Clause 27 – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 17th July 1968.
I beg to move, Amendment No. 18, page 18, line 26, leave out 'and' and insert:
(e) arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with each other regarding the performance of functions under this section; and.
This Amendment adds a new paragraph to subsection (3) of Clause 27. Under that subsection it is necessary for local authorities to have a probation scheme to make provision for certain matters. These are then listed in subsection (3). My new paragraph includes another provision, indicating to local authorities that they must make:
arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with each other regarding the performance of functions under this section …
The first thing I imagine my hon. Friend will say is that this is unnecessary, that there is sufficient provision in present Statutes for the co-operation of local authorities with one another. I feel that it is insufficient in this case, and would like this mandatory provision included. The other reason why I put down this Amendment is because of an undertaking which my hon. Friend gave in Committee when he said:
I said that I would make arrangements between Committee and Report to discuss combinations between one local authority and another, with the local authority Associations. …I shall be able to tell hon. Members at Report stage the outcome of that meeting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 18th June, 1968; c. 359–60.]
I have therefore put this Amendment down to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to tell us what has been the result of these conversations. There is a wider wider purpose to the Amendment. We all want to make a success of the provisions of Part III of the Bill. We have to consider what conditions will be operating when the Bill becomes an Act. What will be the time-table for its provisions? Before it becomes an Act the Royal Commission will have reported
and made new suggestions about the boundaries of local authorities. Therefore, it is clear that many local authorities which will be under an obligation to carry out the Bill's provisions will view them with some reluctance because they will have to engage new staff and to expand the work which they are doing. They will not be very enthusiastic about entering into such commitments in order to carry out the Bill's provisions.
As a result of Clause 27, the probation service is to be disbanded. On Monday, we had a long argument in the House about the disbandment of a regiment for which the Government had no operational requirement. But it cannot be said that the functions of the probation service will disappear. A service provided by probation officers will continue, and if we want the things done which we feel should be done the functions carried out by them will increase. If the probation service is disbanded, as the Bill suggests, and the probation officers are frittered away among the local authorities, I cannot visualise the Bill being the success which the Minister expects it to be.
We shall have two things. The local authorities will be reluctant to enter into commitments, and the probation officers transferred to local authorities will have a grievance. Therefore, from an administrative point of view, I cannot feel that the Bill will be the success which we all desire it to be.
Is it necessary to disband the probation services as it exists? Would it not be possible to implement the Bill's provisions about the creation of children's panels and the abolition of the probation committee by the new social committees taking over the responsibility? Under this arrangement the provisions of the Bill would be carried out, but the probation service would remain as a unit, and then, through the work of the social committees, there could be co-operation between the probation officers and the social welfare officers. This would enable the probation officers, working as a body, to help the social welfare workers.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is essential that the experience of the skilled probation officers should be available to help with the work to be done by the social welfare officers under the new panels. There is no reason why the Secretary of State cannot so arrange matters that the social workers and probation officers come under the social work committee, and there could be agreement between the large burghs and the counties on the utilisation of the probation service in giving assistance to the social welfare workers.
Whatever arrangements are made, they will be only interim arrangements until we carry into effect the reforms suggested by the Royal Commission on Local Government which we shall be receiving by the end of the year.
What I suggest would have the added advantage that it would satisfy the courts. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave an undertaking to the sheriffs that adequate provision would be made to ensure that the courts were served in the way that they are served now. I find it difficult to see how that would be done administratively if the probation service were disbanded and the probation officers were distributed among the local authorities. The implementation of this undertaking would be very much easier if there were acceptance of my suggestion to leave the probation service as it is and to make arrangements for co-operation between the probation officers and the social welfare workers.
There is no reason why something like this cannot be done under Clause 27. I know that it would not be all that satisfactory. However, it would be much more satisfactory than what is likely to happen when the Bill comes into operation and the probation officers are distributed among the local authorities, which will be reluctant to carry out the Bill's provisions because they do not know the future of each local authority. I believe that my solution would help the courts, the probation service and local authorities in the interim period before we receive the Royal Commission's Report.
The effect of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is that the Bill should not be passed. The concept is that we should have a single group of social workers to carry out all the specialist services presently being done by a whole range of officers, in- cluding probation officers. It is wrong to see probation officers as welfare officers. I see them as servants of the court who are attached to the court rather than to a local authority. I have never thought that the local authority provided this service. I was a member of a local authority in which there was a joint probation committee—the Lanarkshire Joint Probation Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) will bear me out that while it carried out a function, it was not very effective. Our duty was to supply the money and the facilities for experts to carry out the function. The connection between the probation officers and the local authorities was pretty tenuous. With a joint committee, it was more tenuous than with a single authority.
If my hon. Friend is arguing for the retention of probation officers, in which I could go some way with him, the same argument would apply to a whole range of other services under the Bill. What I think is wrong with the Bill is that there is room also for a general welfare department of the local authority for specialist services. One cannot take a social worker at any time and make him an adequate probation officer.
The other possibility which could have been acted upon in the Bill was, as I said in Committee, to allow local authorities to amalgamate for certain of their functions. The probation service might be a good example. Why should not a number of local authorities, if they feel that they can provide a better service for a limited number of functions, or even only one service, get together and evolve a scheme for making that provision?
We must face the fact that we now have the Bill in its present form. I could have argued about what I would like the Bill to do, but it is too late for that now. I have made a plea for a scheme which would, I trust, make the provisions of the Bill more successful.
I accept that that is what my hon. Friend means by his Amendment, but it was hardly what he meant by his contribution to the discussion. He went a great deal further than that. I accept his arguments. I feel the same way as he does. If he feels that way, however, he cannot accept the Bill at all.
I would have been more inclined to support my hon. Friend's Amendment had he been more precise and named the probation service as a service for which local authorities could have combined. That could have taken the probation service out of the context of the ordinary social work of a local authority and provided a separate and comprehensive service.
I do not think that the hon. Member has related the Amendment to the Bill. My hon. Friend is saying that the existing probation service should be allowed to continue, but it could not continue with the Amendment. As I see it—we discussed this in Committee—the existing co-operation between local authorities could not continue with the Amendment.
I support the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West but I must point out to him again that he is seeking to destroy the whole concept of the Bill so that we do not nave specialists but would have one social service department and any person employed within that department could carry out any of the functions which fell to that department.
