Commons Sitting of 15 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Local Radio
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement on the development of local radio.
    Mr. Dykesasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to announce plans for the establishment of commercial local radio for the Greater London area.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement regarding commercial radio.
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a further statement on his plans to introduce commercial radio.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement about the future of local radio, and on the re-allocation of national broadcasting frequencies.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I cannot anticipate the White Paper which will be published soon.
    Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend leave ample scope in the White Paper for variety, so that over a period of two years the public may have the opportunity of listening to and comparing both commercial and non-commercial forms of local radio?
    Mr. Chataway: I will certainly bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware of an article on local radio appearing in today's Guardian which attributes to a Mr. Anthony Cadman, described as a director of Commercial Broadcasting Consultants, the view that 96 per cent. of the British people do not want educating, and that local radio must have a diet of hot pop? That is a view which, I should have thought, called for the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation. Will the Minister take advantage of this present opportunity to say that minority interests will be protected, and that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not, I hope, at such length.
    Mr. Molloy: It is a very important subject. Can the Minister say that if this sort of thing is to be pressed on him he will abandon commercial radio and leave local radio to the B.B.C.?
    Mr. Chataway: I would not necessarily share the hon. Gentleman's views, or those of the gentleman he quotes.
    Mr. Fowler: Bearing in mind the journalists who have recently been made redundant, will not my right hon. Friend recognise the urgency of announcing what fresh opportunities for journalists will be available in commercial radio? Can he give any assurance on that point today?
    Mr. Chataway: I prefer to leave it until the White Paper is published, and I hope that that will be quite shortly now—within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Whitehead: Without anticipating the White Paper, can the Minister tell the House that the Ministry is no longer considering the appropriation to one medium wave band of wavelengths which are at the moment held by the B.B.C., and particularly Radio 1?
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. We have considered quite a number of proposals including, for example, the proposal made from the Opposition Front Bench by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that Radio 1, and particularly all local radio, should go to the new authority.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I have constantly asked him to deal with the sterile position in Worcestershire where there is no local radio coverage whatever between Birmingham on the one side and Oxford in the South? Can we not have a Radio Malvern, or a Radio Pershore, or a Radio Upton on Severn or a Radio Broadway?
    Mr. Chataway: I know my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on this matter and will certainly bear it in mind.
    Mr. Greville Janner: When considering local radio in the Leicester area, will the Minister bear in mind the great popularity of Radio Leicester and the representations made to him by the Vice-Chancellor of Loughborough University, and cannot he at least give some indication which will set people's minds at rest regarding the Leicester area?
    Mr. Chataway: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says but, as he knows, I made it quite clear last August, when giving permission to the B.B.C. to go ahead with 12 further stations, that continuance of B.B.C. local radio was to be on a provisional basis.
    Mr. Tilney: Since we have an admirable B.B.C. Merseyside radio, can my right hon. Friend say whether, bearing in mind that newspapers accept advertisements and do not suffer a change in their policies, there is any reason why the B.B.C. locally should not accept advertisements?
    Mr. Chataway: The view which the B.B.C. has always taken about advertisements, and it is one with which I sympathise, is that the domino theory would be likely to apply; and that once the Corporation had accepted advertisements in any service it would continually be pressed into accepting them in others.
    Mr. Richard: Without anticipating the White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is his object in bringing these proposals to the House to provide
    888
    an alternative comprehensive radio service, and that any proposal, such as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that the service was to be solely or even overwhelmingly a pop service, would not commend itself to him?
    Mr. Chataway: It has been made absolutely clear throughout that we would expect from commercial radio, as we would expect from commercial television, a balanced output.

    Postal Services
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what discussions he has had with the Post Office about possible changes in postal services in the aftermath of the strike.
    Mr. Chataway: I have had a number of discussions of a general nature.
    Mr. Lane: Would my right hon. Friend try to ensure that any changes are not tailored too much to suit commerce and industry but that full weight is given to the convenience of householders, particularly old people, to whom the post means so much?
    Mr. Chataway: Yes. Before the Post Office formulated any definite proposals, it would have to consult the Post Office Users National Council on which those interests would be represented.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend also consider permanently lifting the Post Office's monopoly in the transmission of mails, in the national interest, in order to encourage competition and to allow people to shop around?
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. I am afraid that that is a proposition which I cannot entertain.

