify the law, and I believe that we can all be grateful for that, and the more so the interpretation of the law. So far as meat is concerned, I wonder where the definition of butchers' meat starts or finishes. For example, is a shopkeeper in breach of the law when he cuts some cooked meat for a customer who happens to be collecting his Sunday newspapers, and indeed picks up and buys the meat at the same time from the same counter. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the sale of pies and pastries containing meat. We heard about veal, chicken, and pork, but I believe the sale of associated meat products is also of very relevant concern to the students of the Bill.
In general, Sunday trading is of growing interest to many of your Lordships, but is it reasonable to find the law so unclear and capable of so many differing interpretations? Surely the Bill deserves support since it seeks to bring the interpretation and the meaning of the Shops Act 1950 into line with what the law should mean, and does mean to those of us who need some special service or substance on a particular Sunday. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke of abuse and exploitation of the 1950 Act. I believe that these two words "abuse" and "exploitation" spell out his case very clearly, and certainly I could not do better than to thank him for his tremendous efforts with this Bill and to commend it to your Lordships' House.
6.30 p.m.
Earl GREY: My Lords, I look forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. I believe he is a market gardener and thus well qualified to contribute to this debate. I welcome the Bill. It is as long overdue attempt to rectify a situation in law that in practice is ignored, and I hope the necessary steps will be taken to remedy this.
In spite of the hard work of many Members of your Lordships' House to bring us up to date, there are still many problems for a shopkeeper as to what he is allowed to sell. For example, growing flowers, shrubs and plants are allowed to

571
be sold on a Sunday, but not so artificial plants and I do not see the logic of this. Under Schedule 1 we are told that:
"Flowers, plants, shrubs (other than artificial)"
may be sold, and Schedule 2 refers to:
"Articles which may be sold on Sunday pursuant to orders made by local authorities",
and then paragraph 3 mentions:
"Works of art and reproductions of works of art".
I suppose artificial flowers could come into that category, so that aspect must be looked into. Accessories for aircraft, motors or agricultural machinery can be sold, but apparently not the machines themselves. I am at a loss to understand why.
The Crathorne Report on the law of Sunday observance looked at entertainment, sport, pastimes and shopping on Sundays and recommended that local authorities should have complete discretion in deciding how many Sundays in a year shops could open. The recommendations called for an increase from 18 to 26 in the number of Sundays a shop could be open, but that has never been implemented and is still not law. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in 1976 introduced a Sunday Trading Bill in which she referred to the Crathorne Report, urging those recommendations.
I realise that Sunday is a day of great importance to the Christian way of life and that many people wish to preserve its meaning and identity. The Lord's Day Observance Society strongly opposes the Bill in the fear that Sunday will become just another day of the week and that our values will be lost. I do not believe that that would happen any more than at present. Nor do I think that Sunday should be devoted entirely to God, with everything closed. What about public houses that are open seven days a week, offering the same services irrespective of the day? Sunday is the one day of the week when the family is together, and should be enjoyed as such, whether the family goes to church, wishes to visit an open air market, watch or play cricket or take advantage of other sports facilities.
One argument may be that shop workers may be exploited, but that aspect and their protection is covered in
572
the Bill. It should be a matter for individual shopkeepers and staff. If staff wish to work on Sundays I see no reason why they should not; neither should they be made to work on that day if they do not wish to do so. Many small family shops use Sunday opening to help them combat the strong competition from the larger supermarkets, and their existence may well depend on opening on this extra day. We in the Liberal Party have always been in support of the smaller business, and we welcome the Bill. I support the argument for Sunday traders to be allowed to sell their normal range of goods without restrictions and would welcome some legislation for free enterprise proposed by a Labour Government.
6.34 p.m.
Lord NORRIE: My Lords, it is with much humility that I rise to speak this evening and I realise that in choosing such a controversial subject for my maiden speech I cannot refer to the difficulties which already affect the horticultural trade, particularly nurseries and garden centres, in respect of which I must declare a personal interest. All I can do is draw your Lordships' attention to a number of key problems which affect or might affect extended Sunday trading. To do this I shall speak briefly about the Shops Act and then suggest what might be a possible chain of events should Sunday trading enlarge or develop into a free-for-all.
Let me deal, then, with the intention of the Shops Act; that is, that Sunday trading should be distinct and different from trading on ordinary days. Even though the majority of the population may not hold strongly expressed religious views, there is still a large body of opinion favouring the traditional English Sunday as a day of rest. The Bill does not seek to abolish restrictions on Sunday trading generally. Nor does it seek to increase those classes of shops which may open. It attempts to allow those businesses presently open to sell the whole range of goods that they would sell on other days. The Bill would help to ensure efficient trading and would safeguard the jobs of those already employed.
When it comes to enforcement, it is the local authorities which are responsible and they have the task of appointing shop inspectors. At present the attitude of

573
the authorities varies enormously; some appear to turn a completely blind eye until a complaint is lodged, which is usually done by another trader. Not surprisingly, certain boroughs openly admit that they do not have sufficient manpower to enforce the law. The only effective sanction is an application to a court for a civil injunction. If criminal proceedings are taken a fine will result, but the breach will continue. This is arguably a strong case for legal reform, but whatever views your Lordships hold on Sunday trading, it would seem reasonable to recognise that any law must be capable of enforcement and be in line with present working, leisure and commercial conditions.
There is always a great deal of comment about the anomalies of the present restrictions on Sunday trading. It is inevitable that there will be some conflict of interest when deciding what is or what is not essential or desirable in the interests of the general public, but there is a vast difference between catering for a specific need and a Sunday free-for-all. In Scotland, where the Shops Act does not apply except to barbers and hairdressers, Sunday seems to have retained its own particular character without legal restrictions on trading.
Your Lordships may now consider that the traditional Sunday in England would remain unaltered if legal restrictions were less narrowly defined. With the law as it stands, no one need starve, go without medical supplies or be deprived of newspapers, tobacco or confectionery. Housewives may be irritated by not being able to buy cosmetics, books, greetings cards, some ingredients from food shops or even fish and chips to eat at home. Traders in holiday areas may feel that the 18 Sundays on which certain transactions may take place are not sufficient to cover the entire season. The anomalies inherent in the Shops Act 1950 have been aggravated by time. New recreational activities have developed such as yacht marinas, which have been considered as providing for a sport—namely, sailing—but others have been restricted, like nurseries and garden centres, which offer a weekend service to the family and which can still sell only certain of their goods on a Sunday. Reform would bring the law more up to date, and this the Bill attempts to do.
574
Before putting before your Lordships the possible chain of events, should there be a substantial extension of Sunday trading, there are certain questions I would pose. Who will actually benefit if restrictions on Sunday trading are reduced or lifted? Will the advantage to the housewife be outweighed by the disadvantage to the trader and his workforce? Sunday has always been the day of rest and relaxation and, leaving out all religious consideration, might it be that increased Sunday trading may only disrupt further family life for the shopper and retailer alike? Shops can at present open any time after midnight on any weekday and generally speaking can remain open until 8 p.m. with an extension to 9 p.m. on one week night. The permitted trading hours may therefore be as many as 121 out of a total of 168 during the week, including Sundays. Furthermore, is it an accurate assessment that a large number of working housewives find it difficult or impossible to shop in conventional hours?
Your Lordships may feel that this is very much the case, and that the only opportunity the full-time working housewife has for shopping is during her lunch hour. Saturday may often be taken up with household chores which leaves little time to shop with her family. Certainly those who advocate increased Sunday trading do not believe that there are sufficient hours for shopping; that is according to the opinion polls that they have conducted. But they have tended to concentrate on questions such as: "Would you like greater opportunity to shop on Sundays?", and, not unnaturally, many housewives have said, "Yes". But had the question been rephrased to read: "Would you be willing to pay higher prices if more shops were allowed to conduct increased Sunday trading?", it is doubtful whether the answer would have been the same.
The reason for these higher prices could be as follows. To enable the trader to recover the extra costs caused by extended Sunday opening, he might be forced to increase his prices because the average customer tends to have a fixed amount of spending power and this would be spread over seven days, instead of six as at present. The only alternative might be to economise on staff, which would hardly be to the advantage of the customer, and still less

575
to the employee. If only one housewife in 10 were to change just part of her shopping to Sunday, it is probable that the vast majority of shops would be compelled to open in order to protect their interests. As a businessman, I know that at least 50 per cent. of all retail operating costs are attributable to labour. Opening on Sundays would require additional staff or permanent overtime payments to existing staff. Employees are unlikely to work for less than double time on Sundays, so the costs in labour alone could be anticipated at an additional 40 per cent. on present costs.
If the same shopkeeper decided to operate six days by closing on a weekday and opening on a Sunday, there is still the additional cost involved in employing staff on that day. No employee will sacrifice a Sunday in exchange for a weekday without adequate compenation. Furthermore, he is protected by Section 22 of the Shops Act 1950, which states that staff working on a Sunday for more than four hours are entitled to a (lay off other than their statutory half-day holiday. In addition, they cannot be employed on more than two other Sundays in the same month.
My Lords, whether or not you believe that there will be substantial consumer demand should Sunday trading be extended, or whether you believe that the forces of competition would impel the majority of shops to open, one thing is quite certain: there would be a great deal of consumer traffic, whether it be for expeditions or for window shopping. Sunday trading would very much follow the pattern of Saturday trading. Increased public transport might be required, car parks might have to be manned, traffic wardens and police might find themselves under pressure in dealing with traffic congestion. Emergencies or failures in the shops of any of the public services—telephone, gas, water, or electricity—would require cover from engineers. Additional security precautions might be necessary to safeguard shop takings where banks are reluctant to provide weekend facilities. Thus, very many people who normally enjoy a relaxed Sunday would be required to work. Let us also not forget those who live near the main shopping areas, who would be denied the peaceful enjoyment of their domestic
576
environment on what is now a day comparatively free of traffic.
Not even the Continental Sunday, which we hear so much about, provides a solution to the problem. Trading laws within the EEC are by no means uniform. In France, because of regional differences in law, there is often misinterpretation and confusion. In the larger towns you will find that there is very little Sunday trading, and what there is must be done at the expense of another trading day. This is because local authority permission must be sought, and it will depend on the shop being open on only six days in any one week. In Italy shops close on Sundays, and the same rule applies in Germany, except for specific trades in holiday resorts where even these are limited to festival days and 16 Sundays in the year. German law goes one stage further in forcing shops to close at 2 p.m. on Saturday, with the exception of the first Saturday in the month and the four Saturdays preceding Christmas. Any retailer in this country wishing to adopt the Continental Sunday without really being aware of these facts may now feel that it is better to operate under the existing law.
May I summarise the key problems which I believe merit further considration by your Lordships. First, there is the fear that widespread Sunday trading would lead to higher prices, and the fact that if this were so the general public would be resentful of the extra cost which in turn would adversely affect the trader and his workforce. Secondly, there is the grave possibility of family life being disrupted, not only for the Sunday shopper, but also for the trader and the ancillary services, and for those who live in the immediate vicinity of the shopping area. My Lords, I have already spoken far too long and I am grateful for your Lordships' patience. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for giving me this opportunity to speak and assure him that I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Bill, when I hope I may be permitted to speak quite openly on behalf of my trade.
6.47 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of FALLOWFIELD: My Lords, at the outset of my speech I wish to express my personal thanks and