If my hon. Friend were to take probation services away from the local authority, there would be a lesser work load on the full complement within the social service department. The more jobs that we give them, the more likely they are to be fully engaged. This is important, too. I do not want to see people hanging about with nothing to do, as may well happen in many areas. However, I do not think that we can achieve what my hon. Friend desires, and what I desire, with the Amendment at this late stage.
It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had not thought in some way of keeping the probation service out-with the social service department of local authorities although under the control of the social work committee of a local authority. This could have been done without destroying the existing probation service, which has done, and is doing, a very good job.
I do not quite see where my two hon. Friends get to such cross-purposes. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) went much further than his Amendment. He argued for complete retention of the probation service. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) has gone still further.
The Amendment relates to subsection (3) of Clause 27, by which the duty of preparing a probation scheme is imposed upon the local authorities. Paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) are merely descriptions of what is to be done in the scheme. By his Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West seeks to lay upon the local authorities the duty that in carrying out the probation scheme they shall seek to work with each other. Part of the arrangement would be that wherever possible they would function in relation to each other.
That would not be impossible. I had it in mind at an earlier stage that wherever possible, where services could be rendered on a co-operative basis, they should by all means be rendered co-operatively. I would like my hon. Friend the Undersecretary to say that that is what he has in mind and that there will be nothing to hinder the local authorities from acting in exactly the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West wishes them to act, the difference being that he wishes to impose an obligation on the local authorities to function in that way.
I do not know whether it is advisable that they should be compelled by means of a change in the law to function in that way. What my hon. Friend was saying—
At an earlier stage, in Committee, was there not the opportunity to make provision for that?
No. As I understood, it was a question whether the probation service should become part of the joint, combined or comprehensive work service to be rendered by the local authorities.
My hon. Friend has spoken of co-operation. At an earlier stage of the Bill, was there not power to do that, not only in respect of the probation service, but in respect of other services?
We were arguing, surely, at an earlier stage, whether probation be kept out of the provisions made for social service in a comprehensive way, and what the probation service wanted was that the probation service should be outside the Bill altogether. This was not accepted by the Committee. It was not accepted by myself. I argue differently. However, I see that Mr. Speaker is becoming impatient, so I will get back to the point.
It seems to me that my hon. Friend is saying, in his Amendment, as distinct from what he said in his speech, if he will excuse my saying so, that this probation scheme part of the comprehensive social work service which the local authority has to render should be worked in conjunction with other local authorities. I myself hope that it will be worked in this way, but I am very doubtful of the wisdom of imposing upon local authorities the duty of doing it in conjunction with other local authorities. Where it can be so done, I hope that it will be so done. I expect the Under-Secretary to tell us that that is his intention. If he can say that, I think he will meet the point which is being genuinely made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West.
I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Thomas Steele). His Amendment is ingenious. I know why he moved it, but it is not one which I can support. The whole trouble, in my view, stems from the Government's unfortunate decision to retain large burghs within the social work structure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows my views on this matter and that they are the views of several of my hon. Friends. However, though we are now in the position that we must accept that what has been done has been done, and that large burghs now retain their identity in these functions. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument that local authorities will be reluctant to cooperate and unwilling to use the expertise of those probation officers who are allocated to them.
I must confess that I made my point very badly if I gave my hon. Friend that impression. I said that it would be necessary and essential to use that expertise and that local authorities would welcome it. I said they would be reluctant to implement the provisions of this Bill.
This is a much wider-ranging point, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) said, almost an argument for saying that the Bill should not have been presented at this time at all, not till we have the reorganisation of local government, though that is an argument I am not prepared to support.
However, it seems to me that if, in advance of the Royal Commission's report, we push through these complicated, comprehensive arrangements, we have to accept that there is an unfortunate fragmentation which stems from the Government's decision to change their original decision on large burghs. It seems to me that if the scheme as a whole is to be workable the probation service must be in it, and I cannot disagree more strongly than I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, who seemed to hint that the probation officers are a race apart from the general social workers. This point was made in Committee and I do not want to labour it. The whole philosophical basis of the Bill is that the probation workers have knowledge, expertise and ideology in common with social workers, and that, basically, their work is of the same nature.
There is a very vital difference, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, in that the probation officer, whatever his future title may be, has responsibility and function in a court of law, whereas the other employees of the social work department have no such function, and that function puts him apart.
This distinction has been drawn before, that the probation officer is a servant of the court and almost a law enforcement officer, and so on, but I think that the distinction is a false distinction. If a person appears before a court and is referred to the care of a probation officer that person must be seen, not in a vacuum, as it were, but against the background of his home environment, his family troubles, his employment, and so on, and the facts of all those circumstances must be known to assess which of the multiplicity of factors are at the root of his being in trouble, and they have to be dealt with in exactly the same way as they would have been if the person had not appeared before a court but had been within the ken of the social worker in some other way. The whole point is to have an efficient organisation with a whole range of facilities and workers to deal with these problems whenever they may occur. I am not prepared to accept this as the hard and fast distinction which my hon. Friend has tried to draw.
It is suggested to me from my own conversations with probation officers that a very large number of them are quite prepared to accept that they have duties very similar to those of other members of the social work department, and that, indeed, they look forward to a challenge, the challenge of widening their experience and moving into other fields. In exactly the same way I think that it would be useful if people not at present involved in probation work but dealing with similar problems can make their services available to the probation service. It would be a great mistake, and would set the whole scheme off on a very bad footing, if we kept the probation officers out of the social work department. The juvenile probation services would have to be included, even if these should be transitional arrangements.
I can sympathise with my hon. Friend, but it would be a mistake to accept his Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will resist it.
From this Amendment a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have developed an argument about the future structure of the probation service. Of course, it is perfectly natural that that should be so, because the Amendment relates to the making of a probation scheme.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage to say that it is not our intention to pursue on this Amendment the question of the future structure of the probation service. With great respect to hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the Amendment, we feel that it would be more appropriate to explain our view on Amendment No. 20, which, I believe, will be the next you will call, Mr. Speaker.
May I, however, make one comment on the Amendment, a comment which, I think, is of some importance. As I understand the Amendment, it would have the effect of providing that, in the making of a probation scheme, local authorities would make arrangements for cooperation with one another, and the Amendment certainly touches on one of the great points of concern we have about the structure of the probation service, and that is the fragmentation of the service which would follow the Bill if passed in its present form.