    Post-Office Board (Chairman)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he is now in a position to name the new Chairman of the Post Office Board.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is now able to announce the appointment of a Chairman of the Post Office Corporation; and whether he will give an assurance that such a person will

    889
    be acceptable to the workers in this industry.
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he proposes to fill the vacancy of Chairman of the Board of the Post Office Corporation.
    Mr. Chataway: I am not yet in a position to make an announcement and will do so when the appointment is made.
    Mr. Molloy: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that as there is still great bitterness amongst the staff of the Post Office, particularly postmen, on this now urgent matter, an unbiased and independent Chairman should be appointed so that the Post Office can get on with its proper job, which can be achieved only if a new Chairman is soon appointed to try to heal some of the wounds which still exist?
    Mr. Chataway: I agree that this is one of the qualities that would be required of a new Chairman. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the strike was bound to set back the evaluation and selection process that goes with an important appointment of this sort.
    Mr. Lewis: When the right hon. Gentleman considers the qualifications necessary, will he bear in mind a point in the latter part of Question No. 22 and try to get someone who is obviously of reputable ability and who will also be welcomed by the workers within the industry?
    Mr. Chataway: I agree that the person who is appointed needs to be somebody who will command the loyalty of the employees generally.
    Mr. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is urgency about making this appointment? Will he bear in mind that in the last two months the Post Office has not demonstrated any great ability in the matter of industrial relations? Would he bear this factor in mind as a qualification for the post when he decides to fill it?
    Mr. Chataway: I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Post Office, but I will certainly bear in mind his view about urgency.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will consider advertising publicly for a new Chairman of the Post Office Board.
    Mr. Chataway: I do not think this would be helpful.
    Mr. Hamilton: As the Government believe in the principle of competition, would it not be a logical step to make sure that we get the right man for the right job rather than the right hon. Gentleman appointing what would appear to many people to be a "Yes" man for Government policy?
    Mr. Chataway: I share the hon. Gentleman's belief in the value of advertising on occasions, but I do not think that it would be a justified expenditure of public funds in this instance, simply because those most likely to be suitable would almost certainly know already that the vacancy exists.

    National Data Processing Services
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) what proposals exist for the integration of other Departments' computer databanks using National Data. Processing Services;
    (2) what proposals he has for the maintenance of standards of privacy and confidentiality in data transmitted by the National Data Processing Service.
    Mr. Chataway: I understand there are no proposals involving N.D.P.S. for integration of Government Department databanks. Obligations of secrecy are statutorily imposed on all Post Office staff engaged on data processing and transmission.
    Mr. Huckfield: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many other Government Departments have proposals for the integration of their data banks with other data banks, possibly using N.D.P.S.? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this is one more step towards the creation of a true goldfish bowl society? Is he aware that the terms to which he has referred in the Post Office Corporation Act are very vague concerning these matters? Will he not come to the House with some kind

    891
    of proposals before any integration along these lines goes ahead, so that we can have a full opportunity of examining and discussing these matters?
    Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter and the very real cause for concern that may exist in the field as a whole, but, as he will know, there is an inter-departmental group, under the leadership of the Home Office, looking into some of these matters relating to the Government service.
    Mr. Huckfield: But not in the public sector.
    Mr. Chataway: The interdepartmental group under the Home Office is looking into factors which are relevant to the public sector. I agree that the Younger Committee is not concerned with the public sector. However, I will bear in mind the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Post Office (McKinsey Report)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now publish the full report into the efficiency of the Post Office by McKinsey and Company which was commissioned several years ago by the then Postmaster-General.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. It is not the usual practice to publish such material, though my right hon. Friend will find a good deal of relevant information in Appendix 67 to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries' First Report on the Post Office.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can my right hon. Friend say why the public, who paid for this inquiry, who own the Post Office, and who are concerned about its efficiency, should not have the full information resulting from the inquiry so that they can judge whether steps are being taken to make the proper improvements?
    Mr. Chataway: There are two answers. First, McKinsey and Company were not, in this case, as in a number of others, given formal terms of reference and were not asked to produce a formal report. A good many of their recommendations were, therefore, in an oral form, and they are not particularly easy to publish. Secondly, managements, whether in the public or the private sector, might be in-
    892
    hibited in the use of consultants if they felt that the information that they gave and the recommendations which were made by the consultants would necessarily be published.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the McKinsey Report will be made available to members of the Post Office Workers Union and the other unions involved in the Post Office in order that they can make a proper assessment of their rôle.
    Mr. Chataway: That would be a flatter for the Post Office to decide.

