HC Deb 11 July 1967 vol 750 cc667-92

4.15 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 17, after 'pays', to insert 'or has paid'.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment, the House may discuss Amendment No. 31, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), in page 5, line 33, leave out from 'and' to end of line 34.

The Attorney-General

Amendment No. 30 is simply a drafting Amendment to clarify the effect of Clause 5(1). This subsection gives protection to employers who have withheld pay increases contractually due before 21st July, 1966, by implying into the relevant agreement for the pay increase a condition that the employer is not legally liable to pay the increase if he pays remuneration at not less than the basic rate—that is to say, in the general case, the rate last applied before 21st July, 1966.

Clause 5(2) applies the protection to the first six months period covered by the agreement, including the case where the agreement included provision for the back-dating of the increase. In respect of the back-dated period, however, it is not altogether appropriate to express the implied condition as subsection (1) now does in the terms that are set out in that provision if the employer pays remuneration at a rate not less than the basic rate, and accordingly it is proposed to add the words "or has paid" as more appropriate to that precise situation.

Mr. R. Carr

Naturally we do not in any way question either your selection of Amendments, Mr. Speaker, or the way in which they have been grouped together. I think you will understand that these two Amendments are, however, of a rather disparate nature and that Amendment No. 31 is both of a different nature and a different weight. It is far from being a drafting Amendment, but it will be understood that, in order to express our view on it, we shall presumably have to vote on Amendment No. 30—unless, of course, as we are ever hopeful, the Government indicate that, in the appro- priate way and at the appropriate time, they will do what we wish in Amendment No. 31.

Clause 5 is very long and has a great amount of detail in it which is almost incomprehensible in large part. It is, moreover, a Clause which in our view highlights one of the most objectionable features of the Bill and the Government's policy, namely, forcing breach of contract. We believe that to force breach of contract in industry is one of the most damaging things that can be done—damaging also, indeed, to the purpose that the Bill seeks to achieve.

The Clause typifies two other features of the Bill and the policy. First, it demonstrates the almost impossible complexity of the whole subject. This was put very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in Committee, when he said: It symbolises the difficulties, the unpredictable complications which arise wherever statutory form is invoked to determine either prices of income."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th June, 1967; c. 262.] Secondly, it demonstrates the results of sloppy drafting because, to some extent, the need for the Clause is to protect employers from some of the results of the 1966 Act arising from the drafting of that Measure, the subsequent court action and the confusion which has occurred.

The Clause requires close scrutiny and, given more time, there would be many Amendments which could be moved to it. We have chosen this because it is directed to an aspect of which we have had practical experience in the past year.

In order to explain what we are trying to do, I must briefly take the House through what we understand to be the position under the Clause. Subsection (1) imports into agreements between employer and employee an implied condition which allows the employer not to pay an increase in earnings which he had undertaken to pay. Subsection (2) then goes on to say that this implied condition shall be limited to remuneration payable for periods not exceeding six months in the aggregate. Paragraph (a), which is the subject of the Amendment, says two things about that aggregate period of six months. It says, first, that the periods covered by the condition may be either continuous or not and, secondly, that it may include periods before the making of the agreement.

Assuming that we have to accept the Clause overall, something which we do not like, we see no objection to the first part of subsection (2,a) which says that the period covered by the implied condition may be either continuous or not, but we take strong objection to what we think is meant by the second part, which says that not only may the period be continuous or not, but it may include periods before the making of the agreement.

It is possible to imagine that an employee, or group of employees, has a long-standing agreement with an employer that his earnings level shall he adjusted automatically at certain periods according to changes in the cost-of-living index. On top of that, at some stage—it would be in the period covered by this policy—the employee might make a new agreement with the employer for a basic increase in his earnings level and the new agreement, jacking up his earnings to a different level, would be superimposed on the old agreement providing for adjustments according to movements in the cost-of-living index. The new and the old agreements would go on together.

In this policy which the Government want us to pass and with which we do not agree it should be clear that the standstill would apply only to the new and not the old and continuing agreement. If Clause 5(2,a) is allowed to stand as it is, it is probable that the old, underlying and continuing agreement will be covered as well.

We say that at least there is uncertainty about it and we believe that that uncertainty has been shown by one or two cases which have cropped up in the last year and which have come before the House in the form of Prayers against Orders. For example, there was the Order about the staff of the Exchange Telegraph and the Press Association. There was an element of the staff receiving increments on a regular basis which was separate from the wage increase which gave rise to the Order. Another Order was that dealing with employees of the Birmingham Corporation Transport Department.

In that case some of those employers affected by the Order were members of N.A.L.G.O. The Order prevented the payment of an increase of 7 per cent. under the award to local government employees, which became payable on 1st February this year, after six months' deferment. It not only deferred that but also deferred the payment of the increase in differentials, to which the Order was specifically intended to relate.