577
those of your Lordships' House to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his maiden speech, the contents of which I personally thoroughly agree with. Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, I am quite sure that the House will accept that it was a speech of substance, and one looks forward to future contributions of that kind on other subject matter. I hope that in rising at this stage in the debate I shall be able to make myself audible because I am just recovering from bronchitis and a relaxed throat.
I rise to register my total opposition to the Bill. That will not be any surprise—or it should not be—to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. Before I explain my grounds for opposition I am obliged, by way of some introductory comments, to put the issues involved in their true perspective and to shed some light on other matters of concern to myself and to those on whose behalf I speak. First, I must declare an interest. For the past 16 years—17 years by next month—I have been privileged to occupy the post of general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive, and Allied Workers, a union whose membership of close on half a million men and women will be principally affected by the provisions of the Bill if it is accepted. Secondly—and I mean this most sincerely—I must confess to considerable surprise (astonishment is perhaps a more fitting term) that the Bill is introduced by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, whom I have known for a long number of years. Indeed, he is a member of the union that I represent, and until recent years was a member of the union's parliamentary panel—that was as recently as 1976. With this background I am sure that he will not mind my reminding him, in the event of his having forgotten within the last few years, that the provisions of the Bill which he is asking the House to accept are totally alien to his, and my, union's policy.
Moreover, if I can ask him to cast his mind back a few years—only as far back as 1976—he will recall attending the annual conference of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers in an official capacity as a member of the union's parliamentary panel. If he reflects deeply about this occasion—or, better still, consults the record of proceedings of that conference—he will readily acknowledge that resolution No. 68 on that
578
agenda, which reaffirmed the union's total opposition to Sunday trading, was adopted without opposition. I was in attendance at that conference but have no recollection whatsoever, nor do the proceedings show, that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Mr. Ponsonby as he was then) opposed the union's policy on Sunday trading. Some of my friends are saying that the conversion of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby within most recent years makes the conversion of St. Paul on his journey to Damascus pale into insignificance. In the setting I have just described, the terms "surprise" and "astonishment" do not appear unfair or inappropriate.
My Lords, I turn now to the Bill itself. Clearly, it is a revised version of two earlier Bills which were introduced in this House on this subject-matter in 1968 and 1970 by Lord Derwent. Both Bills failed. I hope your Lordships will accept that this Bill is deserving of the same fate. It will be noted that Clause 1 amends Section 47 of the Shops Act 1950, and substitutes for the current Schedule 5 to the Act a new Schedule listing the transactions for which all food shops may be open on a Sunday. The main and most important change is that the new list would permit all food shops to open on a Sunday for the sale of food. Presumably, meat and butchers' shops would be classified as food shops, and their transactions would also be permitted on a Sunday. We hear a great deal from my noble friend and others about the great value of having a butcher's shop open on a Sunday, and all our large supermarkets and food stores—large, medium and small.
What a great incentive that would be for those who visit us from across the water, to come and see our shops open on a Sunday! Whereas, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Norrie, it is a total misunderstanding for anyone to believe that the kind of Sunday we want to see here is the Sunday that we see on the Continent. Those of us who know anything at all about retailing know quite well that in France, in Italy and in Germany the shops are not, with, as is the case here, one or two minor exceptions, open on a Sunday. The extension of Sunday trading as envisaged in this Bill, beyond that currently permitted under the present legislation, inevitably raises issues

579
of a special and diverse character which do not arise when dealing with the question of weekday shopping hours.
There is a growing fear among those who work in retail distribution—and may I say that they are not an irresponsible section of the British community; they are a balanced and responsible cross-section of the working populace and a section of the working populace that has served the British consumer well and consistently, with very little exception by way of break for one reason or another—that those who from time to time attempt to meddle or tinker with shops legislation do so with little, if any, practical knowledge or understanding of the retail trade.
I ask your Lordships to examine seriously and in depth all the issues that emerge from a consideration of this Bill. They range from an uncompromising objection to the whole idea of commercial activity of any kind being permitted on a Sunday to a belief that, while modern conditions make some modifications inevitable—and I am not arguing that there is not a case for some modifications, although the method put forward by my noble friend seemed to me to compound all the difficulties that he mentioned rather than to deal with them—if there is need for a change it should be confined to demands of proven necessity, and the State should take appropriate measures directed to ensuring that Sunday does not, in effect, become just another trading day.
Another widely-held objection to the Schedules to this Bill is their failure to recognise that there are deep and profound social objections which, if the provisions contained in this Bill were accepted, would all have an adverse effect on those who would be expected to staff the shops, and their families. If this is the issue that we are going to face tomorrow, so to speak, then I submit that the family Sunday in the United Kingdom as we know it now will be destroyed. The vast majority of those who work in most other occupations have both Saturday and Sunday for family and social activities. This is not the case in the retail trade. Saturday as a day of leisure is ruled out. For the shop worker, it is part of his or her working week. Nor is there any special payment or recompense for the disadvantages of Saturday working. The
580
employee has a weekly day off on some other day of the week, with the exception of a very small minority of cases where Saturday half-day closing appertains or the day off happens to be rostered. Consequently, Sunday is the one day of the week which offers the opportunity of a common rest day with the family. The man or woman whose family is home at the weekend but who would be required to work on both Saturday and Sunday would be at a considerable disadvantage. Young persons, of which the distributive trades take the greater proportion as school-leavers—and badly paid they are, too—would bitterly resent having to work on Sundays as well as Saturdays.
My Lords, it is my view, based on a long number of years' experience in dealing with the retail trade, that young people today will not put up with it if you expect them to work on Saturday and Sunday. That view, I feel confident, is shared by many established employers in the trade. I deliberately use the term "established"; I am not thinking of the get-rich-quick overnight operators or the whizz kids who very often do irreparable harm—yes, to our tourists—in the name of the so-called retail trade. And what about the social implications for married women in employment? They represent a considerable and growing proportion of the labour force in retail distribution. If they are expected to work on Sundays in addition to Saturdays they would be faced with considerable problems. Over 70 per cent. of the labour force in distribution are women. A high proportion of these are married women with families and domestic responsibilities. In cases such as that the social disadvantages would be most acute.
Anyone who knows anything at all about the practical problems in the retail trade will know that staffing difficulties are already most acute. Sunday opening would make matters in this respect worse with a serious effect upon efficiency and service to the consumer. When I hear those who support this Bill saying: "If they don't want to work on Sundays, they can please themselves, although the shops will be open"—then I submit to your Lordships that that reveals a total and abysmal ignorance of how the retail trade must operate in the society in which we live at the present time. I want to say

581
that Sunday opening would meet with the strongest opposition from those people at present employed in retail distribution. I have no doubt in my own mind that it would result in many of them leaving the retail trade rather than put up with Sunday working in addition to their present Saturday working.
My Lords, as far as one has been able to ascertain through close association with members of my association and others, and with employers who are in close and constant touch with shoppers, and through inquiries that they have made, there is no evidence of a genuine or widespread demand on the part of the majority of the shopping public for extended shopping facilities on Sundays beyond those already permitted under the current legislation. If you ask people: "Would you like to see the shops open?"—then, of course, you get the answer, "Yes". Some of them find it pleasing to have a look at shops because they have nothing else to do with their time. But if you put the question in another way and ask: "Would you, as a housewife, be prepared to pay more for the production of these goods and the distribution of those goods over the counter because of the shop having to open in the winter, because of heating, electric light and overtime?"—then I think you will get a different answer. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby knows that as well as I do.
My Lords, I think that one is entitled to ask whether the lobby wanting to alter the law of Sunday trading really have the consumers' interest at heart as they claim to have, or whether their motives are pecuniary and commercial. Shop workers are impolite enough to hold the latter view. I take the view that apart from the religious objection—which I sincerely respect—to the provisions of the Bill, together with some of the social objections which I have touched upon earlier, a fundamental and most important consideration now raises its head: namely, the economic factor involved in an exercise of this kind. The retail trade is a highly competitive business. All the experience of the past proves conclusively and beyond any shadow of doubt that increased shopping hours, particularly the provisions of the Bill to extend from six-day trading to seven-day trading, will not increase turnover, will result in high operating costs and will require the
582
involvement of shop workers in unsocial hours of working.
The argument is adduced by some advocates of Sunday trading that it is practicable without imposing longer hours on shop staffs or increasing operating costs. They try to support this argument by vague references to shift working and staggering of hours. This shows a lamentable ignorance of the circumstances of retail trade. If shops are to be kept open around the clock for seven days a week, no over-all greater volume of goods would be sold, for the housewife's purse is not elastic; it is not a bottomless pit. It would simply mean that the same volume of sales would be spread over a longer period of time with increased labour costs and overheads. Extended trading hours must in the long term mean longer hours over which the staff are deployed, involving regular overtime, increased staff, shift work or all three. I am sure your Lordships will recognise how difficult or impossible this would be when I tell you that over 70 per cent. of shops in the United Kingdom employ less than four persons, including working proprietors and manageresses. This figure serves to illustrate the very high proportion of the retail shops in the country where the application of a shift or rota system would be totally out of the question. It could only become a practical proposition by a substantial increase in the labour force in the distributive sector.
The alternative would be to lengthen the working hours of the shop staff. This would involve regular overtime working. Either way, the higher labour cost involved would be substantial—a cost which I submit could not be covered by an increased volume of turnover and which in the final reckoning would be passed on to the consumer in higher prices. Conversely, shopping extended to seven days a week without higher prices is possible only by unfair exploitation of the labour force in shops. I am sure that there is no one in your Lordships' House who would want to support legislation of any kind that reinforced what in some places at the present time is still undue exploitation. These higher food prices would follow at a time when all responsible people in the community are anxious to see the annual rate of inflation restricted to single figures and would have to be paid for by the housewives, irrespective