The argument for co-operation, and, indeed, for amalgamations, between local authorities is a very strong one we advanced vigorously in Committee, and I will not go over the familiar ground again. Hon. Gentlemen will, however, recall that we take the view that the working of this desirable Bill has been endangered by the introduction of a multiplicity of operating authorities.
There are to be in Scotland now, following an Amendment made to Clause 1 in Committee, 56 social work departments, 56 local authorities charged with the exercise of functions under the Bill. We do not consider that the Bill can operate successfully when the work of operating authorities is fragmented in this way. This argument has been deployed over and over again, and it recurs on Clause after Clause of the Bill, in terms of the career structure of welfare workers, the attracting of suitably qualified social work directors, and so on.
In terms of the Amendment, however, the argument must relate to the making of a probation scheme, and here the argument is highly appropriate. If there is doubt about the operation of other parts of the Bill because of the multiplication of local authorities involved, there must be at least as much doubt about the wise operation of probation schemes by as many as 56 local authorities. Cooperation between local authorities is, therefore, necessary. More than that, we would hope that there could be amalgamation between local authorities.
The House may be interested to know that, in Committee, we proposed from this side an ingenious method whereby, in certain circumstances, amalgamation between local authorities could be insisted upon, subject to the protection of inquiry. We left that point when the Minister told ss that he would hold consultations with the local authority organisations in Scotland to determine the extent to which voluntary amalgamations would take place. This would be an appropriate opportunity for the Minister to tell us about the progress of those consultations. I am disappointed that we have not had from him before now an account of the consultations. I said expressly to him in Committee that my hon. Friends and I would hope and expect to have a progress report from the Minister before we entered the Report stage, and that account has not been forthcoming.
If the Minister can report to us that voluntary amalgamations will be substantial in scope, it is possible that some of our doubts about the operation of the probation scheme would be reduced. In the absence of such an assurance, those doubts will remain. The co-operation which the hon. Gentleman seeks would help to some extent, but the large question would remain unanswered, and the argument on that larger question is one which we would prefer to deploy when we debate Amendment No. 20. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Minister to give the House an account of the progress of these important consultations.
I have taken the attitude during the passage of the Bill that in view of the forthcoming reorganisation of local government we should meanwhile interfere as little as possible with local services. My attitude towards the probation service is much the same, although I recognise that finally the probation service must go into the social work department. It is unfortunate that after we have spent 20 years building up the probation service, laying down qualifications and setting up special schemes of training we should throw it all overboard.
The debate is becoming a little wide. We are at the moment discussing a specific Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying what I wish to preserve and what the Amendment seeks to preserve. To throw overboard all that has gone before and to say that the probation officer is nothing more than a social worker is not true. If it were true, we would have been wrong for 20 years. By placing upon local authorities responsibility to co-operate, the Amendment enables the position to be preserved. The Amendment does not go against the main provisions of the Bill, it merely questions the advisability of reorganising the service when within another four years it will again have to be reorganised. Such a reorganisation must have an undesirable effect upon the morale of the people in the service.
If the probation officer is absorbed into the social work department he will still be doing the work which he does as a probation officer. A probation officer will be doing the same work as he was doing prior to the passage of the Bill. The courts will require to be served; people released from prison will require to be attended; records will have to be kept. All these things will have to be done, and the man who was trained to carry out this work and who has been doing it will continue to do it.
In Lanark, there are 33 probation officers, who are now to be split up into six services. They have to serve the sheriff court in Lanark, and it might be necessary to send a man from each of those six authorities to the sheriff court if the court is dealing with cases from different burghs in the county. If the Amendment were accepted, this could be done by one probation officer and such a waste of manpower would be avoided.
Although, in essence, what my hon. Friend says is true, in practice there would never be five or six probation officers in any one of the sheriff courts in Lanarkshire.
I think that it could. Probation officers from different burghs could be attending the sheriff court. This is a duplication and a waste of effort when under a combined scheme, it could be done by one officer in the same way as it is done at the present time. I have nothing against proceeding with the Bill, but at least as little dislocation as possible ought to be caused to existing services.
It is true of the other services—which is why I supported the inclusion of the large burghs—and it is true of the probation service. If we are to do this, the local authorities within a county area must come together to draw up a scheme. In this way, one of the most difficult problems in the Bill would be overcome, and to that extent the Amendment is a useful one. I tried to achieve something similar with children's panels, because to split them up and then two or three years later to reorganise them again would be to get the worst of all possible worlds.
For these reasons, I support the Amendment.
I appreciate the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has put down the Amendment in this way, although some of the points he made really went beyond what its effect would be. I am not suggesting that he was out of order, but that his interpretation of what the effect would be is well beyond what would be the case in practice. I think that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends made the same mistake.
The basis for the concern of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter is the Government's decision to include the large burghs as well as the county councils as social work departments. This was discussed at great length in Committee. It does not arise directly from the Amendment, however, and I shall, therefore, not rehearse all the arguments again. The decision has been taken and the Government: want the large burghs as social work departments for the purposes of the Bill.
Similarly, I do not think that the Amendment raises the fundamental issue, at least not directly, of whether or not the probation service should be part of the social work department. I think that my hon. Friend really was raising that issue, but it is not specifically dealt with in this Amendment. Again, we dis- cussed it at great length in Committee, and it is not for me now to rehearse the arguments once more.
But some of the expressions we have had in this debate as to the effect of incorporation of the probation service in the social work department have been quite exaggerated. For example, as has been pointed out, the probation service for children will have to go in whatever the arguments might be about the probation service for adults. That is accepted and is, indeed, inherent in Part III of the Bill.
For many local authorities in Scotland, the probation service will not be affected at all in so far as we are bringing it into the social work department. That applies in the four large cities and in the counties where there are not also large burghs. It is an exaggeration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to talk about everything that has happened with the probation service in the last 20 years as being thrown overboard by what we are doing in this Clause.
My point was that the argument that the probation officer is just another social welfare officer who can be shifted about destroys all that we have been doing.
I have never suggested that the probation officer is just another social worker—a phrase which has a slightly pejorative ring about it—and that he should just be shifted about as though all his training and experience were irrelevant. But these matters were considered at considerable length in Committee and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not allow me to go over all the arguments again now. Nevertheless, I repeat that the phraseology used by my right hon. Friend is not an accurate way of reflecting my views of the probation service or its future in the social work department.