Here we have a case of the Order catching both the negotiated increase and an underlying continuing arrangement for adjustment which was of long standing. It is fair to say that in the end, in both those cases, the Minister of Labour gave permission for the underlying increases to be granted. There was a period of considerable uncertainty about it, and through that uncertainty, harm was done to industrial relations and confidence in the future, without any gain to the Government's prices and incomes policy.

The Government admitted this by the eventual action of the Minister of Labour in saying that those long standing underlying agreements could be honoured. If we accept this Bill we shall be importing into the future the same sort of uncertainty as has caused trouble in the past. If our interpretation of this very complicated, and to many of us, incomprehensible, Clause is correct, we hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mikardo

At this breakfast hour, I will detain the House for only the length of a sentence or two in order to draw attention to the juxtaposition of what we are doing now and what we were doing a few minutes ago. The Attorney-General, in moving this Amendment, pointed out that what he was doing was to stop up a possible loophole in the protections which the Bill gave to employers. It was making absolutely sure that there were no circumstances in which employers were not protected.

A few minutes ago his right hon. Friend the First Secretary was making absolutely sure of his inalienable rights to put trade unionists, shop stewards, and their leaders into gaol. The contrast could not be clearer or more stark, and could not more directly have been borne out by what was said a little while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who pointed out that there was this discrimination between support given to employers by the Government and the attacks which they are making on trade unions.

If ever anything gave the game away, and made crystal clear, not only to the House, but to trade unionists, the bias of discrimination against trade unionists lying in the Government's policy, enshrined in this Bill, it is this.

Sir E. Brown

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). We have previously dealt with a Clause which is restrictive against the actions of trade unions, and we are now dealing with one which offers protection to employers.

This was a subject which gave the Committee a lengthy debate. I can offer hope to the right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends by making it clear that this Clause is another through which Mr. Clive Jenkins could drive a coach and horses. Clearly if an employer refuses to pay, and goes to court in order to protect his right under this Bill, all that needs to happen, and I am not inciting or persuading, is for a group of organised workers to walk out of their factory and say that they will not return until the employer pays up. I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that any action would be taken against them for so doing. This is why the Bill is a complete nonsense. I readily join with the hon. Member for Poplar in his assertion to his right hon. and learned Friend that we have had one lot of nonsense and now we are to have another. If someone wants to obtain something and is organised in a trade union, all he has to do is to withdraw his labour until the employer concedes his rights. Nothing that the Attorney-General can do can stop that except to put masses of trade unionists in prison, and we have already had the assurance of the First Secretary that he will not put anyone in prison.

This Bill is a complete nonsense and I cannot see why we are staying up to this time in the morning putting this nonsense through.

4.30 a.m.

The Attorney-General

The Bill is not a nonsense but a valuable piece of social machinery in this period of our continuing difficulties.

The deferments of pay increases which have taken place since the original Act came into force have been voluntarily accepted in a spirit of public spiritedness and generosity by the vast majority of employees of the country. The purpose of Clause 5 is to remove the basis for any legal action against an employer for the recovery of increases in pay withheld in accordance with the Government's policy for the periods of standstill and severe restraint despite the existence of contractual obligations to the contrary.

Subsection (2) provides that the defence shall be available for only six months in cases where the agreement were entered into before 21st July, 1966, and that this period of six months may include periods before the making of the agreement, that is to say, where the agreement provides for back-dating of the pay increase. That is the consequence of the words sought to be left out. The Amendment would delete the words: and may include periods before the making of the agreement". The effect of doing that would be to remove certainty that the defence is available in respect of these periods of back-dating of the pay increase.

The wording of Clause 5(1) provides that an employer would have to pay to the employee for work for any period before July 1967 remuneration at a higher rate". They imply that the periods to which I have referred would probably be covered by the Clause without the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out from subsection (2,a), but it is thought that it will put the matter beyond a peradventure if those words are retained. It is to deal with that limited situation that the words exist. I do not think they give rise to any of the anxieties of difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr).

I hope that in the light of that explanation he will be reassured about the significance of these words.

Sir E. Brown

What would be the position in the case I outlined where there is this protection afforded to the employer and trade unionists by an official strike came out of a factory and said that they would not return until they got the concession from the employer? Will the Attorney-General tell the House if in that case the Government would prosecute the trade unionists?