    Post Office (Finance)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a further statement on losses arising from the postal strike and additional finance and/or re-financing for the Post Office Corporation, following heavy losses sustained this year.
    Mr. Chataway: I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 9th March, and I am now considering with the Post Office what further measures may be necessary in the aftermath of the strike.—[Vol. 813. c. 76.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the third Parliamentary Question on this subject? Is he not aware that I asked him on 15th February, 9th March and again today about the losses arising from the strike? Whereas £27 million was the loss on the postal business, is it not a fact that the telephone and telecommunications business continued largely to operate at a profit, and would it not be correct to say that the overall loss of all the Post Office undertakings on account of the strike amounted to about £20 million?
    Mr. Chataway: The Post Office has not yet been able to make an accurate assessment of the extra profits that it earned on the telecommunications side as a result of the strike, but I think my hon. Friend's guess is probably pretty accurate.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As always.
    Mr. Golding: Is it not a fact that the last time the Post Office as a whole lost money was in 1957 when the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was Postmaster-General?
    Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that I could not confirm that in any way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when we came into power on this occasion we faced a very substantial shortfall on the target.
    Mr. Richard: Could the right hon. Gentleman, however, say that one of the things that the court of inquiry, which is to look into the claim made by the U.P.W., will be entitled to look at will be the way in which the Post Office presents its accounts? Indeed, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said, would it not be more accurate, in determining whether the claim of the Post Office workers was justified, to recognise that a loss made on postal services may, indeed, have been made up by some profit from telecommunications?
    Mr. Chataway: I have no intention of arguing on either side of the case that the court of settlement will have to decide. But it would be a new departure and one which would not be widely welcomed if the principle of cross-subsidisation between telecommunications and postal business were to be accepted.
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was the monthly profit or loss to the Post Office on its telecommunications services and its postal services, respectively, for the month of December, 1970.
    Mr. Chataway: As with other nationalised industries, statements of profit and loss are given by the Post Office on an annual basis and included in its Report and Accounts.
    Mr. Carter: I thank the Minister for that reply. Whatever the answer be, will he not agree that profitability should not be the sole determinant of wage levels in the nationalised industries, and, in particular, will he agree that postal workers as a group should not be called upon to subsidise industry, commerce and business in general?
    Mr. Chataway: No one would argue that Post Office workers should subsidise anybody. But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it was the previous Administration which set targets of profitability for the Post Office and established the Post Office Corporation.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Inasmuch as the Post Office, with the Government's active encouragement, lost £27 million during the past two months, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that will bring that much nearer the ninepenny post which he held out as a threat prior to the recent industrial dispute in the Post Office?
    Mr. Chataway: If a settlement of the order of 19½ per cent. had been made —I made my remark in that context—the ninepenny post would have come a great deal sooner.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Will my right hon. Friend look again at some of the services on the postal side which are losing money, in Particular, the telegram service, which is losing between £2 million and £3 million a year? If the public can make do without the telegram service for six weeks, is it not possible that they could make do without it for much longer than that?
    Mr. Chataway: The Post Office has made clear that, in the aftermath of the strike, it is looking at a number of its services.
    Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise, however, that, if he is looking at those services of the Post Office which seem to be unprofitable, there is no logic in then coming to the House and trying to hive off some of the profitable ones?
    Mr. Chataway: I have put no proposals to the House on that score.

    Television Licence Evasion (Detection)
    Sir. G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement on reducing losses arising from television licence evasion between 1964 and 1971, and the progress of discovery and apprehension of malefactors.
    Mr. Chataway: At 31st March, 1964 the estimated number of television licence evaders was nearly 1½ million. Evasion reached a peak of over two million in September, 1966, but by 31st December, 1970 the numbers had fallen to about 800,000 owing to the efforts of the Post Office and my Department.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that last June he inherited a position in which the loss on account of evasion of radio and television licences combined was running at about £10 million per annum? Would he now quantify in financial terms what is the loss of revenue on account of his failure to apprehend 800,000 malefactors in this context?
    Mr. Chataway: It would be nearly £5 million.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I thank my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Chataway: As a result of the efforts that have been made in the last few months, I think the figure has been reduced by about £1 million.
    Sir G. Nabarro: A jolly good answer.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 800,000 evaders are retirement pensioners, chronic sick or other people who could not afford the licence fee?
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir; I do not have that information. It would be very difficult to obtain.
    Mr. Will Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he arrives at the estimates given in his reply to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), so that we may evaluate his efforts?
    Mr. Chataway: The Post Office and my Ministry have over the years developed techniques for estimating the number of television households. From that number is deducted the number of licences.