583
of whether they made their purchases during normal weekday shopping hours—which is still the practice, I am glad to say, of the majority—or on a Sunday, which would be for the minority to whom unlimited shopping hours would appeal or who were desirous of making their purchases on a Sunday. Let there be no doubt—none whatsoever—that increases in costs of retailing and distribution as a result of the provisions contained in the Bill before this House at the present time would fall on the consumer by way of increased prices. At no stage have any of the supporters of the proposed change in the legislation indicated how this important aspect will be dealt with.
Given the emphasis and efforts by the Government directed to trying to control inflation and, where practicable, a reduction in food prices, and their recently-declared intention to continue to do so, is my noble friend—and those who support his Bill—now seriously suggesting that it would be in the national interest to legislate for increased retail prices on the questionable ground of a supposed demand as yet unproven for a seven-day shopping service?
I heard it said—and no doubt this is perhaps the motivation of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—that it will be good for British tourism. I have before me a pamphlet which is carrying the title Who's Who of British Tourist Boards. I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby is the chairman of the London Tourist Board. I also note:
"Britain earned an estimated £2,763 million in foreign exchange from tourism in 1977. Overseas visitors spent £12,179 million within the country and a further £584 million on fares to British air and shipping lines. Total tourist earnings represented an increase of 28 per cent. over 1976. There were an estimated 11,500,000 overseas visitors to Britain in 1977, an increase of 14 per cent. on 1976. The British Tourist Authority estimates that a similar number of overseas visitors came to Britain in 1978".
My Lords, I put it to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and those who, I believe mistakenly, want to follow his Bill, that there is no evidence here—even if British tourists have no attraction—that people are staying away from Britain because food shops are not open on a Sunday, because it is not possible to buy a lamb or a pork chop on a Sunday. All the evidence is that the attraction to come to Britian is there
584
notwithstanding the fact that food shops and butchers' shops are closed on a Sunday. I believe it is a very commendable performance by the Tourist Board to clock up a record of this kind. I do not believe that the opening of shops will in any way enhance the figures that I have just read out to this House. For that reason, and those reasons that I have advanced previously, I hope that this House will treat this Bill in the same manner as the two previous Bills in 1976 and 1978, which were presented by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
7.15 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like to join the previous speaker in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on a most impressive, challenging and powerfully delivered maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him again soon. I am afraid that I take an entirely different view of this Bill from that just expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield. I warmly support this Bill, not only for its intrinsic merits, which are considerable, but also for what it symbolises.
We have had far too much restrictive legislation over the past 10 years or so, restrictive legislation which necessarily involves providing for fining people, sending them to prison or awarding large sums by way of damages against them, and we have had far too little legislation of a liberalising nature—liberalising in the true rather than the debased modern sense—legislation which removes restrictions and adds to the sum of individual freedom. Into the first category comes legislation on crash helmets, seat belts, race relations laws, sex relations laws, and so on. The aims of such legislation are doubtless laudable but the means provided for attaining these objectives are, perhaps inevitably, coercive and smack of authoritarianism.
Regarding the second, liberalising, category, since the 1967 Sexual Offences Act and the Abortion Act which followed soon afterwards I can think of only one useful but modest Bill to relax the Sunday trading laws in holiday resorts to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, alluded, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in your Lordships' House, plus the Bill recently

585
introduced here by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, to relax certain restrictions upon marriage and re-marriage—but that Bill has many hurdles to surmount before it becomes law.
Quite disgracefully, both major political parties have, when in office, totally ignored the excellent recommendations of the Erroll Committee for the reform of the licensing laws, doubtless for fear of the temperance lobby. Equally disgracefully, many tens of thousands of people had their New Year's Eve ruined 10 weeks ago (with dances cancelled, and so on) because both major parties appear to be terrified of the religious extremists of the Lord's Day Observance Society, tiny minority though they are. Luddite attitudes are also persistent, although those are diminishing. This is why this Bill is so important in a symbolic sense, because apart from anything else it recognises the strong swing in public opinion against such restrictive attitudes.
I need not spend much time in itemising the specific merits of this Bill; its advantages are more or less self-evident. However, apart from conferring greater freedom of choice upon the individual, I believe that this measure would produce a very satisfactory "spin-off", or bonus, from the national point of view. If it becomes law, I suggest that this measure will tend to help very considerably the dispersal of industry away from London and the South-East, where—whatever the law may say—almost anything goes in practice (certainly so far as food shops are concerned) mainly, although not entirely, because of the large number of highly entrepreneurial Asians, Cypriots, Italians and so on who tend to congregate in this part of the country and to run small shops.
I believe that more liberal Sunday trading laws will, albeit in a minor way, help to tempt industry into the development areas, the intermediate areas and small towns or large villages which are trying to attract industrial development in order to help dwindling employment prospects because of the growing mechanisation of agriculture, and so on. Human nature being what it is, industrialists will be reluctant to move to such areas, whatever the tax inducements proffered, unless they can find the amenities that they used to
586
find in cities like London. In this way, as in others, this Bill will contribute to the sum of human happiness, and I wish it a swift and successful passage.
7.20 p.m.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, as has already been stated, the Bill before your Lordships' House this evening is a revised edition of the one that was considered at the end of 1970 and the beginning of 1971. I spoke against the Bill at its Second Reading on 10th December 1970, and on re-reading what I said then I find my views unchanged: in fact I was tempted to repeat the speech I made then, being sure that no noble Lord would remember what I said on that occasion. I should like to make it clear, as I did eight years ago, that I am speaking in a personal capacity and that my views do not necessarily reflect those of any trade association or of the firm with which my name is associated.
Let me say at the outset that the present regulations relating to Sunday trading are unsatisfactory, complicated, full of anomalies and draw arbitrary distinctions between food that can and cannot be legally sold. In addition, the present regulations are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Therefore, my Lords, you may ask why, set against these considerations, I oppose the Bill before your Lordships' House. I do so primarily on humanitarian grounds and, secondly, on economic grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, when introducing the Bill at Second Reading on 10th December 1970, said this at column 1095:
"I do not believe that this Bill will lead to any increase of Sunday trade in so far as shops that are not now open on Sunday will, as a result of the Bill, open".
I did not agree with that statement then and I do not agree with it now, if the same argument is used about the present revised version which we are discussing today. I think it may lead in the course of time to a steady increase in Sunday opening by food shops and supermarkets because of the fear of the retailer that some of his trade will be taken by his competitors opening on Sundays. With my knowledge of the retail trade, I feel that, despite possible difficulties to obtaining staff or having to pay a higher rate of wages, we may in time arrive at a situation in which the majority of food shops will

587
be open for trading on Sunday, instead of, as is the case now, Sunday opening being the exception to general practice. No matter what staff arrangements are made with regard to shift working, it will have the effect of increasing the number of people in food retailing who work on Sundays. A large proportion of those so engaged are married women, and Sunday is the day on which the family, as my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield has said, can be together, both young and old.
So far as young people are concerned, Saturday working is a handicap in recruitment. If Sunday trading is added, recruitment will become more difficult. When it comes to the small family-owned shop, some may be driven out of business or may have to sacrifice more of their already restricted and hard-earned leisure time. I note that the National Chamber of Trade, which represents a large number of small shopkeepers concerned with all commodities, food and non-food, is very much opposed to the present Bill. Quite apart from religious considerations, I do not believe that the community has the right to expect more shopworkers and more small shop-owners to forego their Sunday rest.
Coming now to economic considerations, the extension of Sunday opening is undesirable. It is bound to put up the cost of distribution because, as American experience has shown, total trade will not be increased but merely spread over a longer period of time, namely, seven days instead of six. This will lead to higher labour costs and to increased prices that inevitably will be paid by the customer on whatever day of the week she shops. As has already been said, the public purse is not elastic. Extending the purchasing period to seven days will not mean that the housewife suddenly has more money to spend, and increased prices are no help in the battle against inflation to which both Government and Opposition parties are committed.
Who wants Sunday trading extended? It is claimed that a majority of British families want Sunday shopping; but I suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, did in his excellent maiden speech, that if they were told it would lead to higher prices the answer would be very different.
588
The workers, whose views were so powerfully stated by my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield, are vehemently opposed to the extension of Sunday trade. The small shopkeepers are opposed and so are many of the bigger chains, and also the meat trade. In fact the large number of people actually involved in the business of retailing and who understand the economics of that business are opposed.
I am in no way suggesting that our present law is satisfactory, as I have already said; but this Bill goes far beyond tidying up anomalies and would lead, in my opinion, to a very major extension of Sunday trading, resulting in far-reaching social and economic consequences for this country. Therefore, if it goes to a Division, I shall feel obliged to vote against the Bill.
7.29 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, first, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on his courage in introducing this Bill. If I may say so, I do not think I have ever heard a Member being more offensive to another than was the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to his noble friend—and I have been in this House for four and half years, and was in the other place for 20 years. So I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on pursuing a course which he believes in this day and age to be right.
I speak with two hats: first, I am very proud to be a vice-president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which supports the Bill. I am also a member of the Parliamentary group of the Retail Consortium which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said, when he so vehemently expressed his own views, opposes the Bill. So that my brief comments will be entirely my own. Also, my father was a very small one-man shop-keeper.
Universally and statutorily, if this Bill was applied by Parliament throughout the country I would oppose it. But this Bill is selective, and it recognises the immense diversity between different areas of the country. If St. Albans or other central areas wish to remain closed they will do so, because the demand is not there. That is why I welcome the fact that under this Bill the local authorities, who, as my

589
noble friend Lord Lyell has said, know their areas intimately and are on the spot to assess demand and to effect an order where there is a demand by a majority of those with premises which would be affected by the provisions, can make the decision.
I accept and sympathise with the views of the great chains and stores, of which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is a great pioneer, who oppose on the grounds that it would be costly for them. I also accept the fact that the Bill is firmly opposed by USDAW. This is where local demand and trading requirements should be the criterion, and that is why I support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Legislation already exists to help holiday areas, and when the Bill was brought in many years ago it was centred on seaside resorts. Today, tourism is so immensely bigger and has become lucrative business. It has shifted to many inland points of focus. The EEC has produced huge numbers of daily shoppers who take advantage of cheaper prices in the United Kingdom, with no customs and duty-free goods, and, in effect, this has boosted our United Kingdom export sales quite enormously, as is frequently published not only by the Tourist Board but also by Ministers of the Government.
As a one-time Kent Member, I never expected to see the day when a proud cathedral city like Canterbury would become an overseas shoppers' target but so much so, within range of the Channel ports, has this proud city developed, that, quite rightly, the great firms and chains have gone there in the last 10 years in order to get their share of this valuable trade. In season, many of those great chains advertise in the Canterbury and Kent newspapers, begging the locals to shop in comfort from Monday to Thursday, as loads of European shoppers would be flooding in at the weekend. Sometimes, they say that over those three days there will be 50 coaches or 50 ferries coming in with shoppers from France and Belgium; so, too, in both Dover and Folkestone. I also understand, though I have not myself seen them—I have seen the trippers in Kent—that weekend trippers from Scandinavian countries flock into Newcastle.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I deplore people making an ass of the law
590
and, as he rightly said, many local authorities have given up the unequal struggle. I invite any of your Lordships to go to Oxford Street, Kensington or Victoria on a Sunday and see how they honour the nine o'clock closing, six days a week and one late night. About a year ago, at a purely social function, I ran into four very small local shopkeepers whose premises were in the Victoria area. They harangued me fairly vehemently about the fact that they had either got to break the law or go bust. They pointed out to me not one but dozens of immigrant-owned shops.
They argued, "We employ two staff. It costs £4 in insurance when they come across the threshold, and then we have their wages to pay. We cannot afford six staff. On a crowded Saturday, people will leave the shop and go opposite where six members of the family, of whom only two are registered employees, are working. Any night of the week you can see several children of the family sticking little price labels on all the tins, and then on Sunday they make a killing. We keep the law because if we open seven days a week, if we blatantly advertise in the local paper, or on our plastic bags which customers can buy if they have nothing in which to transport their goods, that we keep open every day of the week from 8 o'clock in the morning till 10.30 at night—and I have seen one shop open at night hundreds of times—then we should be before the "beak" next week. Either insist that the Shops Acts and the Wages Council arrangements are kept, or change the law".
I took up their protest with the local authority and I received a long, detailed and, with great sympathy I say, pained reply from the chief officer. He pointed out to me that it had taken him and his staff, who were dealing with such legislation, four months to get a blatant and excessive offender before the courts. He was then fined £10, but what it had cost the ratepayers in time and money was far greater than that. We all know that shopkeepers are blatantly breaking the laws where there is a demand, and where there is good and lucrative business to be done. So either we enforce the law as it is and do not penalise the law-abiding, or we face the facts of new customs, new and enormously increased and more penetrating tourism, and let each local