The Attorney-General

Obviously after the period of standstill the criminal sanctions will not apply. One hopes that there will be responsible and good relations between employees and employers and that that situation would not develop. Otherwise the benefit to our community would be rapidly eroded and the sacrifice of the last year would have been in vain. I hope that no encouragement will come from this House for taking that kind of action.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in reply persuasively and moderately, as he always does, and he indicated that the apprehensions expressed by my right hon. Fiend in regard to the effect of the second part of Clause 5(2,a) were not well founded, at any rate in his view. One hopes that that is so, though a point such as that might, perhaps, be more appropriately included at a little more leisure and at a rather different time of day from this; but even if the apprehensions which were voiced by my right hon. Friend are unfounded I am bound to say that some of the observations made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are really not such as to remove disquiet it relation to that Clause.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) criticised the Clause because, he said, it showed a sort of unreasonable dichotomy of outlook on the part of the Government—what he called tenderness to the employers and oppressiveness towards trade unionists. "Tenderness to employers" I do not think is a very happy description of what the Government are here doing. I do not think they are being tender to employers. What they are doing is to embark on very doubtful expedients in order to support their own policy.

In the Clause we get an amalgamation of constitutional improprieties. On an earlier Amendment I ventured to make some criticism of the retrospective provisions of this Bill. This Clause combines retrospection with inducement to breach of contract, and those really are two things which, even at half-past four in the morning, should not pass in this House of Commons without objection being made. I was a little surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom, as he knows, I have very great respect, both personally and in his professional capacity, should have made a speech which sounded very much as though we nowadays take this sort of thing very much for granted—that we must expect retrospection on this scale in these matters, and that it really does not very much matter if we deliberately provoke breach of contract. If the Government's policy is that these things should be done, then the right way to do it is not to induce breach of contract and give statutory protection in regard to it.

I said this when we were debating the original Measure last year, and I say it again now, because it seems to me that on these constitutional matters we are liable to get on to a slippery slope. Things which last year were regarded as objectionable, or tolerable only for a period of emergency, are now being spoken of as part and parcel of our democratic society.

If I venture longer on that you might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am addressing myself to the inequalities and iniquities of the Clause, whereas I am taking a somewhat broad view of the terms of the Amendment. I wanted to say that, because it is important, whatever the hour of day or night, that these things should be said in this House.

Mr. R. Carr

With the leave of the House, I wish to press the learned Attorney-General on one or two points. He assured hon. Members on this side that he did not feel that the fears which we have and which I gave as one of the main reasons for this Amendment were justified. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that did not ring convincingly in our ears, because we were given that sort of assurance in last year's Bill, yet we had the two Orders; we had the confusion to which I have referred in the cases of the Exchange Telegraph and Press Association and the employees of the Birmingham Corporation Transport Department. These muddles occurred. It is all very well for him to tell us now that he does not think that any ambiguity exists, but we should be happier if he gave us chapter and verse and explained why it will be that, under this Bill, we shall be assured of not getting the sort of muddles which have occurred in the recent past. If he cannot reassure us more on that point, and because of the reasons of retrospection and other matters of principle raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), we shall press the matter to a Division.

The Attorney-General

The Bill is particularly complex, because great care has been taken to try to avoid the emergence of a state of confusion or the kind of difficulties which have arisen in the interpretation given by the Court of Appeal—with which I do not quarrel,

Division No. 448.] AYES [4.43 a.m.
Anderson, Donald Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Archer, Peter Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Palmer, Arthur
Armstrong, Ernest Grey, Charles (Durham) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Ashley, Jack Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Pavitt, Laurence
Barnett, Joel Hannan, William Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bence, Cyril Haseldine, Norman Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hattersley, Roy Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Hazell, Bert Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Bishop, E. S. Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Price, William (Rugby)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hilton, W. S. Rankin, John
Boston, Terence Hooley, Frank Rees, Merlyn
Boyden, James Howie, W. Reynolds, G. W.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Huckfield, L. Richard, Ivor
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan) Hunter, Adam Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Cant, R. B. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Carter-Jones, Lewis Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Chapman, Donald Jones, Dan (Burnley) Sheldon, Robert
Coe, Denis Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Skeffington, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Leadbitter, Ted Small, William
Dalyell, Tam Ledger, Ron Snow, Julian
Davies, Dr. Emest (Stretford) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Luard, Evan Taverne, Dick
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Delargy, Hugh Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Dewar, Donald McBride, Neil Tinn, James
Dobson, Ray Macdonald, A. H. Tuck, Raphael
Dunnett, Jack McKay, Mrs. Margaret Varley, Eric G.
Eadie, Alex Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Maclennan, Robert Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Ellis, John McNamara, J. Kevin Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ensor, David Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, David (Consett)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Whitaker, Ben
Faulds, Andrew Molloy, William Whitlock, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Moonman, Eric Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)
Ford, Ben Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Forrester, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Freeson, Reginald Moyle, Roland Winnick, David
Gardner, Tony Ogden, Eric Yates, Victor
Ginsburg, David O'Malley, Brian TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Oram, Albert E. Mr. Walter Harrison and
Gourlay, Harry Oswald, Thomas Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Awdry, Daniel Batsford, Brian Berry, Hn. Anthony
Baker, W. H. K. Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Biffen, John
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Bell, Ronald Biggs-Davison, John

of course—to one limited but not unimportant aspect of the Act.