The Amendment would make it mandatory for the probation scheme to include arrangements for co-operation. The particular phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West is open to very wide interpretation. It could be interpreted narrowly or in a variety of ways. Obviously, what he has in mind is that we should make it mandatory in effect for combinations of probation work to take place, and I understand from what he and others have said that this means in this context that there should be mandatory arrangements for the probation services to be combined in counties like Lanarkshire, where the effect of the Bill will be that the probation service will be distributed over a number of social work authorities.
I want to say what happened at the meeting I had with the local authority associations on 21st June, but I first make it clear that it is not right in principle to separate the probation service in this way. What we are doing in the Bill is bringing the service within the social work department. We are bringing a number of other services within it as well. It would be wrong to encourage social work authorities to combine for particular specific purposes as distinct from combining for all the purposes they take over in the new social work department.
All the value of having an integrated social service department, with a range of duties and responsibilities all placed within the one department, would go if the local authorities were to split it up and decide that the probation service might be combined with something else and the child welfare service with something else. If we are looking at varieties of combination between one authority and another, we should do so in the context of all the services that are taken into the social work department and not in the context of paying particular regard to having special arrangements for one of the services, whether it be the probation service or anything else. It was my strong impression at my meeting with the local authority associations that they would also take this approach to the question of combinations and amalgamations.
Before the hon. Gentleman comes to his discussions with the local authority associations, could he deal, for the benefit of those who did not serve on the Standing Committee, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) concerning the date as specified in subsection (2)?
Order. We must resist temptations to discuss the whole Bill. We are on Amendment No. 18.
Perhaps I may quickly point out that the date of commencement comes towards the end of the Bill. I covered the point in Committee and perhaps the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) would care to look at what I said. It appears in c. 572 in the report of the 12th sitting of the Committee.
The meeting I had with the local authority associations arose out of discussions on Clause 1, when there was fairly general feeling in the Committee that the number of local authorities providing social work services should, in practice, be less than 56, which would be the number if every city, county and large burgh provided a separate service. I gave an assurance, which is relevant to the probation aspect, that I would discuss this with the local authority associations with a view to seeing what the possibility would be of achieving voluntary combinations of local authorities.
I met the representatives of the local authority associations on 21st June and had a frank and helpful discussion with them. Not surprisingly, the representatives of the associations felt quite strongly, as did most hon. Members on the Standing Committee, that it would be undesirable for the Secretary of State to take powers in the Bill to require local authorities to combine for these purposes. Therefore, I can say that the local authority associations would be much against the Amendment.
Naturally, the representatives I met could not commit any individual local authority as to what would happen once the Bill was implemented, but they were in agreement that, following its passage, the local authorities would be willing to enter discussions with their neighbours to explore the possibilities of voluntary combinations. Some of the representatives felt that the likelihood of voluntary combinations would be improved if the Government took the initiative and made positive suggestions to local authorities in certain areas where the Government felt that combinations would be most desirable. But they also felt that it would be preferable for any such initiative to be delayed until after the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government were known.
I am glad that the attitudes of the local authority associations towards the matter of combinations are close to the attitudes expressed today. My right hon. Friend feels quite satisfied, therefore, in the light of the discussions with the local authority associations, that there is no need to amend this provision in the way suggested by the Amendment. Both before the publication of the Royal Commission's Report but in particular after-wards, quite apart from any general exhortations the Government might make to local authorities to look at the question of voluntary combinations, we shall take the opportunity of bringing together particular local authorities for the purpose of discussing the possibility of their combination for the purposes of the Bill. We shall certainly take an initiative with the particular authorities where we think that would be most profitable.
I have dealt with this matter at some length and perhaps tested your patience more than a little Mr. Speaker, but this is an important Amendment. I promised that, on Report, I would give this report which is relevant to the probation service. I hope, with that explanation, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
Many of my hon. Friends have taken the discussion much wider than I did initially. That may have been my own fault. I was trying to say that I accepted the Bill as it is now and that the probation service would be incorporated in the new social work department. We had the key to this matter in my hon. Friend's reply when he said that the local authorities were not prepared to consider any combination until they had the report of the Royal Commission.
With respect, I did not say that. I said that once the report of the Royal Commission has been received it will be easier for all concerned, the Government as well as local authorities, to see what the ultimate pattern will be. I did not say that local authorities were not willing to consider this matter until the Royal Commission had reported.
That was my understanding. I apologise to my hon. Friend. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) got the same impression. In any event, it seems that this is the key. Just as the local authorities will consider the question of combinations after they receive the report of the Royal Commission, I say to my hon. Friend—and this is the warning that I gave him—that they will be reluctant to carry out the provisions of the Bill, because they will be anxious and concerned about the report of the Royal Commission.
This proposal would enable local authorities to put up schemes and, in the putting up of these schemes, the Secretary of State would be able to preserve the probation service as it is to co-operate with the new social work department. I think that this is possible.
In effect, we shall destroy the probation service, as we know it, and have the people in it incorporated into the new service with a grievance and a grudge. This is my feeling. Therefore, I am thinking about the administration of the new social service. I appreciate, as the Minister said, what we are doing in this Bill, but in this House we are dealing with theory. This is the idea; this is what we want to see done. But I visualise administrative problems arising from what is to happen. I genuinely felt that the Amendment would help and assist the introduction of the new proposals. I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will take the matter seriously.
I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 18, line 39, at end insert:
'holding such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and every such officer may perform such other functions of the local authority under this Act as the Social Work Committee may direct'.
This is an Amendment to which my right hon. and hon. Friends attach considerable significance and take very seriously.
The House will be aware, from some of the speeches to which we have listened, that one of the major criticisms of this Bill in the eyes of many of us is the effect of Clause 27 abolishing the identity of the probation service as we know it today, a service which has worked very satisfactorily and with increasing efficiency over the years.
I accept, as we all have to accept, that the identity of that service has been abolished. It is being integrated, by the provisions of Clause 27, into the general social work department the new organisation for local authority social work. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to save something and to try to avoid some of the consequences which flow from that decision. Reference has already been made to some of these consequences, particularly by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele).