    Telephone Services (Nuisance Calls)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to provide facilities to police forces for the interception of nuisance calls of a threatening or obscene kind of which subscribers have complained;
    (2) how many complaints have been received by the Post Office of nuisance calls, many of which are of a threatening nr obscene nature, being made to sub-
    896
    scribers; and how many prosecutions have resulted.
    Mr. Chataway: These are matters for the Post Office as managers of the service, and I understand that its procedures already provide for full co-operation with the police.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents—to my knowledge, this applies to constituents of other hon. Members as well—have in the last year received hundreds of obscene or nuisance telephone calls? In this technological age, is it not possible for the subscriber to rent an apparatus by which the police or the Post Office may be alerted that such a call is being made so that the initiator of the call can be traced to the source?
    Mr. Chataway: That would be a matter for the Post Office, and I am sure that it will take note of what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: While recognising that there is some general public concern about this, would not the Minister accept that far too much telephone tapping is done already, and will he give the House an indication of the number of police interceptions of telephone calls made in this country last year?
    Mr. Chataway: That is an entirely separate question.

    Satellite Transmitters
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when a satellite transmitter will be provided at Huntshaw Cross to provide North Devon with 625-line colour.
    Mr. Chataway: The I.T.A. is primarily responsible for building the u.h.f. station at Huntshaw Cross, which will be the last of the main high-power stations planned to serve Devon and Cornwall. The Authority cannot yet say when it will come into service, but it will not be before 1974.
    Mr. Mills: But will not the Minister agree that this is very unfair on the people of North Devon, who want to enjoy the same facilities as others have? Will he vigorously prod the I.T.A. to get on with this task?
    Mr. Chataway: There has to be an order of priority, and I am satisfied that the West Country is not being treated unfairly. It is to have no fewer than three out of its five high-power stations in the first two years of this programme. I am afraid that, inevitably, some stations must come before others.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, in view of the hilly terrain of the West Country, when satellite transmitters will be built by the Independent Television Authority to give adequate cover to many communities in this area.
    Mr. Chataway: The Independent Television Authority tells me that it will not be able to decide on the locations of low-power relay stations until main stations in the area are working.
    Mr. Mills: But will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are still troublesome pockets in this area where people cannot receive the station of their choice, and that, although Devon is a very beautiful and hilly county, this should not mean that people cannot see certain television programmes, which is what is happening at the moment?
    Mr. Chataway: I know that the I.T.A. will press ahead as fast as it can with its u.h.f. programme. It has made clear that the recent reduction in levy will enable it, broadly speaking, to catch up with the B.B.C. in this respect.
    Mr. James Johnson: Although Humberside is as flat as a billiard table compared with the West Country, does not the Minister agree that it would be a good thing if the I.T.A. were to establish a satellite transmitter on the north bank of the Humber to enable us to resolve our difficulties vis-à-vis Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television, of which he knows, in relation to the new Belmont transmitter in North Lincolnshire?
    Mr. Chataway: That is an involved and contentious issue into which I should be unwise to be drawn at this moment.

    B.B.C. Programmes
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many complaints relating to breaches
    898
    of the Licence and Agreement, in respect of the British Broadcasting Corporation's programmes, have been received by his Department in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Chataway: We have had about 15 complaints of alleged breaches.
    Mr. King: Is it not a fact that the B.B.C. is forbidden to express any opinion on current affairs, although through its mouthpieces it blithely does so almost every day? Will my right hon. Friend, if he thinks that the rule is wrong, change it, or, if he does not think so, enforce the law? If it be his responsibility—and it must be his alone —is it not logical that people should write to him and not to the B.B.C., which is unlikely to do anything whatever about it?
    Mr. Chataway: If there were, as a matter of fact, to be a clear breach of the Licence and Agreement, it would be my responsibility as Minister to act in the matter. But, equally, I must not interpret my responsibilities in such a way as to involve myself in day-to-day matters of programme content. I think that the way in which my hon. Friend is inviting me to interpret these regulations is substantially different from the way in which they have always been interpreted up to now.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman disregard what his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) puts to him? Although the B.B.C. gives cause for complaint on both sides of the House, and will, no doubt, continue to do so, does he not agree that it is far better that it should continue, as an independent body, to give all political parties cause for complaint than that a Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, of whatever party, should set himself up as a censor in these matters?
    Mr. Chataway: I agree that it is for governors of the B.B.C. to take responsibility for ensuring impartiality and observance in other ways of the obligations placed upon it, but I certainly shall not disregard my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. George Cunninghamasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what steps he proposes to take to