I venture to think that, as it now stands, the Clause achieves the purpose to which it is directed, namely, to prevent the erosion of what has been gained by, as I submit, the voluntary withholding of pay increases during the last year. It gives a limited protection to employers who seek to take advantage of it and does so in terms which, to the best of our skill and ability, should hold water. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 99.

Black, Sir Cyril Grant-Ferris, R. More, Jasper
Body, Richard Greeham-Cooke, R. Neave, Airey
Bossom, Sir Clive Grieve, Percy Nott, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Percival, Ian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hastings, Stephen Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Campbell, Cordon Higgins, Terence L. Pym, Francis
Carlisle, Mark Holland, Philip Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hornby, Richard Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cary, Sir Robert Howell, David (Guildford) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cordle, John Hunt, John Royle, Anthony
Costain, A. P. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Sharpies, Richard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sinclair, Sir George
Crouch, David Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Summers, Sir Spencer
Dalkeith, Earl of Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Tapsell, Peter
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Temple, John M.
Drayson, G. B. Kitson, Timothy Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Lloyd, Ian (P'tam'th, Langstone) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. sir Derek
Eden, Sir John Lubbock, Eric Wall, Patrick
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Weatherill, Bernard
Emery, Peter Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Webster, David
Eyre, Reginald McMaster, Stanley Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Farr, John Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maddan, Martin Worsley, Marcus
Fortescue, Tim Marten, Neil
Foster, Sir John Maude, Angus TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gibson-Watt, David Maxwelt-Hyslop, R. J. Mr. Anthony Grant and
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Mr. Hector Monro
Glover, Sir Douglas Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Higgins

I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 40, at the end to insert: (c) the provisions of subsection (1) above shall not apply to a commitment to pay a further increase in remuneration to those in respect of whom an increase in remuneration or a reduction in normal hours of work had already been deferred under sections 28 or 29 of the Prices and Incomes Act 1966. This is a comparatively short Amendment and one which we can debate at reasonable length. We are seeking to cover the case where a wage increase has been superimposed upon a previously generally accepted arrangement or agreement whereby wages are expected to increase. In other words, a cost of living increase agreement may have been built into a certain series of arrangements between a trade union and an employer and during the period of severe restraint—which is largely the period covered by the Clause—it is found that on top of that an additional increase has taken place which has been frozen by the Government during the period of severe restraint. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the underlying contract prevails.

I understand that in the last debate the learned Attorney-General described the Clause, and the whole Bill, as a valuable piece of social machinery. It is very odd to describe as a valuable piece of social legislation a Clause which, with the Bill as a whole, introduces such elements of retrospection in legal contracts and, in some ways, positive incentives for people to break contracts. But, at all events, it seems only right and proper that the effect should, at the least, not extend to underlying contracts, which may have been fixed for a considerable period ahead.

The relevant section of the multitude of White Papers which has been a feature of the Government's prices and incomes policy is paragraphs 32 and 33 of Cmnd. 3150, dealing with existing commitments. Paragraph 32 reads: The operative dates of commitments to increase pay or reduce hours by specified amounts entered into on or before 20th July 1966, which were originally due to be implemented before the end of 1966, should be deferred for six months in accordance with Cmnd. 3073. The operative dates of such commitments which were originally due to be implemented in the first six months of 1967 should be deferred until at least 1st July 1967, unless they are regarded by the Government as satisfying the criteria for the period of severe restraint … As I understand the position, if we do not make this Amendment, an agreement which was deferred under that passage in the White Paper may still be covered by the Clause, and, as a result, there would effectively be a double freeze, both on the basic underlying contract—say, a cost of living agreement—and on the individual wage increase covered by the Government's compulsory Order. This would be wrong.

The Attorney-General

As I read it, the result of the Amendment would be to deprive employers of the defence afforded by Clause 5 in cases where an increase in remuneration has been deferred under Section 28 or 29 of the Act. There may be cases where the effect of an Order under those Sections may not have operated over the whole of the six months' period for which protection is given under the Clause.

Subsection (8) of Clause 5 deals with the position where restrictions apply under Section 28 or 29, and the effect of that subsection is to ensure that no employer can take advantage of the restriction imposed by the Sections in addition to the period of six months which is provided for under Clause 5(3). In other words, the maximum period of protection which the employer can have is six months, and that six months' protection in relation to any increase is to be treated as running even during the period when the restriction under Section 28 or 29 applies, so that there will be no further withholding of increases which can be visited upon the employee by reason of a combination—

Mr. Higgins

On the employer.

The Attorney-General

No, on the employee, who will not be able to sue the employer. There will, in other words, be no additional protection given to the employer over and above the maximum period of six months.