In our view, it is not correct to say that the probation officer is essentially the same as any other social worker. Many of the features of his training and experience are shared in common with many other social workers, but the statement contained in paragraph 28 of the White Paper, that
the main duty of the probation officer … is basically similar to that of other social workers ",
is a proposition which I do not accept, and it is obvious, from what has been said by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), and others, that they do not accept it.
I think that the essential feature of the probation officer is his close, intimate relationship with the court. He is primarily an officer of the court. Indeed, the whole development of probation as a method of treating delinquents and the development of the allied functions, such as the provision of social inquiry reports for the court, has largely depended on that close, intimate relationship, and, above all, on the trust and respect which the court has always had for the probation officer.
That arises because the court knows the man who is the probation officer, knows his training and experience, and has learned, through experience, to accept his judgment. I think it was with this consideration in mind that the Morison Committee, when reporting on this matter a few years ago, repeatedly referred to the probation service as essentially a social service of the courts and, on other occasions, as a court service. If the identity of this service is to be lost altogether, that confidence and trust and that close, intimate working relationship will be prejudiced, and, as a result, probation as a method of treating delinquents is liable to suffer.
Accepting, as we must, that the probation service, as we know it today, goes out of eistence and is merged into the social welfare organisation of a local authority, this Amendment seeks to preserve within that organisation the probation service as an identifiable group. In other words, we are seeking to say that they are all social workers and all members of the one administrative organisation—if administrative tidiness requires it, there it is —but that the people who will do the probation work will be those with the necessary training and qualifications—the group of people whom the courts will continue to know and trust. That is not to say—and I hope that the Amendment makes this clear—that the probation officer will be precluded from doing other useful social work within the department. Indeed, the Amendment specifies that.
I can understand the new organisation wanting the services of those officers in a wider sphere, but our primary concern is that they should remain as an identifiable group within the new social work organisation and that the confidence and mutual trust which has all along existed between probation officers and the courts should remain. If that link of confidence and trust is broken, the whole system as a method of treating delinquency is liable to be prejudiced, and I cannot imagine that any right hon. or hon. Member would desire that result.
I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pent-lands (Mr. Wylie), and I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment as a genuine attempt at a compromise between two opposing views. He will recall that there were a good many of us on both sides of the Committee who were unhappy at the thought that the probation service as we have known it would become completely merged in the new social work department.
The Amendment is, as I say, a genuine attempt to introduce a compromise solution, for it would make it possible for the probation service still to keep its identity as a body of professional and technically qualified people doing a specialised job, a job which is very much orientated to the link of confidence existing between the courts and our probation officers.
The Amendment would allow probation officers to retain that professional status and their link of confidence with the courts while at the same time bringing them under the general umbrella of the social work department and the director of social work. It offers a good compromise by which we could avoid disturbing the feelings of probation officers generally at the prospect of losing their separate professional status while at the same time still making it possible to bring in the benefits of the Bill.
The Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time now. I hope that the Minister has had time to consider it carefully and to realise that there is merit in the compromise solution which it offers. If, on the other hand, he has not had time to consider it fully, as, perhaps, he may not, I hope that he will at least say that he is prepared to look at it and consider whether such a compromise could be brought in at some stage.
I support the Amendment. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said, it would enable the Secretary of State to appoint those who had the qualifications to continue in probation work, and it would thus give the advantage of the connection with the courts which these officials already have. It would be a considerable loss to disperse completely the present body of probation officers. The Amendment, 01 the other hand, would enable them to be identifiable so that they could be kept doing the job which they now know so well and in which they have great experience. There are not too many probation officers with experience in Scotland anyway, and they ought to be kept on the job in which they can be most useful.
The Amendment would enable probation officers to take on other work as well, as appropriate. It would thus give the kind of rationalisation which the Secretary of State seeks by the Bill. I hope that he will accept an arrangement of this kind.
I support the Amendment. There is great concern throughout the country about the probation service. In the past, the probation officer has been a trusted individual in our social services, trusted not only by the courts themselves and recognised by them for the inestimable benefit of the work which they do, but trusted, also, by the parents of those who, unfortunately, have to attend court and who have had tremendous help from probation officers.
There is a fear that it will be difficult to replace such officers. People have become accustomed to the services of the probation officer and of the probation service in general. There is a feeling that it will be difficult to fit the service into the new and larger organisation. Because of the very personal nature of the probation officer's work, the service as we now know it should be allowed to carry on as far as possible as it has in the past.
It seems that the main reason for the change is that it was thought necessary to bring all the services together under the new Bill. But there need be no difficulty in allowing the probation service to carry on and to co-operate as it has in the past with the other social services. There is not a great deal which is new in the Bill from this point of view. Most of the other work done in the past by various other bodies will continue, though more effectively, perhaps, in the future. My concern is that, in going about the country, I find great anxiety in people's minds about what will happen if the probation officer is no longer known in the community.
I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), and I accept at once that there is one sizeable difficulty raised by the Government's proposal, namely, that, rightly or wrongly, the sheriffs—this is certainly true of the Sheriff Substitutes Association—have considerable reservations about the loss of an identifiable probation service. Even though I regard their objections as mistaken, possibly too sweeping and in some cases rather alarmist, one must bear in mind that they are the views of people who will sit on the bench and have to decide whether to use the service.
The very fact that they have such doubts, which may well inhibit their free use of the service, is a matter to be taken into consideration. For that reason alone, I have some sympathy with an attempt to produce a formula which will reassure the sheriffs and, no doubt, reassure a good number of other people who have the worries which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) expressed.
For all that, however, I do not like the Amendment. As I said in another context a few minutes ago, I think that it is based upon a fundamental fallacy. I do not agree, for example, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) says that, given the concept of flexibility, if there is not a defined and separate training for the probation officer as distinct from the general run of social workers, we shall throw out everything we have worked for over the past 20 years.
A little while ago, the Minister said that to talk in terms of "just another social worker" was in some way derogatory. I do not accept that, and I certainly meant what I said in no derogatory sense. I tried to show that there was a good deal of common method, common philosophy and common type of work as between social workers and probation officers. I am open to correction, but I understand that there is now largely a common course followed by a child care officer and a probation officer. The refresher courses which the administration has been running for probation officers who came into the service before the training régime was instituted are shared courses as between probation officers and other groups of social workers. There are differences of emphasis in terms of attention to criminal regulations and the like, but in the basic course followed, the methods adopted and the type of problems dealt with I do not see a sharp differentiation.