591
area of shopkeepers choose for themselves where they believe there is a demand, because they are the people who will have to operate this new legislation and open their shops.
Recently I went on a Sunday morning to my local newsagent to get a certain Sunday paper which I do not normally have. The shop was packed to the doors with French tourists, buying like crazy. After waiting 10 minutes, I found that the shop did not have the paper I wanted, so off I went to Victoria Station and then I walked around. I could have purchased food, alcohol, toys, handbags, luggage, tights, dresses, coats and sweaters and, if I had gone North of Hyde Park, a suite of furniture or an exotic oriental carpet and, like the old song, ivories, apes and old tin trays.
I believe that we have to deal with the circumstances as they are today, and where the majority of shopkeepers in a given area think that there is a reasonable demand—and they will not open, unless it is worth their while—then we should leave it to the wisdom and common sense of the duly elected local authorities to make that decision in the interests of their own locality. For that reason I shall support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
7.39 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I should first like to join those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his maiden speech. He had obviously given considerable thought and study to the subject. He was able to draw on his personal experience and, as a result, was able to pose a number of relevant questions for our consideration. One of the chief things I have learned about this subject is what a difficult subject it is. It is only too easy to say what should not be done, but once one tries to find a way forward one finds oneself in a minefield. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, deserves great credit for venturing into that minefield. I say this, even though I have reservations about the solution which he has put before your Lordships' House today.
I should like to offer an assessment of the proposed Bill against what I believe to be its effect on the quality of our life,
592
and in particular on family life. I hope to do this in the light of what I feel to be Christian teaching. First, however, may I say a few words on the thorny question of anomalies.
Much has been said in this debate, and outside your Lordships' House, about anomalies—and rightly so, for they bring the law into disrepute. However, I believe that when we look at the Bill in Committee, if it goes that far, we shall need to look very closely at the changes proposed by it to see whether such significant changes are indeed necessary and appropriate for dealing with the specific anomalies that there are. Furthermore, that there would still be anomalies if the Bill were to become law can scarcely be open to doubt.
For example, supermarkets would be allowed to sell food on Sundays but not hardware, and there would surely be a grey area in between. Then one can take the case of such a mundane article as a flowerpot. Paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 1 allows the sale on Sundays of flowers, plants and shrubs but not garden equipment. Therefore, I imagine that if you want to buy a flowerpot under the new arrangements you will need to buy a flower to put in it before what you are doing is legal. I say this not in any way to be clever but to foreshadow debates in 10 or 20 years' time in your Lordships' House which base the need for further change on the anomalies in the law that we might or might not be about to pass. On this subject of anomalies, I believe that the proposal in the Crathorne Report—that a shop, if allowed to open on a Sunday, could sell any of its goods—seems possibly to be a more effective way to deal with anomalies.
In assessing the effect of the Bill on the quality of life, I took as my starting point the two main points of Christian teaching. I think it is worth remembering that when our Lord spoke about the Sabbath He set His seal of authority upon it and emphasised that the day of rest was made for our benefit but that of course things should be kept in proportion. The two points, as I see them, are, first, that one day a week should be set apart by society for worship, rest and relaxation and, secondly, that so far as is reasonably possible no employee should be obliged to work on the day of rest.

593
In my own life, I find that it is sometimes difficult to put these two points into practice, but if one can apply them to present-day conditions I would draw three main conclusions. First, the law should protect the right of people, so far as is practical, to take part in worship and church fellowship on one day a week. In this respect, the opportunity to go into a service on the way to work or on the way back from work is not necessarily enough, because most churches have their main service and, indeed, their main fellowship in the middle of the morning.
Furthermore, I think it is worth mentioning that we are considering the rights of a sizable number of people. In 1976, the average number of people attending Anglican services each week in England and Wales was 1¼ million. I have had more difficulty in obtaining the figures for other denominations, but I think that, at a conservative estimate, they are about the same again, giving a figure of upward of 2½ million a week. To put this into perspective, the attendances last Saturday at the four FA Cup Ties and 40 League matches were 559,917.
The second conclusion that I draw is that Sunday work should be limited to essential or urgent business, including, of course, the provision of recreational facilities. Otherwise, we should be allowed the chance to rest, or at least to do something different from our normal work. For our own welfare, I feel that we all agree that we want to avoid extending the stress of working life to seven days a week.
My third conclusion is that the day of rest must, so far as possible, be the same one for everybody. It is not enough for people to be given another day in lieu of Sunday. In general, Sunday is the one day which offers the opportunity of a common rest day with one's family and friends. This applies in particular to parents and their children.
The effects of these three conclusions as they would apply to the retail trade have been dealt with by noble Lords who have much more experience than I, but I really feel that we must accept the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that, as it stands, the Bill would eventually bring about a major
594
extension of Sunday trading. I know that initially the Bill only permits Sunday trading, but can one really doubt that competition would not in due course oblige more shops to open and, therefore, more shopkeepers and more employees to work on Sundays?
The particular ways in which these considerations bear on the retail trade have been very well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield. He emphasised that for many people in the retail trade Saturday was not possible as a day of leisure. He emphasised the problem that 70 per cent. of the distribution trade employees are women. Therefore it is not surprising that there is such opposition to the Bill from those who work in shops and from those who run them and also from a considerable proportion of the major retailing chains. We should think very carefully before we ignore this opposition, or override it.
Finally, in assessing this Bill, I believe that we need to consider carefully the priorities upon which our quality of life is based. The British Sunday, which is part of our heritage, is not perfect, but I feel that we must think twice before making such a substantial inroad into an institution that has worked for our welfare over a long period. Also, I believe that we have to ask ourselves whether or not, if we made the changes to the British Sunday that are proposed, we should be taking a step nearer to a society where expediency and commerce were allowed to take precedence over people and, if I may say so, over our duty to God.
7.50 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to others which have been voiced in the appreciation I felt of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie; the cogency of his arguments and the dispassionate characteristics of the arguments themselves, and we very much hope that on many future occasions we shall have the privilege of hearing him again. I should like especially to thank him for mistaking me for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the couloir of this Chamber and now that the Bishop has arrived he will notice what a particularly spiritual look he has.
The arguments which have been deployed this afternoon and this evening,

595
until the immediately preceding speech, to which I have listened with great approval, of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, have contained within themselves a reference to the spiritual (or shall we say the religious?) issue that lies behind this particular debate and I will presume to say something about it. We do not regard Sabbatarianism as an expression of the Christian spirit—or we should not. It is of course true that Jesus revered the Sabbath as a practising Jew, but he also said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and if it is necessary to refute the argument that we associate the Sabbath with the Sunday it is only necessary to point to the 15th chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles to realise that converts to Christianity were not involved in the celebration of the Sabbath. The only two things they had to do as Jews were to avoid eating meat which had been dedicated to idols and not to commit fornication; and that is fair enough. But the fact remains that the Sabbatarian spirit has, I think, contaminated a great deal of Christian thinking about this particular issue as to what should and should not be done on Sunday.
I was brought up in that area. I very soon learned that my father's objection to buying a Sunday newspaper should have been an objection to buying a Monday one, and I also remember that during the days of the First World War when we bought no Sunday newspapers my father took the precaution of walking the long way round to church in order to read the placards about the various events that were going forward. That only demonstrates the difficulty—the impossibility—of fulfilling the Sabbath in a modern world and, in any case, the Christian celebrates the Lord's resurrection and not the Jewish background of law and circumstance.
Secondly, I believe there is great danger in the puritanical view of Sunday. The idea was expressed so well by Bertrand Russell: he thought it peculiar that because the Jews were prohibited from working on Saturday the Christians should be prevented from playing on Sunday; and I have to tell you that the best of evidence demonstrates that John Knox did in fact play bowls—a very austere game, I know—on Sunday morning
596
before going to church. The idea that people should not enjoy themselves on Sunday but should spend their time in religious exercises is not only in many cases a work of supererogation, but also has been largely relegated in the kind of community in which we live today.
Because I believe that revealed religion fundamentally is built on a fundation of natural religion, I will presume to delay your Lordships by trying to say something about what is the ultimate purpose that lies behind the correct use of Sunday, and in that to endeavour to formulate a conviction which I have that this Bill is pernicious and should not go forward. We cannot ordain in the name of Christianity that everybody should go to church, but I believe we should make it possible for the largest majority of people who wish to spend Sunday in a different way from the rest of the week to be free so to do. We regard this as an element of democratic freedom which is of imperishable worth.
It is incontestable that for various reasons and in various religious cults one day has become different from others. I believe it to be a very important philosophical fact that unless life contains the rhythm of a periodic changeover from the curriculum of everyday life, then life loses a great deal of its savour and indeed may lose a great deal of its significance. And whether it be the Christian Sunday or the Jewish Sabbath, the rhythm of one day in the week which is separable from the others and on which people are encouraged to think of other matters and to pursue other pursuits, and in particular the pursuits of rest and worship—I believe this is not something which is imposed by revealed religion but a discovery which is quite fundamental to the best interests of the human species.
Furthermore, although I find it difficult to accept that the Christian Sunday is still the family coming together—I regret that in many respects over my life it seems to me that that kind of family life has tended to diminish in its significance—yet I believe it is of very great importance. I agree so heartily with the last speaker that it is no good saying, "You can have Wednesday or Thursday as your day of rest". Who knows better than a parson, who has at least been engaged in some kind of trading on Sunday for the last