    899
    preserve the political impartiality of the British Broadcasting Corporation in accordance with their legal obligations in view of the decision of the majority party on Islington Borough Council to continue nominating only Conservatives to attend broadcasting courses organised by Radio London.
    Mr. Chataway: The B.B.C. is alone responsible for the management of its day-to-day affairs, and I do not intervene.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister realise that the B.B.C. has been severely embarrassed by this persistent behaviour on the part of the Conservative leadership of the Islington Borough Council? Will the Minister make some inquiries so that he can back the Corporation in resisting the use of this medium for political purposes?
    Mr. Chataway: The method of making selections to attend courses of this kind run by the B.B.C. must be a matter for the Corporation.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ian Lloyd—Question No. 27.
    Mr. David James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you call Question No. 22? I see the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in his seat.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 22 was answered with No. 5.

    I.T.A. (Advertisements)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is satisfied with the control that the Independent Television Authority exercises over the suitability of advertisements to be shown; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir. I have, therefore, no statement to make.
    Mr. Fowler: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the action of the I.T.A. in refusing permission for the News of the World to advertise a recent series, apparently on legal grounds? Without prejudging that case in any way, will not my right hon. Friend agree that it raises an important matter of principle because it suggests that the I.T.A. may censor advertisements simply because there is a threat of legal action,
    900
    even though the extra publicity of an advertisement may be in the public interest?
    Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the I.T.A. will take note of my hon. Friend's views, but the Authority had to take into account the fact that writs had been issued in this case.

    Television Licence Evasion (Detection)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement on the progress made in the elimination of evasion of payment of television licence fees in the last six months; and what plans he has for intensifying the campaign of detection.
    Mr. Chataway: I estimate that, in the six months ending 31st December, 1970, the number of television licence evaders was reduced from 942,000 to 804,000, as a direct result of the improved techniques for combating evasion mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 2nd November. These efforts will continue.—[Vol. 805, c. 658.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister make any assessment of where the maximum number of evaders are? Are they in South Worcestershire, for example?
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the apprehension of malefactors in South Worcestershire when there are every bit as many in West Fife?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was asking for information.
    Mr. Hamilton: I was merely trying to ascertain where the evaders were, and I was suggesting possible lines of investigation to the Minister. What further steps is the Minister taking to reduce the number of evaders which he stated to be 800,000 at the last count? Is it shortage of manpower and shortage of vans which prevents him from reducing the number?
    Mr. Chataway: We will continue existing campaigns and, I hope, reduce the figure still further. I do not have details

    901
    of the areas which have the highest concentrations of evaders.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: As the B.B.C. is not the culprit, has the Minister given serious attention to handing over to the Corporation the amount of money which would be collected were it not for the evasion?
    Mr. Chataway: Not very serious attention, because I do not think that it would be justifiable to pay from the taxpayer a sum equivalent to that which is now lost through evasion.

    Members' Questions (Press Statements)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give an assurance that he will take action to prevent officials from his Department from issuing statements to the Press and the British Broadcasting Corporation dealing with a Parliamentary Question on the Order Paper, prior to the Question being asked, thus circumventing the rights of Members of Parliament to ask Questions.
    Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a similar Question from the hon. Member on 11th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 169.]
    Mr. Lewis: That reply was a complete evasion, no doubt unintentional, on the part of the Prime Minister. This is happening in almost every Department almost every day of the week. Will the Minister give an assurance that he and his Department will not issue Press statements and statements to the B.B.C. in the knowledge that the subject is on the Order Paper for answer in the House?
    Mr. Chataway: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I certainly would not act in that way to avoid answering in the House. I am glad to note that he does not have any instance to cite from my Department.
    Mr. Lewis: I have.
    Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware that I agree with him? Would it not be a dangerous precedent because, if carried to a logical conclusion, hon. Members on both sides would be pre-
    902
    vented from talking to the Press about the Questions they table, which would make nonsense of the system?
    Mr. Chataway: I accept that we should not issue information to the Press which should rightly be given first to the House, but we cannot have a complete embargo on the discussion of anything about which there happens to be a Question on the Order Paper.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Parliamentary Conference on Human Rights
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will lend support to the proposal of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe to organise a Parliamentary Conference on Human Rights in Vienna this year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): Her Majesty's Government have some reservations about the usefulness of this conference. Nevertheless, as a decision has been taken to hold the conference, we hope that it will produce some interesting ideas.
    Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will agree that that is a very surprising reply. Why should the Government have any reservations about the desirability of Parliamentarians throughout Europe seeking to strengthen the institutions of co-operation in the field of human rights and to improve the substantive law? Will the Government give more openhanded, generous and forthcoming support in this field?
    Mr. Kershaw: There are already many opportunity for the discussion of human rights to take place, under the aegis of the Council of Europe, in the United Nations and elsewhere. Therefore, we are not inhibiting any discussion by not backing this conference with absolute enthusiasm. Further, some of the proposals before the conference are a little difficult to implement—for instance, the proposal that we should have simultaneous legislation in the legislatures of the members of the Council of Europe.