I hope that that explains the effect of Clause 5, and that in the light of that the right hon. Gentleman may feel that to accept the Amendment would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Clause and would be to defeat an aspect of it which at the moment seems to be satisfactory.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Higgins

If I may, with the leave of the House, speak again, I was not entirely clear from what the Attorney-General said whether the Amendment is inconsistent with the purpose of the Clause—throughout we have maintained that we are against the Clause—or whether he was saying that it does not seem to him to achieve the objective that we seek to achieve.

We are saying here that the Clause would seem to give protection if an employer were to withhold a second increase which under the terms of the period of severe restraint would have been allowed. It seems to us—we are open to persuasion by the Attorney-General—to give protection to employers not only in the case of a single increase but also in the case of a second increase which under the terms of the period of severe restraint White Paper, Cmnd. 3150, would have been allowed. We are not clear why the Government feel that this double protection, for the one which would have been allowed and for the underlying one, should be afforded. We should be most grateful if the Attorney-General could enlighten the House on this point.

The Attorney-General

The protection would apply only for six months in respect of the specific increase. It is conceivable that if there were two increases within the relevant period the protection would apply for a period of six months in respect of each of them.

Mr. Higgins

No, not if there were two increases within the period but rather where there was an underlying contract which, so to speak, came into effect automatically and there was the other increase on top of it. I am sorry to intervene in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. This is a difficult point at this late hour. However, I should be grateful if he would tell us whether the protection would enable the employer to refuse to pay not only the increase covered by the Order but a cost of living increase which he had agreed to perhaps many years before but which came into effect only at this moment.

It may well be that the Government do not intend to afford this protection, but unless we have misread the Clause, which is not difficult to do, the Government are not only protecting the employer where the Order has been made within the relevant period but are also enabling the employer to avoid responsibility for a contract made a considerable period before but happening to come into effect at this point. If this is still obscure, perhaps we could have an assurance that it will be looked at and referred to in another place.

The Attorney-General

I think the position is that all pay increases withheld by reason of the White Paper decisions, whether they are cost of living increases or increases in wages, are included within the ambit of restraint and that an employer who had withheld those increases would be entitled to the protection of the Clause for the period of six months from the date when the increment applied. So it applies to the whole situation.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that it is conceivable that two agreements might both receive this protection; and, in given circumstances, it flows directly from the language of the Clause that this would be so. Indeed, it is not conceivable but inevitable, which is an unfortunate situation because what we have called an underlying agreement is not within the mis-

Division No. 449.] AYES [5.7 a.m.
Awdry, Daniel Foster, Sir John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Baker, W. H. K. Gibson-Watt, David Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Balsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Monro, Hector
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Glover, Sir Douglas Montgomery, Fergus
Berry, Hn. Anthony Grant, Anthony More, Jasper
Biffen, John Grant-Ferris, R. Neave, Airey
Biggs-Davison, John Gresham Cooke, R. Nott, John
Black, Sir Cyril Grieve, Percy Osborn, John (Hallam)
Body, Richard Hall, John (Wycombe) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Bossom, Sir Clive Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Percival, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hastings, Stephen Pym, Francis
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Higgins, Terence L. Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Holland, Philip Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Campbell, Gordon Hornby, Richard Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carlisle, Mark Howell, David (Guildford) Royle, Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hunt, John Sharpies, Richard
Cary, Sir Robert Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Sinclair, Sir George
Cordle, John Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Summers, Sir Spencer
Costain, A. P. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Tapsell, Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Temple, John M.
Crouch, David King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dalkeith, Earl of Kitson, Timothy Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Wall, Patrick
Drayton, G. B. Lubbock, Eric Webster, David
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Eden, Sir John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) McMaster, Stanley Woodnutt, Mark
Emery, Peter Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Worsley, Marcus
Farr, John Maddan, Martin TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marten, Neil Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Fortescue, Tim Maude, Angus Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Anderson, Donald Bray, Dr. Jeremy Dalyell, Tam
Archer, Peter Brown, Bob (N't'le-upon-Tyne, W.) Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Armstrong, Ernest Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ashley, Jack Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Barnett, Joel Cant, R. B. Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Bence, Cyril Carter-Jones, Lewis Delargy, Hugh
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Chapman, Donald Dewar, Donald
Bishop, E. S. Coe, Denis Dobson, Ray
Blenkinsop, Arthur Concannon, J. D. Dunnett, Jack
Boston, Terence Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Eadie, Alex
Boyden, James Cullen, Mrs. Alice Edwards, William (Merioneth)

chief of what the Measure is intended to cure. This being so, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will adopt our suggestion and consider the matter in another place. He cannot, in his heart, be happy with this situation.

The Attorney-General

At this early hour—or late hour, whichever way one looks at it—it is difficult to be happy about anything. If the cost of living increase was not contrary to the criteria laid down, it would not be affected. If there is any doubt about the matter, we will certainly look into it, but I believe that the situation is covered by the Clause as it stands.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 134.