597
50 years, that you cannot compensate in the week for that opportunity which only conies to you at the weekend to share a family life with your family when they, too, are in the spirit and have the opportunity of leisure.
It is against that kind of backcloth that I look at this Bill and I do not like it a bit. In the first instance, I am persuaded that it will make Sunday much more like every other day and will tend to destroy that rhythm to which I have referred. In the second place, I am equally persuaded that a great many people who will claim to be free to do what they want to do on Sunday—to purchase and so forth—will in fact be under the servitude of economic requirements so that instead of being able to enjoy that freedom they will be compelled increasingly to contribute to the freedom of others, which implies a servitude for them. That contradicts a principle which I believe to be sacred, that the maximum number of people should have made available for them the opportunity of spending Sunday as a different day. These seem to me to be basic principles and principles against which this Bill will operate thoroughly unfairly and thoroughly badly.
From what little research I have been able to do I subscribe entirely to the proposition that, once this door is further opened, many people will pass through it and if this proposition should be agreed then there will be an increasing price to be paid for it, not only in terms of money but in terms of social convenience and, worse still, in terms of social benefit. I am equally persuaded that if this particular Bill goes through we shall not destroy the various anomalies which now persist, but that is no reason for putting into the place of one Bill another which may create—and I believe must necessarily create—even more anomalies and in the process will also destroy some of those virtues and some of those capacities for wellbeing which I believe should be enshrined within ally civilised society.
The hour is late and I will not delay any longer to present or to re-present what has been said so cogently by other speakers on the economic and, I think, social defects which are explicit in this Bill. I suppose that, normally speaking, a peroration for a parson might include a hymn. I would prefer a sonnet:
598
"The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending we lay waste our powers".
I believe that if this Bill goes through it will further emasculate those spiritual and social powers which are necessary for a truly civilised life. Therefore, I do not wish to see it succeed, and if it is put to the vote I shall vote against it.
7.59 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soper, on his excellent speech. I do not always agree with him but I very much share with him what he has been saying tonight. I, too, would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on his maiden speech which, if I may say so, was the best that I have been privileged to hear since I took my seat in 1970. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Fallowfield, on the very powerful speech which he made and I find myself much in agreement with my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I share his view that Sunday is a divinely ordained day, divinely ordained for rest, for worship and to spend with one's family. A day when buying and selling should be kept at a minimum for those things which arc proven necessities, because any extension of this means that some people will have to work on Sundays.
The thing that strikes me most about this Bill, however, is that it is strongly opposed by those people who will be most affected by it, by the people who may have to work on Sundays as a consequence of this Bill. We have heard that there are half a million people who are represented by the union for which Lord Allen has spoken today, and that it is also opposed by the National Chambers of Trade. Those people already have to work on Saturdays, and, understandably, they do not want to work on Sundays, too. Seventy per cent. of them are women and half of those are married; so think what the effect would be on Sunday for them as a day to spend with their families. Lord Allen very clearly made the point that Sunday trading is inflationary, and, of course, the housewife pays the increased prices not only on Sunday but on all other days too.
We have heard that this Bill would hear particularly hardly on small shops and that 70 per cent. of our shops are small

599
shops employing four people or less. I believe Sunday trading should be closely controlled in the interests of those who might have to work on Sundays in consequence, and I would just ask your Lordships to think what the effect on us might be if another place passed a Bill that we should work on Sundays.
8.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to make my apologies for not being in my place when I should have spoken. My apologies are, first, to the noble Lord moving this Bill for not hearing his speech in support of the Bill; secondly, to Lord Norrie for not being able to hear his maiden speech, which according to the noble Viscount is the best since 1970, so I look forward to Hansard very much; and, thirdly, to your Lordships generally for the fact that the road from Norwich to London is beset with difficulties and takes time. I was not able to drive as fast as I would like to, but well within those limits provided by another place for Bishops, however fast they should drive; so I am here without further trouble.
If I might, therefore, be allowed in a very short truncated way to take part in the debate, I should like to do so, because I have tried to do a little research on what might be called the general Church view. The Church Assembly, the precursor of the General Synod, looked fairly closely at the issues concerning the type of points being made in this Bill by the noble Lord, and, although in the time of the Crathorne Committee's Report it showed some cautious support for some of the suggestions in that report, the resolution of the Synod did say:
"This Assembly is desirous of maintaining Sunday as a day of worship and recreation, and as far as possible Sunday should remain the normal day of rest".
I will not, therefore, weary the House at this late date with some of the further statements, though right reverend Prelates from this Bench spoke in similar terms.
I should only like simply to summarise the two other major points I would like to have mentioned more fully. That is the religious consideration. When I heard the acting Prelate of Norwich, Lord
600
Soper—and it shows how ecumenical we are getting when such a distinguished and marvellous Christian orator as Lord Soper should be mistaken for me; it is very nice to know and I am much heartened to think that he was taken for the Bishop of Norwich, but I do not intend to let him have my See if I can help it—speaking about Sabbatarians and puritans I had a terrible feeling that he was describing me, but as he went on I found, No, all was well. I particularly want to underline his point on the broad religious consideration of the rhythm of life. I believe that this Bill does strike, admittedly a fairly small blow but quite a real one, against this rhythm of life.
I believe that the day of rest was a creation ordinance for all mankind and for man and beast, not only a religious ordinance, though it became one, that the rhythm of rest and work, of perhaps furious energy and then complete relaxation, the rhythm of night and day, winter and summer, is part of the beneficent plan of the Creator for all mankind, not only for those of religious outlook. Therefore, the religious consideration is a very real one in relation to this particular Bill. I believe that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, but I also believe that the Christian Sunday is a continuation of this one day's rest in seven, with the extra privileges of worship and refreshment as well. Therefore, on the broadly religious ground I believe that we should not give ourselves in support of this Bill.
The second point I will summarise is that I think on social grounds we should not, because the impact and the attacks on family life are increasing today. More families are now going to church on Sunday than even five years ago. Family life is becoming more precious just because it is under greater attack. And the simple fact of the Sunday lunch is, I believe, a vitally important social factor in our lives. If the family does not hold together, the nation cannot hold together. The nation is really a lot of families and the family writ small is the nation writ large. As the interesting figures that Lord Allen of Fallowfield has sent to some of us very clearly show that many married women are concerned in the distributive trades, it seems to me that Sunday lunch in all its homely significance is going to be severely attacked by this Bill, and I believe it to be an important social occasion.

601
It did strike me, though, as I was thinking about this, that on humanitarian grounds, with tinned goods and foil wrapping and refrigerators, let alone deep freezes, there is less and less need for little shops to be constantly open just to suit the selfish whims of lazy buyers. Why should we pander to impulsive shopping on our national day of rest? So you see, my Lords, I began to be carried away with my speech, and that is the shortest summary I can do. On general Christian grounds, on broad religious grounds and on humanitarian social grounds, I hope that we shall not feel that we should support this Bill.
8.8 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I intervene mainly to offer your Lordships a brief statement of the Government's attitude to the principles underlying the Bill and to mention particular provisions in the Bill to which the House might wish to give special attention. But right at the outset I should like to offer my congratulations, together with those of other noble Lords who have already spoken, to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for his excellent maiden speech. He spoke, if I may say so, with great clarity, and he had the courage to speak on a controversial matter, but he did it in an unprovocative way in accordance with the best traditions of your Lordships' House. We are clearly going to hear from him in the future making a most valuable contribution to our proceedings.
I am sure that we would all like also to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for giving the House another opportunity to debate the present state of the law on Sunday trading. Perhaps I could offer to him my apologies for having missed about the first 45 or 60 seconds of his speech, a speech which, I must add, he also delivered in a very clear and indeed in an entertaining way.
There has, I understand, been no Bill of similar scope on this subject before your Lordships' House since that which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in 1970. The subject is one which, as we have seen, arouses controversy of a non-party political kind and a number of opposing views and interests are involved. Whatever the fate of the Bill it will have served, I think, a very
602
useful purpose if it enables us to assess the extent to which opinion may have changed in the intervening years since the subject was last discussed and also the likelihood of any consensus of opinion emerging on this subject.
As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede has explained, the present law on Sunday trading is contained in Part IV of the Shops Act 1950. That was a consolidating Act and it reflects the wording of Statutes going back to 1936, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, indicated in his speech. Before then, the Sunday opening of shops in England and Wales was nominally regulated by the Sunday Observance Act 1677—another date to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred—but in practice I think that it was widely disregarded.
Over the years there has been a considerable amount of criticism of the present law and I agree with those noble Lords who have made that point. It has been regarded as out of date, confusing in its effect and difficult to enforce. The Crathorne Committee on the Law on Sunday Observance, which has already been referred to during the debate, and which reported in 1964, reached the conclusion that many of those criticisms were justified. While the Committee recommend that shops generally should still be closed on Sundays, it urged that the law should be clarified and the list of exemptions extended. The Bill seeks to implement certain of the recommendations of the Crathorne Report but, as I shall seek to explain, in some respects it goes rather further.
The Government accept that the present legislation has given rise to anomalies and that there is much to be said for a clearer and more rational system of law controlling Sunday trading. However, past exprience has shown how difficult it is to reach agreement on how best the law should be amended to achieve this aim and, in the absence of such agreement, successive Governments have been unwilling to take any initiative themselves. Like other apsects of the law of Sunday observance, the restrictions on retail trade raise, at least for some of us, issues of conscience which are best left to the judgement of individual Members of both Houses. Accordingly, the attitude of the Government towards the Bill before your