I should be sorry if something were written into the Bill which militated against ultimate flexibility in the use of the social workers whom we have available. I accept that one will not suddenly switch all people doing probation work at the moment into a completely different sphere. That would be mad and quite inexcusable irresponsibility for the directors of the new social work department. They must remain basically within their own sphere, and there must be a long period when they will be the backbone of the social workers attached to the court. It is possible for there to be some changeover, for example, with a responsible person who has been dealing with child care for a number of years. I see no reason why such a person should not be attached to perhaps a children's hearing, in conjunction with someone established in the probation service for some time.
It would be useful and part of the intentions of the Bill. Of course, we must have continuity, but it would be very sad if we wrote in statutory barriers to stop this kind of experimentation, this mobility within the social work department. It would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. We talked a good deal in Committee about the structural difficulties of the new organisation. This is only worth while if we can create the kind of social work structure which allows this interchange of duties where possible, where people are properly qualified. It would be a retrograde step to accept this Amendment although I accept the existence of the initial fears, expressed by hon. Members opposite.
I join with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) at least in that I am very concerned about the attitude of the Sheriff Substitutes Association. I do not think, from what I have heard, that it is sufficient to say that it has strong reservations about this. I would say that its attitude is a good deal stronger than is implied by the word "reservation". This is a very important Amendment—I would argue that it is the most important Amendment. One of the most vital properties of a probation scheme is that it should enjoy the confidence of the courts—in the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), that there should be a close and intimate relationship.
There is real anxiety that such a relationship will be vitiated as a result of this Clause. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that the acceptance of the Amendment would lead to the erection of statutory barriers within the social work department. As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, this is precisely what it will not do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said it does not erect firm statutory barriers.
On the whole, I would prefer to see probation officers excluded altogether from the social work department, but that is not what we are discussing. This Amendment would incorporate certain people within the social work department and require them to have special qualifications, recognised by the Secretary of State.
I quite see that there is provision in the Amendment to allow the trained probation officer to do other work. It seems that there is a barrier the other way, in that a trained social worker engaged in child care cannot move in to help the court. This seems wrong.
I take the hon. Member's point, but do not think that the barrier would be as rigid in terms of the Amendment as he imagines, because the Amendment would leave it to the Secretary of State to define the qualifications which the person serving the court would need. We have to satisfy the very legitimate anxieties of the Sheriff Substitutes Association and the probation officers.
I have received a copy of the memorandum prepared by the National Association of Probation Officers in which it points out that:
The probation service in Scotland now only accepts for appointment persons who have been centrally selected and have completed a course of training approved by the Secretary of State. So far as possible the Association wishes to ensure that the standards of service to the courts and to persons supervised on behalf of the courts, are maintained within the new structure. In addition, it is essential, if the courts are to be encouraged to use probation, that the sheriffs and other sentencers should have confidence in the service provided by the local authority.
It is this last sentence which seems fundamental. I was very concerned to be told by a distinguished and experienced sheriff substitute that he would think twice before sentencing people to probation if this Clause went through un-amended. We have to take this seriously. If the sheriff substitutes do not have confidence in the probation system, the likelihood is that instead of sentencing people
to probation, they will sentence them to imprisonment—which is not what the Government seek to achieve through the Bill.
We have to bear in mind that in the past conditions of service in the probation department have been, broadly speaking, the same in Scotland and England, if the Clause is passed without this Amendment, conditions of service will be very different. It has been suggested that we might see—because there was a feeling that those who had previously been in the service were losing status as a result of the Clause—a movement of such people, South of the Border.
I do not suggest that these considerations would be eliminated if the Amendment is accepted, but it would certainly be a substantial improvement and I very much hope that the Amendment is accepted.
This has been described as an attempt to help. I have been interested in this argument for a considerable time, although I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), because I had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. This has been described as an attempt to help, in that it refers to special qualifications that the Secretary of State may lay down for a probation officer. It is true that the Amendment says that he will be to perform other services. On the other hand, other people without this special qualification will not be permitted to fulfil the rôle of the probation officer.
The Amendment draws a clear distinction, and the probation officer is established as a category with certain characteristics, clearly marked off from other forms of social workers. The issue is whether we are to have a certain set of officers, based primarily on the courts, as servants of the courts, in distinction to other officers primarily serving local authorities.
If we were to decide that there should be this clear distinction, then the probation officer ought to be taken out of the Bill altogether. I would go further and venture to say that he ought not to be paid for by the local authorities, because as a servant of the court he would be outwith the functions of a local authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) was concerned about a comprehensive service. If we are to have a comprehensive service the probation officer must form part of it.
If I were satisfied that the probation officers as a whole were determined to remain based upon the courts, I would agree with the argument advanced, and even to taking probation officers out of the Bill altogether. But I am not satisfied. I have seen plenty of evidence in the probation service itself for a substantial body of opinion that they should be involved in the multiplicity of services under the heading of social work. There should be a bias towards the courts, certainly, but I do not agree that there is evidence that the probation worker thinks this. His organisation says this officially, but my findings show that many individual officers want to fulfil the diverse functions of social service workers. They will, naturally, also render these functions in relation to the courts, where necessary, but they should have this wider function.
Since the Bill is designed to bring about a comprehensive social work service, it should include the services to the courts, which are not designed primarily to punish. There is a bias in the probation service towards reclaiming, redeeming and re-educating people rather than punishing them, which is still the function of the court. Therefore, I decided to support those lines of development which brought the service within the comprehensive social work service which the Bill would bring about. Thus, it would be a mistake to inject a provision to make the probation officer distinctly different from other social workers, and to say that he alone can fulfil that service because he alone has those qualifications.
I have been following the hon. Member's argument with great interest, since this is the key Amendment to the whole Bill. I apologise for not having been present earlier, because of other reasons. Is it not possible to have a comprehensive service, which the hon. Gentleman is arguing for, and yet provide that probation officers must have some additional qualification? A parallel is that officers in the Royal Navy may be perfectly competent executive officers—
—but must have a watchkeeping certificate before he can take charge of a ship at sea. Surely a probation officer can have extra qualifications?