Ellis, John Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Rees, Merlyn
Ensor, David Leadbitter, Ted Reynolds, G. W.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Ledger, Ron Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Faulds, Andrew Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Ford, Ben Luard, Evan Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Forrester, John Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Sheldon, Robert
Freeson, Reginald Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Galpern, Sir Myer McBride, Neil Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Gardner, Tony Macdonald, A. H. Skeffington, Arthur
Ginsburg, David McKay, Mrs. Margaret Small, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Snow, Julian
Gourlay, Harry Maclennan, Robert Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) McNamara, J. Kevin Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg) Taverne, Dick
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Molloy, William Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hamling, William Moonman, Eric Tinn, James
Hannan, William Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Tuck, Raphael
Haseldine, Norman Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Varley, Eric G.
Hattersley, Roy Moyle, Roland Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)
Hazell, Bert Ogden, Eric Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis O'Malley, Brian Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hilton, W. S. Oram, Albert E. Watkins, David (Consett)
Hooley, Frank Oswald, Thomas Whitaker, Ben
Howie, W. Owen, Will (Morpeth) Whitlock, William
Huckfield, L. Palmer, Arthur Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Hunter, Adam Pavitt, Laurence Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Winnick, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Yates, Victor
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Price, William (Rugby) Mr. Walter Harrison and
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rankin, John Mr. Joseph Harper.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Higgins

I beg to move Amendment No. 33 in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

The Amendment is similar to, but not identical with the one we have just discussed. It is to amend the Clause designed to give protection to the employer if he finds himself vulnerable as a result of having complied with the Government's prices and incomes policy.

The purpose of the Amendment is to probe the position when what are called multi-stage agreements are reached. I would point out to the Attorney-General, since one of the points he made on the last Amendment seemed to refer to this one, that there is a distinction between the case where there is an underlying agreement which might run for many years and on top of it a further wage increase is superimposed, and the case where there is no underlying agreement but the wage agreement is implemented in stages. This is a multi-stage agreement.

The protection afforded to employers by the Clause goes beyond what is specified in the White Paper Cmd. 3150. At paragraph 33 it says: Where, however, the operative date of a previous commitment for a pay increase or reduction in hours (other than a relatively minor improvement or an increase under a cost-of-living sliding scale agreement) relating to the same group of workers has already been deferred as a result of the standstill, the operative date of a commitment for a subsequent improvement need not be deferred. It seems that the White Paper says that a single stage of such an agreement can be deferred but both stages cannot be. In these circumstances we do not understand why the Government have included the subsection. It would seem to afford protection for the employer who is acting contrary to the Government's declared policy on multi-stage agreements. For this reason I would have thought that the Government would accept the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart

As the hon. Member said, the subsection relates to multi-stage agreements. I will explain the effects of the subsection. Imagine three groups of workers one of which is given an increase all at once; the second gets some now and some later; the third group also gets some now and some later, but in a different form and instead of having an increase of, say, 30s. followed by one of 10s. that group gets an increase of 30s. and this is superceded by an agreement making it 40s. There are only differences in the form of the cases. The effect of the subsection very broadly is that since all these three groups are in substantially the same position, they would substantially suffer the same degree of deferment. Assuming that the employer—and this would be in accordance with Government policy—has at the time carried out such a deferment, he shall not be capable of being sued thereafter for the money so withheld.

So far, I trust, so clear. But the hon. Member raised a further point about the White Paper. The White Paper draws a distinction between some kinds of increase and others which it would be impossible to reproduce exactly in a statute. The White Paper first of all laid down the general principle that the same groups of worker should not suffer a double deferment, but that did not apply in the case of cost-of-living increases and it did not apply in the case of minor improvements. Nor did it apply where workers would receive one increase under a national agreement and then some of them would receive further increases under a local agreement, or possibly one group would receive so much under one local agreement and another increase under another local agreement. In the third case we are not talking about the same group of workers all the time. The local increase which I mentioned would come later than the national increase, and one would apply to one group of worker and one to another. The exact wording of the White Paper is that the same group of worker does not suffer a double deferment. That case is excluded from the White Paper.

The subsection as it stands gets as near to the White Paper as we can in a statute. I must add a general point. We must remember that the whole of Clause 5 refers to things which have already happened. Money has been withheld. The purpose of the Clause is to protect the employer from being sued and required to pay it. It would be impossible to find a case in which money has been withheld other than in accordance with Government policy as declared in either the White Paper on the Standstill or in that on Severe Restraint. He would have done so, and would only have done so, and would have been allowed by his employees to have done so, only if it had been in accordance with the policy. Consequently to give him protection is a reasonable and just thing to do.

I hope that the explanation has been clear. I must admit that I had to think for some time before I fully understood what it was all about, but I think that I do understand it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing would not dream of wishing to delete a subsection before he had ascertained what it meant. This is a complicated matter, but I think that the subsection is necessary if we are to produce the result which the whole Clause is intended to produce and which, whatever their views about the Bill, I think that hon. Members opposite would not dispute. Where money has been withheld by agreement with the union concerned—only by agreement, not so far tied up legally—it would not be a reasonable situation for the employer who withheld money in that way to be liable at any time during the next six years to be sued for it.