603
Lordships tonight is one of neutrality. We shall do nothing to obstruct the progress of the Bill, and we shall follow its progress with great interest, and take note of reactions to it both inside and outside Parliament.
Turning to some of the details of the Bill's provisions, I shall deal first with Clause 1 and Schedule 1, which, I think, contain the most controversial proposals in the Bill. As other noble Lords have pointed out, these provisions have the effect of substituting for the Fifth Schedule to the Act of 1950 a new list of transactions for which shops may be permitted to be open on Sunday. The first transaction on the list, and the one which may perhaps cause most concern among your Lordships, is the sale of food and drink, and of ingredients for the preparation of food and drink. This proposal goes further than the corresponding Crathorne recommendation that shops should be allowed to open on Sunday for the sale of all food and drink for consumption on the premises, but only in special circumstances off the premises.
I would not attempt to deny that it is in the area of food and drink that many of the anomalies complained of have arisen, and I think that most noble Lords will recognise that a need exists for some clarification of the present law. Particular difficulty centres on the question of what constitutes "meals or refreshments" which under the 1950 Act can be sold for consumption on or off the premises. This has certainly been the cause of much litigation, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has said. As a matter of fact I must let your Lordship into a secret. I was going to serve up to your Lordships precisely the same tasty dishes as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has already served up. I must confess that I was completely shattered to find that he did so. However, that being so, as your Lordships have already had one plate of raw kippers I shall be sparing your Lordships a second plate, at least tonight!
The effect of this fairly wide interpretation, to which attention has been drawn, of the term "refreshments" seems to have been that food shops can already sell a high proportion of their stocks without breaking the law.
604
Nevertheless I appreciate that some may view with anxiety the complete removal of restrictions on the sale of food and drink on Sunday. They see this as encouraging the widespread opening of retail outlets, particularly supermarkets, without a corresponding increase in trade. This could result in increased overheads and less favourable working conditions for shop-workers. Whether or not those fears are justified is not for me to say; my concern is simply to help, like other noble Lords, to ensure that the House is aware of them.
I shall not delay your Lordships by dealing with all the other transactions listed in Schedule 1, many of which are non-controversial and are the subject of some of the minor recommendations in the Crathorne Report. However, I should join in drawing the attention of the House to the proposed removal of the restrictions on the sale of toilet requisites at chemists' shops. This differs from the recommendation in the Crathorne Report that a dispensing chemist be allowed to sell any goods in his shop on Sunday but only for a two-hour period. It will be for the House to consider which proposal it prefers; the main objection to that in the Bill seems to be that it would perpetuate a situation in which chemists' shops can open on Sunday, but are not permitted to sell the full range of their stock.
In Clause 2 and Schedule 2 the Bill seeks to implement a further recommendation by the Crathorne Committee. That would empower a local authority to make an order specifying any number of Sundays upon which shops situated in its area may be open for the sale of items of the kind which are usually associated with the holiday trade—another aspect of trade which has been mentioned during the debate. This provision will undoubtedly be welcomed by those concerned in the development of tourism in this country. I note that it goes further than the Bill introduced in 1976 by my noble friend Lady Phillips.
As regards the remaining provisions of the Bill, I do not think I need comment on them at this stage. I simply hope that these few observations about the Government's position will be of some help in pinpointing some of the main considerations as we see them.
8.18 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think that it is right to say at the outset that our debate has certainly proved that this matter is no less controversial than when it was first discussed some years ago. Before I begin to reply to the various points made in the debate, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on a very thoughtful maiden speech. He had obviously given considerable attention to the problems which the Bill faces and I thought that he made a speech which left us all with very useful thoughts as to what we should do about Sunday trading.
I should like briefly to go through the various comments which were made. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his support and for underlining the further trivia which exist. The noble Earl, Lord Grey, mentioned the sale of flowers, but not artificial flowers. The thinking here is that garden centres should be able to sell horticulural products, but not ironmongery, which is properly the purview of the ironmongery trade, for if what can be sold at garden centres were extended in that way there would be cause for concern by the ironmongery trade. Therefore, that was the cut-off point which was suggested.
Having listened to those two reasonably calm speeches from the noble Lords, there was then a blockbusting attack on me by my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallow-field. The interesting thing was that having made his attack, my noble friend then reverted to some of the earlier documentation, to which I had referred, which recommended that some modification was necessary. That, of course, is the whole point of the exercise today: that there is a necessity for modification. However, he did not deal at all with the problems currently raised by the fact that we have an Act on our Statute Book which is quite unenforceable, a fact which has been underlined by a great many of your Lordships this evening, no less than by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham in summing up. It seems to me that whatever views there may be about the particular Schedules and clauses of the Bill, your Lordships must face the problem that there should be an amendment to the existing legislation.
606
Inevitably, in framing the Bill the Institute has steered a middle course. On the one hand, it has wanted to preserve Sunday as a special day; on the other hand, it has wanted to ensure that there is no free-for-all. That thought underlines the thinking behind the Bill. There is no intention behind the Bill to suggest that Sunday should simply become another trading day. In his speech my noble friend Lord Allen referred to the question of higher prices resulting from seven-day trading, and suggested that if the Bill were passed shops would be opening for longer hours than they do at present. However, I would remind my noble friend that if they wanted to shops could open a great deal earlier than they do at present, but they do not because it is uneconomic for them to do so. I suggest to him that, in fact, widespread further opening will not be an effect of the Bill.
My noble friend also quoted the British Tourist Authority figures, saying—I hope commendingly in a way—that we are doing quite nicely in tourism. Our fear in the tourist industry is that there is increasing competition. When the figures for 1978 are published we shall find that we have not done very much better than we did in 1977; we must be aware of the fact that we are in a competitive market. What I should like to have heard from my noble friend—and which I did not hear—are ways in which present legislation can be tidied up.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his support. My noble friend, Lord Sainsbury, was against the Bill, but I was very pleased to hear him admit that the present regulations were unsatisfactory, arbitrary and difficult to enforce. He felt that the Bill went beyond tidying up anomalies. If that is so, these are matters with which we can deal in Committee in order to find some form of legislation which has general support. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, for her support.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, rightly said that I was entering a minefield. It has certainly proved to be the case that the question of Sunday trading is a minefield. Subsequent speakers spoke of the Christian aspect of Sunday. As I have said before—and I would direct this also to the noble Viscount,

607
Lord Ingleby, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and my noble friend, Lord Soper—there is no intention here to stop Sunday being a different day. The intention is to keep Sunday as a different day, as a special day in the week. This is an attempt to ensure that the legislation which is on the Statute Book is understandable by the shopkeeper, the shopper and the shopworker. It is for that reason that the Bill has been introduced. It is bad to have bad law on the Statute Book and we should do all we can to ensure that that bad law is cleared up.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion for Second Reading agreed to accordingly: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE M.25 MOTORWAY
8.34 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether completion of the M.25 will not (a) defeat the objective of the Government "to reduce our absolute dependence on transport" and (b) prove a major threat to the Green Belt. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, what I am really doing is asking Her Majesty's Government whether they have really faced up to the problems which are caused by their plans for the London orbital road, particularly as they have been affected by recent developments and by a growing understanding of the problems of the transport programme in this country.
This is a controversial matter, but it is one of the tasks which your Lordships are particularly suited to perform; that is, to try to work out a formula for this problem. I hope that noble Lords will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading so that we can move into the Committee stage and try to sort out a number of the problems and difficulties which have been raised in the debate this evening.
8.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gregson, L.

Monson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grey, E.

Mottistone, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Norrie, L.

Seear, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Ingleby, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Barrington, v.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Soper, L.

Blease, L. [Teller.]

Norwich, Bp.

White, B.

It seems to me that what happened was that once upon a time—and it is now a very long time ago—someone looked at a map and said, "Wouldn't it be commonsense to build an orbital road round London to let the people who have, at the moment, to go through London, go round it? "Whether or not it was commonsense at the time I am far from clear. It may have been merely one of those things which looked as if they were commonsense. After all, for quite a long time all of us, or a great many of us, lived in the belief that if you built more and better roads you would in fact relieve congestion, whereas we are growing more and more to realise that if you build more and better roads all you do is build up traffic and increase the total amount of traffic, and in a few years' time you will have the same congestion on the old road and you will have congestion on the new road as well. That is the kind of conventional wisdom which has now been exploded.
I think that there is still a lot of old-fashioned conventional wisdom about the orbital ring road, and particularly the

609
M.25, that ought by now to have been exploded. It seems to me that now, in terms of modern conditions, it is nonsense to build this road, and if we were starting from scratch with a transport policy, and particularly if we had a coherent national transport policy—which I think it is almost universally acknowledged that we do not; the Secretary of State himself said so a couple of years ago, and I do not think that things have moved on very much since then—I suspect that it would not now be gone ahead with.
There are of course still times when the M.25 seems a good thing. In the middle of last summer I went, ironically, from Kent to an ecology meeting in Bath. I was one and a half hours late. By the time I arrived in Bath I was a strong supporter of the M.25. But possibly those things, even for a large number of people, do not outweigh the immense tasks and burdens of building a road like this one.
Equally, there is a problem with the 4 per cent. of heavy goods vehicle movements in London which are through movements. But again I would say that a £500 million motorway is possibly taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that a combination of various other measures—including minor road works, the direction of lorries, much more encouragement on to rail—as suggested by the London Amenity and Transport Association might be a better solution.
We are told that the orbital road will help access to the ports, but I do not think that there is any proper study of the benefits, and certainly no rigorous and detailed one in this field. It is my case that, even adding that to the other benefits, they do not add up to outweighing the harm that will be done. It is quite clear that you should not build a road unless you have a very good reason for doing so. That is the difference between an under-populated and undeveloped country—as ours was, say, 200 years ago when to build a road was almost axiomatically a good thing—and the kind of country we have now.
Roads cost a lot. In this case I mentioned a figure which I think is more or less on the mark: £500 million, give or take a £100 million. They disfigure the countryside, and particularly motorways disfigure the countryside. They encourage
610
traffic—and I think this is the main assault that can be made on them. They actually breed traffic by existing. They produce poisonous petrol fumes, and this road would go through several centres where lead in the petrol may have a serious effect on the children and people in the villages and towns concerned. Let us hope that will be solved by the Government getting rid of lead in petrol quickly, and I have some faith that that will be so, but for the present it is not. They use up valuable oil and encourage more and more transport by road at a time when we should be saving that extremely valuable, and increasingly valuable, commodity.
The M.25 will, like every other major road, do all those things, but in addition it will go clean against three wholly praiseworthy items of Government policy. First, it will, to put it mildly, do nothing to stop the dispersal from inner London of businesses and people. When this road was first envisaged that would have been thought to be a good thing, but now that we have an inner city policy which is rightly concerned to build up the centre of cities and to make certain they do not become the impoverished empty places we have seen in America and elsewhere, that particular function of the M.25 can now be seen to be against Government policy and to be a thoroughly bad thing in itself.
Secondly, it will endanger the whole Green Belt policy, instigating heavy pressure to develop wherever there are interchanges and access points; indeed a Minister of the Government has already said as much, but I will come to that shortly. In particular it will damage Green Belt facilities of a highly important recreational kind. For example, it goes along the side of Lullington Park and crashes through St. Andrew's Wood which 30,000 to 40,000 visitors visit each summer. Last Tuesday in another place there was a debate on what the M.25 is doing to Epping Forest. Not very much, but one speaker after another said he deplored intensely what was happening but would not vote against the Bill because we must have an M.25, and a little bit of Epping Forest was, although a price, a comparatively small one to pay. I wonder whether, when one considers Epping Forest and St. Andrew's Wood and all the other places, they do not add up to rather more. If they had not just been talking about a