I should have thought that the local authority, whose duty it is to provide officers to render this service to the courts, would see that the people involved were suitably qualified. The Amendment would write in the express condition that the Secretary of State should draw up qualifications and, presumably, that only the people with those qualifications would be able to render this service. It is admitted that they might render other services, but it is suggested that no one else would be able to render this service because only these people would have the qualifications.
This is an attempt to make a clear distinction in law between that type of officer, called the probation officer, and others—
But surely the same distinctions. apply in the teaching profession? If a teacher wants an additional qualification to teach the deaf or the blind, those qualifications are available, and only those with the required qualifications are empowered by the Secretary of State to carry out that kind of educational work.
We should not apologise for having taken some time over this Amendment, because, right from the publication of the White Paper and all the discussions of this, attention has been paid—probably to the sacrifice of attention to other branches of the social work service—to the probation service. It is a tribute to that service, its work and its contact not only with the courts but with local authorities that it has had this ready response to its pleas for special consideration in the discussions.
I would say to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) that the probation service in Scotland is different from that in England, which is a centralised Home Office service. In Scotland, it is a local authority service. Therefore, we should be worried about the changes which we make. If we are to assert the rights which we already have to legislate, let us take some pride in the fact that we can be different.
Hon. Members opposite, as they did earlier, have tried to take the probation service out of the Bill. They are not doing exactly that this time, because earlier discussions in Committee cannot now be repeated. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr Wylie) admitted honestly, as he must, that the probation service will be part of the new social work service, but what they want is that I shall so lay down their qualifications that these officers shall be seen to be within but apart, and that they and they alone shall continue to do one kind of work, although hon. Members say that the social work committees, notwithstanding the Secretary of State, should be able to allow them to do other work as well.
I do not doubt that, if we accepted this, we should destroy the new conception of the social work service. This is what would happen. There would be divisions within the service. If this is true of the probation officer, is it not equally true of the children's officer and the welfare officer?
But their work will, possibly, be encroached upon by the probation officer in his new light. This is a misunderstanding of our whole purpose, which is to get away from this narrow specialisation by different people who deal, mainly, with the same kind of situation—and, very often, with the same people. It is people we are concerned about, not the courts but the people in the courts; it is those people's background, in their families.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the probation officer is part of the penal system? It is because of his connection with the courts that he is in a different position from anyone else. It is not suggested that he is better or worse than anyone else, but he is in a different position.
He is not part of the penal system. He is certainly involved in it, but so are many children's officers and welfare officers, who often provide the probation officer with some of the background which goes into his report. We have arrived at the appreciation that, instead of three or four different people in different guises visiting the same family, we should give this job to one department. Instead of three or four specialisms, we shall get one much more rounded specialism in the end.
Probation officers will play a very important part in this, because of their experience. Far from their status being lowered, as has been suggested, I think their status and their career opportunities will be considerably enhanced.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) said that the work would be the same as that which was done in the past. If I were satisfied that the right kind of work and the right amount of work was being done in the social field in Scotland, we would not have needed the Bill at all. But there are great gaps in Scotland, not only in rural areas, where the social work that needs to be done is not being done. Anyone who looks at the statistics for juvenile delinquency and of prisoners who, after their discharge, return to the courts and thence to prison has no reason for complacency or for thinking that we have reached the end of the road. We have only just started to pay the kind of attention which we should be paying, and we are starting at the right point.
I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for South Angus suggest that some sheriff substitute—he did not name him; he said that he was an important one, an experienced one, and all the rest of it— would hesitate to use probation if this was passed. I hope that sheriff substitutes will hesitate to apply any sentence, but only in relation to the adequacy or appropriateness of that sentence to the case in question. To make such a statement and not to say who made it is not fair on all the other sheriff substitutes who will apply the law and who will use the facilities which will be there.
In the beginning, undoubtedly, as we take over here, it will be the same probation officers who will be used. Subsection (2) says:
For the purposes of the foregoing subsection every local authority shall, after consultation with the sheriffs having jurisdiction in their area, prepare a scheme and submit it by such date, as he may require, to the Secretary of State for his approval.
In the light of that, in the light of the kind of experience already in being, and in the light of what has already been said as to how this will develop, it was wrong of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the sheriff substitutes will hesitate to consider probation as an appropriate condition to make in relation to the treatment of any case.
This comment was made to me by a sheriff substitute. I have not obtained his permission to mention his name, and, therefore, I do not think I should do so. He said to me, however, that if the probation officer did not have the confidence of the court he would think twice about sentencing somebody who came before him to probation.
That is not what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. He said that the sheriff substitute would hesitate to use probation if this was passed as it is. He said nothing about confidence.
It is not the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, before a scheme has ever been discussed with that sheriff substitute, determined, modified, seen by me and by him, and approved by me, it will be unsatisfactory? The chances are, with the facilities which will be made available, that the decisions of the court will be even better than they are at present. The hon. Gentleman should not use phrases like that, bring in unnamed people to support such a contention, and then change his mind about what he said when he is challenged.
This is a fundamental Amendment, because it cuts right across what we hope to achieve by this completely new and pioneering scheme that we are introducing for Scotland. The Bill, including this part, has been lauded, not just in Scotland, but in other parts of Britain and elsewhere. Interest has been shown in it as something that others would like to strive towards. I know that we are taking a pioneering step, but it is not one which has been taken lightly. We went into this very fully before we issued the White Paper. Since then, we have had full discussions with everyone concerned and have modified our views in the light of those full discussions. We have had full discussions in Committee.
I assure the House that I, too, give my praise to the probation officers. I can remember pressing the Conservative Government to do something about the Morrison Report. If I had thought that we would destroy the service and not replace it with something which contained what was of value within their work and build upon that, with a greater breadth of social science and experience, I would not have introduced the Bill.
Taking the whole Clause, in view of what we are doing in relation to the schemes, and in view of the kind of people who will undertake this work, I think that it would be wrong to do as the hon. Gentleman suggested and condemn the thing in advance. We must assume that the directors of social work will not send people into the courts who have no knowledge of what they are doing. In the beginning, it will be the probation officers that will play a very important part in this, because they have a width of experience which is of value outside the narrow field of probation. As time passes the same may well be true of others. It would be undesirable to create within the department of the director of social work officers who might appear to have some special statutory status which, indeed, the director himself does not have.