At some stage we must let everyone, employer and employed, know exactly where they stand. That is the purpose of the Clause. To get as near to that result as we can, we need this refinement of subsection (3) and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to let it remain in the Bill.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his exposition of the esoteric mysteries of subsection (3). He was a little unkind in blaming our Amendment. After all, it seeks to omit this obscure and offending provision. He was clear and cogent, as always but we are left with the extraordinary situation that, on his own admission, it has not been found possible to find words, even in this very lengthy subsection, which will embody the principles of the White Paper in statutory language. The right hon. Gentleman referred to various categories of particular agreements distinguished in the White Paper but not at all distinguished in the language of the subsection and which would not be distinguished as a matter of law.

Then the right hon. Gentleman fell back on the extraordinary proposition—extraordinary even at this late hour—that really it does not matter that the Clause is defective because probably the only cases in which it would arise would be those which were intended to be covered, and in any case he would not visualise other cases arising because, although they come, as matters of law, within the language of the subsection, they would not be allowed to get away with it. What sort of language is that? That is what he said. If what he meant differed from what he said, it is not my fault.

Mr. M. Stewart

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing present and past. What I think is the situation is that employers have not got away with it—that, in the great majority of cases, they have not wanted to withhold money other than in accordance with declared policy. I do not think that they wanted to or, if they did, that they would have got away with it. Whichever way one looks at it, it has not in fact happened.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

They have to withhold increases contrary to the sanctity of contract in accordance with what the right hon. Gentleman calls "declared policy" and what the Attorney-General calls the "requirements of Government policy." But again these are things not written into the Statute. Nor will they be.

Division No. 450.] AYES [5.30 a.m.
Anderson, Donald Freeson, Reginald McNamara, J. Kevin
Archer, Peter Galpern, Sir Myer Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Armstrong, Ernest Gardner, Tony Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Ashley, Jack Ginsburg, David Molloy, William
Barnett, Joel Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Moonman, Eric
Bence, Cyril Gourlay, Harry Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Bishop, E. S. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Ogden, Eric
Blenkinsop, Arthur Grey, Charles (Durham) O'Malley, Brian
Boston, Terence Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Oram, Albert E.
Boyden, James Hamlin, William Oswald, Thomas
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hannan, William Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Brown, Bob (N'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Haseldine, Norman Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hattersley, Roy Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hazell, Bert Pavitt, Laurence
Cant, R. B. Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hilton, W. S. Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Chapman, Donald Hooley, Frank Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Coe, Denis Howie, W. Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Concannon, J. D. Huckfield, L. Price, William (Rugby)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hunter, Adam Rankin, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rees, Merlyn
Dalyell, Tam Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Reynolds, C. W.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Richard, Ivor
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Delargy, Hugh Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, central) Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Dewar, Donald Leadbitter, Ted Sheldon, Robert
Dobson, Ray Ledger, Ron Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dunnett, Jack Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Eadie, Alex Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Skeffington, Arthur
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Luard, Evan Small, William
Ellis, John Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Snow, Julian
Ensor, David Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley) McBride, Neil Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Faulds, Andrew Macdonald, A. H. Taverne, Dick
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McKay, Mrs. Margaret Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Ford, Ben Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Forrester, John Maclennan, Robert Tinn, James

We are in the extraordinary position of being asked to interpret the law of the land in this sort of way. It all arises from the practice which has grown up of government by diktat or exhortation and the like. This subsection, which has properly been put on challenge, is just the last and one of the most striking examples of confusion. The draftsman has done his best in drafting and the right hon. Gentleman has done his best in explaining but, at the end of the day, we have a provision which is inadequate to do what it is meant to do.

Mr. M. Stewart

indicated dissent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

That is the irresistible inference from what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is inadequate to do what it is meant to do. It is clumsy and will lead to grave complications. It is an illustration of the very unsatisfactory nature of this Bill as a whole.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 98.