611
little bit of Epping Forest and one particular section of the M.25 but were adding up all the amenities that will be hurt, I wonder what attitude would have been taken and whether various Members of Parliament would not have been tempted to take a rather stronger attitude.
Thirdly, it will generate traffic. I have already said something about the tendency for building roads to do that, but in November 1978 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place said:
"Once the M.25 is built, journeys will become possible which would not be undertaken at present and new patterns of industrial, commercial and social activity may be formed ".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/78; col. 354.]
Yes, George Washington, they will! The White Paper Transport Policy, Cmnd. 6836, said:
"For the future, we should aim to reduce our absolute dependence on transport".
Very sound, but we are enabling journeys to become possible which would not be undertaken at present, as was said by the Minister, and that is increasing our absolute dependence on transport. And in so far as we are forming new patterns of industrial, commercial and social activity, as the Minister also said, we are forming them in and around the Green Belt, and I do not believe that is good.
If it is the Government's intention and wish to accelerate and facilitate what will eventually be a large-scale loss of London Green Belt land; if it is their policy to ensure the location of industry and commerce on green field sites and areas of vital recreational importance; if it is their intention further to bleed the inner London area of commercial and economic vitality; if it is their policy to encourage industrial and commercial development remote from rail access and thus to deny to British Rail its appropriate freight share; if it is their policy to increase dependence on private car use; if it is their policy to undermine their own objective—to reduce our absolute dependence on transport—then they can be happy with the building of this orbital road.
If not, they should give consideration at once to the abandonment of all further planning and work on the M.25, so that at last we can have a full and proper analysis of the transport and land use
612
requirements of London and the South-East region—not to mention one for the whole country while we are about it—and so that, in order to have that investigation, proposals to further that can be put in hand at the earliest opportunity, before we take this one more irrevocable step of building more motorways which, in the last resort, do nobody any good and do a lot of harm on the way.
8.47 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, when it comes to building a road, building an extension to a road or building a roundabout, not one of us in our selfish way wants it on our ground but always on somebody else's, and so I am amazed that an arterial road is ever built. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for allowing us to discuss this important road, the M.25. I am grateful because my road home to Wiltshire is the M.4, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for opening my mind and eyes to the rest of the South-East, the link roads from the M.1 through to the M.4, the M.40 and so on, which I never realised were so vital to manoeuvring our transport in these very sophisticated industrial islands, as they have become. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord for teaching me so quickly, since last Thursday, what it is all about.
Equally, I wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her kind help in obtaining for me last week-end maps and information to help me digest some of the problems and to see with my own eyes how big an area we are discussing. I thank her and her Department for that immediate help. I feel sorry tonight for the noble Baroness because she has been in bed for three days with a feverish cold, and if it was like the one I had 10 days ago she has all the sympathy I can give her because I know it is no joke. Perhaps I should apologise to her if I keep her up too long in making my speech.
The M.25 was thought of way back in 1937 by a gentleman named Hore Belisha, who felt in those days that London should have a ring-road because the traffic in 1937 was getting quite impossible. That was a long time ago, yet here we are tonight discussing a major road which has still not been completed. However, some sections of the M.25 have been completed,

613
while others have not, and there is still a long way to go. The construction of the M.25, which is to relieve inner London of its immense traffic problems, involves the important linking-up, for instance, of the M.1 with the M.4, as well as link-ups north to south and east to west of London in order to get traffic out of inner London and on to the outer perimeters. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has been saying. He has tonight utterly condemned the M.25. He has not paid the slightest attention to the industrial nation that we are today.
When one bears in mind the problems involving juggernauts and lorries, with traffic piling up, I regard it as no excuse to plead that land is being eaten up. I admit, with sympathy, that the Green Belt suffers, but here I recall an instance when, as an angry young man, I moved from Swindon to Oxford when a small road (which I now cannot name) was to be rebuilt through a wood. I thought that that was totally wrong, and that the landscape would be utterly ruined. I thought that the project would cause more traffic to go to Oxford. Yet when the road was finished I felt very ashamed that I had thought of obstructing the road, because the wood had been replanted and was tidier. Now the road itself looks tidier, and the volume of traffic on it seems to be very small, while previously it had seemed immense. So I do not go along with the noble Lord's view that roads of this type will cause obstruction involving heavy traffic.
When coming off the M.4 at the Chiswick roundabout and meeting up with lorries, I feel selfish because my progress to your Lordships' House along the Embankment is at times almost impossible, as it was this morning. I should like to see the M.25 completed, so that traffic moving south to north or north to south, as the case may be, is catered for by a new link road.
I have the strongest feeling that work has now slowed down for a number of reasons. It appears that in certain sections progress has not been as rapid as it should have been. I should like to see priority given to speedier construction of sections from the Staines area almost to St. Albans. It seems also that progress on the section from Chertsey to Reigate has
614
slowed down or stopped, and the same seems to apply in the area from Godstone to Westerham.
When one looks at the map one sees the very beautiful Epping Forest. Here again, in my selfish way, as a conservationist I want to make sure that Epping Forest is absolutely safeguarded. I should not like one acre of the forest used up. If a road is to go through it, wild life should be protected, or if there is to be a road anywhere near the forest attention should be paid to landscaping. I should like to know from the noble Baroness what protection Epping Forest is to receive. I should be most grateful for an answer on that point. There is also within the forest the famous cricket ground of Bell's Common. It is a great cricket ground which was established in, I believe, 1878, and belongs to the Epping Forest Cricket Club, a very old established club which was granted a licence by the Corporation of London. I want to know how much work is going on in that vicinity, and whether the cricket ground will be protected.
In looking at the progress of the M.25, I wonder whether we are not seeing a slowing down of the construction as a whole. We are certainly witnessing a continuing massive build-up of heavy vehicles, such as juggernauts. We are asked nowadays to save energy. The noble Lord mentioned this point, but in a different way to what I have in mind. My theory would be that the M.25 would save energy for the future. I would regard that as an important consideration that we ought to be looking at at the moment. We are witnessing a slowing-up of the time taken in getting our exports to the docks, due to the massive build-up of traffic. The lorry drivers are tired or even exhausted at the end of their tourneys, to say nothing of the ordinary driver in a car. It would save money and time if there were a proper ring road.
We must also consider road accident figures, and bear in mind that young people are being injured because of the concentration of population in the South-East. I am sure that the public are suffering because of the present taffic situation, and that villages will continue to suffer from the vibration of vehicles. The slow progress could well be due to the

615
actions of certain bodies of people; for instance, obstruction by local bodies in connection with inquiries into particular stretches of the road. Have we not witnessed 42 inquiries into the Reigate-Chertsey section? Those 42 inquiries involved 42 police interventions. In these circumstances one finds that costs go up, difficulties arise and progress slows as a result of the action of small public bodies—perhaps even involving Rent-a-Mob—which are trying to stop parts of the road being built. In fact I am told that even people who do not live in the area attend these meetings.
I think that the slowing down could probably be attributed to certain errors by the Government. Surely it was the Department of Transport which was forced to hold for a second time two separate public inquiries on different sections of the M.25, one relating to the A.12–A.13 section and another to the A.10–M.11, due to procedural oversights. I have no doubt that a year or more has been lost in that way. The noble Baroness might be able to assist me over that.
A further point about which I am getting more suspicious, looking at the facts, is that the Government are not using the full quota of money allocated by Parliament each year; and I am just wondering the reason why that should be when we have many of the sections already programmed or prepared. Why is this money not being spent at this stage? Perhaps the noble Baroness could enlighten me on that, too. Again, I have sympathy for the inhabitants of the villages South-East of London—villages like Eynsford, Westerham and Brasted in Kent, Waltham Abbey, Maple Cross in Herefordshire, Old Windsor and Effingham in Surrey. Those are the examples I was looking for just now, and I give them because they are longing for the M.25. They are all for the M.25, but they cannot get it yet because of the slowness of events.
The noble Baroness's honourable friend Mr. Horam, in a recent speech on the M.25, informed Members of another place:
"As has been said many times, we hope for the completion date of the entire thing by the middle 1980s".
That would be 1985–86. I sincerely hope that this is possible. I should like to see
616
it brought forward; and if that were to be the case many people would be happier. Many of the problems caused by the irritations of driving through Inner London today would be eased for us all, and for industry; and, from the point of view of our architectural heritage, I am certain many buildings would be saved from the vibrations that take place.
I could go on for many hours on the subject of this road, and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I can see the importance of it. But I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to speak on it, and I very much look forward to the Government's reply. I hope that we are going to hear that the middle 1980s will be reduced to 1982, or in that area of time.
9.4 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, with some trepidation I intervene in this debate because I happen to live in a village which is going to be considerably affected by this road—the village of Ashstead in Surrey. I have not, I must admit, studied the plans with any great care, because I have been rather too busy elsewhere; but I have been made pretty aware, by people I know in the village and its surroundings, of the dissatisfaction which they feel—dissatisfaction which I do not necessarily personally share. But there are two very great problems which have to be faced here. I should say that this particular matter is currently the subject of a public inquiry, so I am not empowered, in fairness, to say very much at this stage. The public inquiry itself is of a somewhat animated nature for various reasons into which I will not go now. I would only say that no inspector at a public inquiry has anything but an uneviable job; it is not the easiest of jobs. My noble friend Lord Long made reference to outside bodies, not connected with the village, taking part in these inquiries. They are entitled to do this, but it is sometimes questionable whether their activities are either helpful or, indeed, I would say, permissible. I suggest that the area in which I am concerned is an example of this, although in fairness I should say, as I said earlier, that I have not myself taken part in any of these meetings, and have no intention of doing so.
There is one very serious aspect of this which no doubt the inspector will con-

617
sider but which I feel I should bring to your Lordships' attention tonight, and that is the question of the lead content of petrol, because one of the main sections of this road is going to cause a kind of spaghetti junction, as I understand it, near five or six schools where there are children of quite tender ages. This is causing, I think, quite reasonable concern. Of course, my Lords, when one is building a road or siting a spur road, or anything like that, there is always the problem of causing a disturbance somewhere; and, as I understand it, the alternatives to the present one which have been considered would mean demolishing a substantially larger number of houses—and there is a great need for houses in the Mole Valley area of Surrey, because industry is increasing there—whereas the present plan, with all its handicaps and problems, would mean a rather less blighting of property in that sense. I do not know how far the noble Baroness can go here as it is the subject of an inquiry, and I am not a lawyer, but I hope that her Department can take note of the fact that there are these children who are affected and that one or two quite eminent scientists have shown deep concern at the amount of petroleum lead which could cause damage to the breathing of these children and others and also, of course, the traffic danger particularly if heavy traffic is involved.
Having said that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has performed a most useful service in moving this brief debate and I am quite sure that we have not heard the last of this road. But in the last analysis there comes the dilemma as to which road is the more important for the country: the M.24, the M.25, or whatever. And I am bound to say in conclusion that I can think of many parts of the country which may need priority roads more than we need the present, admittedly important, project which is proposed but which, I would think, with the present economic situation of the country—and this is not a Party point because it is going to affect all Governments—may not take place for some time to come; but this does not lessen the concern for those involved.
9.10 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising this subject this evening. I am glad of the opportunity to explain why the Government are committed to building the M.25 and why it has the highest priority in our road building programme. I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for his concern about my health. I think I am going to live through this debate, but whether my voice will last is another matter.
The M.25 has three main functions. First, it will provide a convenient route round Greater London for through traffic, particularly traffic to and from the East Coast and Channel Ports, and Tilbury Docks. It will link them with the M.1 and A.1, and other roads to the Midlands and the North. Greater London, which is 30 to 35 miles across from east to west, is a major obstacle to this traffic, and the M.25 will provide a quicker and more convenient route and one that is far less prejudicial to the environment of the London suburbs. The new road, being purpose built and without pedestrians and cyclists, will be much safer than the existing roads, so there will be a considerable saving in accidents.
Secondly, the road will act as a general distributor, linking the main routes in and out of London, and enabling drivers to choose the most convenient exit road or to reach places in London without having to cross the centre or to use existing inadequate orbital roads. Finally, the M.25 will bring local relief for congested roads on the outskirts of London. Although only 23 miles have been built out of a total length of 120 miles, a further 16 miles are under construction, and planning is well advanced on a further 45 miles. Only about a quarter of the route remains to be settled. I expect that all except the north-western sector will be finished by the end of 1983—and that will delight the noble Viscount, Lord Long—and that the whole road will be completed in 1985.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has suggested that our intention to complete the M.25 will defeat our objective of reducing our absolute dependence on transport. We will not reduce our dependence on transport by not building new roads. The traffic is already there—using