Lastly, when the new departments have taken over probation responsibilities, the best arrangement is that the work should continue to be carried out mainly by the officers who are now qualified and have experience in this work, but it is not desirable at the very beginning here, and in something which will last as long as the Bill lasts, to preclude the possibility that officers with other skills might, under supervision, acquire probation experi-and share in the work. What we are creating, and in which probation officers will play a leading part, is virtually a new profession and one which probation officers, with their experience, will be glad to be members of. I am sorry about some of the things which have been said, mainly by the hon. Member for South Angus. On the whole, the attitude to this subsection has been fairly objective. I cannot do other than ask the House to reject the Amendment.
When debating an earlier Amendment the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) complimented the Secretary of State by saying that he was obstinate. I do not think that we have ever seen the right hon. Gentleman more obstinate than he has been tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that the Kilbrandon Report, the Morrison Report, the probation officers, the sheriffs and, I suspect, most hon. Members are wrong. The person who is right is the right hon. Gentleman. As I listened to him I was reminded of the old story, the last line of which goes, "Everybody's out of step except 'oor Wullie". On the Front Bench opposite, in the guise of the Secre-tary of State, sits 'oor Wullie, as obstinate as ever.
It might be as well to remind the House of three background facts which we must consider when deciding our view towards the Amendment. The first is that the Kilbrandon Report, which the right hon. Gentleman described as the Genesis of the Bill—
One hon. Member did; Kilbrandon's effect on the Bill is enormous—made it clear that Kilbrandon envisaged an independent adult probation service.
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree. That was the interpretation which I and a great many others put on the Report. The right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, wrong.
Order. If the hon. Gentleman goes out of order, he will be wrong The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) must address his remarks to the Amendment.
The second point to remember is that the Government's decision to bring the probation service within the social work department was a narrow decision. Indeed, the White Paper said:
The Government's conclusion is that, on balance, it would be better if all the functions of the probation service in Scotland were undertaken by the local authority social work department.
The two key words were "on balance".
The third point to remember is that that narrow decision was taken when the Government believed that the large burghs should not be in the Bill as administrative authorities. In other words, there would have been, at the time of the White Paper, many fewer social work departments than envisaged in the Bill. I believe that if the Government had decided to introduce large burghs, thus creating 56 possible local authorities, they might have taken a very different view about the probation service because the balance would have been the other way round.
There has been some discussion of the rôle of the probation officer. Is he or is he not an officer of the court? What matters is the fact that probation officers see themselves as officers of the court. I believe that the courts see probation officers as officers of the court, too. That is critical to the Amendment.
Everything in the end comes back to the trust and confidence which the courts have in the person appearing before them as the probation officer. We say that it is necessary, if that trust and confidence is to be retained, for the probation officer to be identified within the social work department and to continue that rôle, within the terms of the Amendment, into the future. We advanced this argument on Second Reading and we continue to advance it. We believe that this is the only way that we can be absolutely certain that this essential confidence will be held. If it is not held we will reach the stage when probation might not be invoked so readily by the courts, and that would be a serious loss to our penal system.
|Division No. 282.]||AYES||[7.45 p.m.|
|Astor, John||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Hawkins, Paul||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Baker, Kenneth (Acton)||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Peel, John|
|Balniel, Lord||Hiley, Joseph||Percival, lan|
|Biffen, John||Hill, J. E. B.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Blaker, Peter||Hirst, Geoffrey||Prior, J. M, L.|
|Body, Richard||Holland, Philip||Pym, Francis|
|Brewis, John||Hunt, John||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Hutchison, Michael Clerk||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||lremonger, T. L.||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Silvester, Frederick|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Burden, F. A.||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Smith, John (London & W'minster)|
|Campbell, B. (Oldham, West)||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Stainton, Keith|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stodart, Anthony|
|Clegg, Walter||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Longden, Gilbert||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||MacArthur, lan||Teeling, Sir William|
|Dance, James||Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)||Temple, John M.|
|Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Tilney, John|
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||McMaster, Stanley||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Maude, Angus||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Mawby, Ray||Waddington, David|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Williams, Donald (Dudley)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Fortescue, Tim||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Miscampbell, Norman||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Monro, Hector||Wright, Esmond|
|Gower, Raymond||Montgomery, Fergus||Wylie, N. R.|
|Grant-Ferris, R.||More, Jasper||Younger, Hn. George|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Murton, Oscar||Mr. R. W. Elliott and|
|Gurden, Harold||Neave, Airey||Mr. Anthony Grant.|
|Allen, Scholefield||Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Archer, Peter||Fernyhough, E.||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McBride, Neil|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||McCann, John|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||Ford, Ben||MacColl, James|
|Beaney, Alan||Forrester, John||MacDermot, Niall|
|Binns, John||Fowler, Gerry||Macdonald, A. H.|
|Bishop, E. S.||Galpern, Sir Myer||McGuire, Michael|
|Blackburn, F.||Gardner, Tony||Mackie, John|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Gourlay, Harry||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Booth, Albert||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Boston, Terence||Gregory, Arnold||Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Manuel, Archie|
|Brooks, Edwin||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Buchan, Norman||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Millan, Bruce|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hannan, William||Miller, Dr. M. S.|
|Chapman, Donald||Harper, Joseph||Milne, Edward (Blyth)|
|Coe, Denis||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Heffer, Eric S.||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Newens, Stan|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hooley, Frank||Oakes, Gordon|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||O'Malley, Brian|
|Delargy, Hugh||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Dempsey, James||Howie, W.||Orme, Stanley|
|Dewar, Donald||Hoy, James||Oswald, Thomas|
|Dickens, James||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Owen, Will (Morpeth)|
|Doig, Peter||Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)|
|Dunn, James A.||Hunter, Adam||Palmer, Arthur|
|Dunnett, Jack||Hynd, John||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)||Park, Trevor|
|Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lawson, George||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Ellis, John||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Pentland, Norman|
|Ennals, David||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)|
|Ensor, David||Lomas, Kenneth||Rankin, John|
|Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.||Silverman, Julius||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Robertson, John (Paisley)||Slater, Joseph||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)||Small, William||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Spriggs, Leslie||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Swingler, Stephen||Woof, Robert|
|Ryan, John||Taverne, Dick||Yates, Victor|
|Sheldon, Robert||Thornton, Ernest|
|Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Urwin, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Varley, Eric G.||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|Mr. J. D. Concannon|