Tuck, Raphael Watkins, David (Consett) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Varley, Eric G. Whitaker, Ben Yates, Victor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) Whitlock, William
Walden, Brian (All Saints) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Williams, Clifford, (Abertillery) Mr. Walter Harrison and
Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Awdry, Daniel Foster, Sir John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Baker, W. H. K. Gibson-Watt, David Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Batsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Monro, Hector
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Glover, Sir Douglas Montgomery, Fergus
Berry, Hn. Anthony Grant, Anthony More, Jasper
Biffen, John Grant-Ferris, R. Neave, Airey
Biggs-Davison, John Gresham Cooke, R. Nott, John
Black, Sir Cyril Grieve, Percy Osborn, John (Hallam)
Body, Richard Hall, John (Wycombe) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Bossom, Sir Clive Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Percival, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Powell, Rt. Hn. j. Enoch
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hastings, Stephen Pym, Francis
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Higgins, Terence L. Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Holland, Philip Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Campbell, Gordon Hornby, Richard Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carlisle, Mark Howell, David (Guildford) Royle, Anthony
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hunt, John Sharpies, Richard
Cay, Sir Robert Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Summers, Sir Spencer
Cordle, John Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Tapsell, Peter
Costain, A. P. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Temple, John M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Crouch, David King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Dalkeith, Earl of Kitson, Timothy Wall, Patrick
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Webster, David
Drayson, G. B. Lubbock, Erie Whitelaw,Rt. Hn. William
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Eden, Sir John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Woodnutt, Mark
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) McMaster, Stanley Worsley, Marcus
Emery, Peter Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Farr, John Maddan, Martin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marten, Neil Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Fortescue, Tim Maude, Angus Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
The Attorney-General

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 7, line 23, to leave out 'two months' and to insert 'one month'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 36, in page 7, line 23, leave out 'months' and insert 'weeks'.

The Attorney-General

It is a happy thing indeed, at this late hour, to be able to grant a concession, at any rate to my hon. Friends who have moved Amendment No. 36. The circumstances giving rise to this Amendment are the following. Clause 5(7) provides that judgment in breach of contract cases instituted after 5ti June 1967, the date of publication of the Bill, may be set aside, provided that they have not been satisfied in whole or in part—that is to say that money has not been paid over—on the application of the employer within two months from Royal Assent.

The Amendment substitutes the period of one month for the term of two months. Originally it was thought that a period of two months was necessary, but it is felt that an employer who desires to act could do so in a shorter time than a month and to extend the time within which to set aside the judgment unnecessarily might well prejudice industrial relations. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend decided on this Amendment to reduce the period to one month, which I hope will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

The Attorney-General has not gone into this dreadful subsection in any detail. I must briefly explain what it does.

This is the fourth conflicting stage of an unfortunate award or agreement for a wage increase. Four stages are envisaged in the subsection. First, there is an agreement for an increase of wages. Secondly, the Government issue a decree disallowing the increase and the employer does not therefore pay it. Thirdly, the courts say that the decree is invalid and the employer ought to have paid it. Finally, by this subsection the employer is allowed to go to the court and make the court eat its words. If that is not a very dismal state of affairs, I do not know what is. Whether the employer has one month or two in which to do this is not a matter of great moment. That is about all I can agree with in this sorry story.

What is surprising is that the one month concerned, the one month after the Royal Assent, is the month of August—the very month when most employers and their legal advisers, and indeed the courts, are on holiday. It seems rather unfortunate that the Attorney-General has chosen the very month in the whole year in which it is hardest for employers to have time to consult their legal advisers and consider their position. On that dismal note, I sit down.

Mr. Mikardo

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that the Amendment is not a matter of great moment. Nevertheless, as one who has said some pretty cruel things to the Government in these debates, and will do so before we have finished them, I feel that in justice I should say a word of thanks for the partial concession which my right hon. and learned Friend has announced. I express my thanks to him personally because I know that it was he personally who got this Amendment placed on the Notice Paper.

I shall tell the House how it came about. It was agreed at an interdepartmental meeting of the First Secretary and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Attorney-General. I was not there but I had a blow-by-blow account of what happened by Mr. Chapman Pincher who, by a remarkable acrobatic feat, had his eye and his ear simultaneously linked to the keyhole. My three right hon. Friends had a look at the Amendment which my hon. Friends and I had put down, Amendment No. 36. They discussed what to do with it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, "We must give these fellows something. They have put down a lot of good ideas and we have resisted everything. After all, I am a trade unionist myself, or a bit of a one. We need to give them something. This is a pretty innocuous thing. Let us give them this one". Whereupon the First Secretary, in rejoinder, said, "Not on your Nelly. I don't mind making an odd concession to the Opposition every now and then, but as for the lot of Vietcong on the third bench below the Gangway, I wouldn't give them an inch". Whereupon, up spoke the Attorney-General, who is known throughout Government circles as Elwyn the Blessed, because he is the inter-Departmental peacemaker. He said, "Tell you what. We said two months; they ask for two weeks. Let's give them a month". That is how it came about.

On that I say "Thank you very much" to the Attorney-General.

5.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has allowed cheerfulness to break in, even at this late hour, and I congratulate him on his Damon Runyanism, even though the connection between it and the facts is not even, unfortunately, coincidental on this occasion.

As to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), of course there are precedents for what is being done here, and perhaps the most remarkable was in the Wireless Telegraphy (Validation of Charges) Act, 1954, which not only had retrospective effect of the type which is contained in Clause 5 of the Bill but, by virtue of that provision which was enthusiastically supported by the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, sums paid in respect of any court orders were ordered to be repaid. That, at any rate, we have not done here.

I am glad the Amendment has received the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.