619
unsuitable and congested roads. If the whole of the M.25 were completed today most sections of it would be carrying about 40,000 vehicles a day. The lack of a proper orbital route has not prevented traffic around London from growing; it simply means that it forces its way through towns and villages on the outskirts of London, and residential and shopping streets in the suburbs, and indeed through central London itself.
Building an orbital motorway will have wide-ranging effects and we do not pretend that we can foresee all of them now. Some people, who are deterred at present from making local journeys on crowded roads, may find that they can move more freely. But that is not increasing their dependence on transport. It is simply a matter of freeing local roads from traffic they were never intended to carry so that they can serve their proper function of catering for the local needs. In turn, that will help to prevent drivers from using residential roads as rat runs. Once there is a proper route for through traffic, it will be easier for the local authorities to introduce traffic management measures to ensure that local roads are not used by traffic which has no business on them. Noble Lords may be aware of the difficulties which have arisen over the regulations made by the Berkshire County Council to keep lorries out of Windsor. It would be wrong for me to comment on their action because it is being challenged in the courts, except to say that measures of that kind will be much easier to introduce in the future when we have an orbital road round London.
It is possible that once the new motorway is built, some people will take advantage of it to make longer trips than they did before. It will become much easier for people living in the west of London to reach the Kent coast, for example. Similarly, foreign tourists who arrive at the Channel ports may be tempted to by-pass London and explore other parts of the country. I do not think that amounts to increasing dependence on transport.
The Government are anxious to encourage the conservation of energy and to avoid generating a great deal of extra traffic. Roads are planned to cater for the traffic which is likely to use them over
620
the next 20 years or so. Even on pessimistic assumptions about the price of oil, traffic is likely to grow by one-third by the end of the century. Traffic will increase whether the M.25 is built or not. If the road is not built, conditions which are already intolerable in many places will become even worse. We simply cannot sit back and do nothing. Many road proposals in London have been dropped on the assumption that the M.25 would be built; for example, Ringway 3, which was dropped after the inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan. If the M.25 does not go ahead, then alternatives will have to be considered which will cause widespread blight and uncertainty.
I do not believe that the construction of an orbital road for London is in any way inconsistent with the objective of reducing our dependence on transport. That objective can be achieved only by influencing where people live and work, and how industry is organised. It requires changes which cannot be made very quickly. I cannot accept that it would be right to withhold the certain benefits which M.25 will bring for existing traffic and for the environment because of fears that it will lead to an increase in traffic—especially when that increase is unlikely to be substantial compared with the growth which is likely to take place anyway.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also referred—and rightly—to the consequences for the Green Belt of building the road. He has stressed the importance of the Green Belt in preventing the sprawl of Greater London, and in providing an area for sport and recreation for London and other towns in the South-East. I should like to emphasise that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said, when the proposal for a Green Belt was mooted and introduced in the 1930s and 1940s, it was always envisaged that there would also be an orbital road around London. However, the problem of development along major roads has been recognised for many years. Way back in 1935, Parliament passed the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, which was designed to control building along the main routes. This preceded the Town and Country Planning Acts, which introduced for the first time a systematic control of development.

621
In the recent Government Statement in response to the Strategic Plan for the South-East, published in December last year, we described our policies for land and development in the region. In this statement, we particularly stressed the importance of restraint policies in relation to the M.25. Unfortunately, it is not possible to build an orbital road for London without it passing through some Green Belt land. I agree that pressure for development near the intersections with other roads may well become intense; but the strategic planning authorities fully recognise the problems and are concerned about them. We consider it important that they should use their development control powers to resist pressures unless the development is consistent with the county structure plan, which, of course, has to be approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. These powers are backed up by my right honourable friend's reserve powers.
The strategic planning authorities fully support the proposals for completing the M.25 as soon as possible. Building the M.25 is not a matter of making environmental sacrifices for the benefit of future traffic; it will bring much needed relief to many areas, such as Romford, Epping and Brentwood. A study of the section of the M.25 between Reigate and Godstone which was opened in 1976 shows that the existing A.25 was relieved of between 17 per cent. and 27 per cent. of its traffic. When the next section from Godstone to Sevenoaks is opened later this year, the centres of Oxted and Westerham will enjoy significant reductions in traffic. Similar benefits will arise on other sections of the road as they are opened. During a recent debate in another place, several honourable Members stressed how much support there was for the road in their constituencies, and urged us to finish it as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord. Beaumont, suggested that perhaps the time had come to call a halt and have a look at the whole picture of our planning and roadbuilding again. The idea of a single inquiry might have been an attractive idea 10 years ago, though there would have been formidable problems in keeping it to manageable proportions; but to hold such an inqiury now is neither practicable nor in the public interest. The planning has gone ahead on
622
the assumption that the road will be built, and to hold it up now would cause widespread blight while the suggested alternatives were being evaluated.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, very dutifully gave me notice of one question he intended to ask tonight and then he did not ask it; but since he did give me notice originally that he intended to ask it, I shall be kind to him and I shall answer it. It is a question of the Royal Horticultural Society's gardens at Wisley. There had been some problems. The M.25 does not directly affect the RHS, but there are traffic problems on the A.3 which is outside the RHS gardens at Wisley. The gap in the central reservation there opposite the entry has been closed for safety reasons. It has caused considerable inconvenience to people visiting Wisley Gardens; for example, people leaving cannot turn right but have to make a five-mile detour to turn at the next intersection.
My honourable friend Mr. Horam undertook to meet representatives of the RHS on the site and he talked over the problems with them. He undertook to consider two possibilities. The first was that we might re-open the gap and control it with traffic lights; and, secondly, there was the possibility that we could build a flyover from the entrance to the opposite carriageway. My honourable friend has looked at both these possibilities. The first was found to be too dangerous, and we have a prime responsibility for road safety. It is a fast, straight stretch of road and the reservation is not wide enough to shelter vehicles waiting to turn. The second suggestion of the flyover was much too expensive, and it will also take longer than the completion of the interchange with the M.25 only one mile away, which will reduce the length of detour necessary to reach the opposite carriageway.
My honourable friend has written to the director of the RHS gardens to explain the position. There is no question of our failing to honour our undertaking, because none was given. We offered to look at these two possibilities. But we are building a footbridge to the opposite side of the road which will help the visitors to the garden who are using public transport, and we hope that goes some way towards encouraging people to use it—though,

623
incidentally, I was told by one of the vice-presidents of the Society only a couple of weeks ago that, despite all the comments that have been made, their number of visitors had gone up in the last year when the gap had still been closed, so perhaps it is not quite as desperate as we at first thought it was.
Then we were asked about the question of under-spending. Some of the schemes that we had in hand had been delayed by inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to inquiries in regard to public participation. We wanted public participation, but we do not always like it when we get it because there seems to be too much of it sometimes, and not always from the quarters we expect. We do have inquiries; we do try to run them on a democratic basis; and they sometimes result in delays in schemes being put into operation. Then many of these schemes, when the tenders have come in, have proved to cost, very fortunately, up to 20 per cent. less than the original estimates—which is something we ought to be rather pleased about in these days of financial stringency. The conditions in the civil engineering contracting business have been very competitive over the past few years, and that has meant that some of our original estimates were higher than the tenders when they came in.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, also asked about the question of Epping Forest. I am sure that he had read in the report of the debate in another place only a short time ago about the special powers for the City of London. He will know that the Department have leaned over backwards, in so far as preserving the Epping Forest part of the motorway is concerned. We are proposing to put a very long stretch of it into a cut-and-cover tunnel, so that the deer will still be able to go over the top of the motorway and, we hope, will not even realise that is underneath them. We have also given an undertaking that we will reinstate the Bell's Common cricket ground, and that we will build them a new pavilion. Who knows?—the club might do even better with the one they are getting from the Department of Transport then with their present one. So we really are concerned about what happens to the wildlife in those parts of the Green Belt which, unfortunately, we have to touch.
624
I think the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, also referred to the question of lead in petrol. This is a national problem, and it is something of which we are very much aware in the Department. The question of what is the appropriate or safe level is also something which we have constantly under review. All I can say at this time is that any decision which had to be made would be a national one, and would not apply to just the M.25 and that area. But if the M.25, when it is completed in 1985, is used as we expect it to be used, then it will be taking away traffic from Central London and, therefore, the fumes in Central London are likely to be less obnoxious, because of the amount of traffic that will then be able to use the orbital road. But we are aware of the problem, we have it continually under review and I am quite sure that, if the necessity arises, there will be no tardiness on our part in trying to do something about limiting the lead in petrol.
The noble Lord referred to the public inquiries which are being held at the moment. He will appreciate that I am not prepared to comment on what is happening at public inquiries which are still in being. What I can assure him is that I will see that his views are made known to my colleagues in the Department of Transport. But we are aware of the problem as he sees it, in so far as these public inquiries are concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has done us a very good service tonight in highlighting the problems of the M.25. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, reminded us that it was way back in 1937 that we started. With a bit of luck, we shall have the thing finished in 1985. I should have thought that 48 years from talking about the M.25 to completion is not something of which we ought necessarily to be proud, but it is also certainly not something on which we can be accused of hurrying and cutting corners. When it is opened, the new road will help to improve the quality of life for many thousands of people. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I regret the price that has to be paid in terms of the effect on the countryside in those areas where it touches it. But I believe that it is a price that will be worth paying, for the convenience and the ease of movement which it will bring and the traffic which it will take out of Central London.

VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
  ADVERTISING: UNION ACTION AND UNEMPLOYMENT
  ADVERTISING: UNION ACTION AND UNEMPLOYMENT
  EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: ALLOCATION OF BROADCASTING TIME
  EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: ALLOCATION OF BROADCASTING TIME