    Rhodesia (South African Police)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the South African Government concerning the use of armed South African police stationed in Rhodesia in support of the illegal régime.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): On 17th February, Sir.
    Mr. Davis: What has been the result of those representations? How many police have been withdrawn from Rhodesia by the South African Government? Is it not clear that the South African Government care not a tinker's cuss for the representations which the Government are making with regard to this matter?
    Mr. Godber: The South African Government have so far resisted the approaches which have been made by this Government and by the previous Government on this matter, but we are continuing to press them for withdrawal of these police.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In dealing with this matter, will Her Majesty's Government also make representations to the Governments of Tanzania and Zambia against the harbouring and training of invaders of Rhodesian territory contrary to international law, to the Charter of the United Nations, and also to the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity?
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend's question draws attention to the complications surrounding this whole problem, and I have nothing to add to what has been said on it.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the economic help given or planned for Gibraltar.
    Mr. Kershaw: Under the arrangements for British support of Gibraltar's development programme announced to the House on 8th December, 1969, projects involving British aid of £3·2 million have already been approved for 1970–73. A further
    904
    £0·8 million, being the balance of the £4 million promised for this period, is expected to be spent on the Viaduct housing project before the end of 1973. Discussions on the future financing of that project have recently been held with the Gibraltar Government and a further offer of assistance for the period 1973–76 is being conveyed to them.—[Vol. 793, c. 23–5.]
    Mr. Wall: Have the moneys previously voted to Gibraltar been spent? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the sums he mentioned in his Answer are sufficient to counteract the effect of the Spanish blockade and to lay a firm economic foundation for Gibraltar's future?
    Mr. Kershaw: There are certain disbusements of sums already voted which are currently being made. They are not being unduly held up. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the economy of Gibraltar is not in bad shape.

    South Africa (Arms Supply)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the supply of maritime arms to South Africa.
    Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friends and by myself on 3rd March.— [Vol. 812, c. 1719–1840.]
    Mr. Wall: Have any further orders for helicopters been made or suggested by the South African Government?
    Mr. Godber: No specific orders of any kind have yet been received by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. James Johnson: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his answer to this Question with that which he gave to Question No. 31, when he said that the Government had protested about the presence of South African armed forces in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Godber: South African police and not armed forces are present in Rhodesia, as we understand it. We have never accepted that there is a connection between the two matters. As I explained in detail in our last debate, we look upon the question of maritime arms as purely with regard to the implementation of the

    905
    Simonstown Agreement, which is a matter of value to this country.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it the case that firm efforts are being made by the French Government to sell to South Africa Atlantique aircraft?
    Mr. Godber: I have no knowledge of that or responsibility for it.
    Mr. Molloy: What communications have the Government received from Commonwealth countries about the proposed sale of arms to South Africa?
    Mr. Godber: I can add nothing on this matter to the full statements by my right hon. Friend and by myself on 3rd March. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have further information, perhaps he will put down a Question on the Order Paper.

    British Embassy, Washington
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria determine the number of footmen at the British Embassy in Washington.
    Mr. Kershaw: The same sort of criteria used to determine the number of civil servants employed in preparing answers to the hon. Gentleman's Questions, namely, the amount of work involved.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Questions about Aldabra at least saved this country many millions of pounds? Is there not too much hospitality in our embassies?
    Mr. Kershaw: I know that the hon. Gentleman will scarcely believe it, but most normal people do not object to having discussion over a good meal, properly served in agreeable surroundings. Hospitality is an important part of the functions of a British Embassy and it should be given in a way which reflects credit both on the Ambassador and on his guests.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the 92 members of the Diplomatic Service, 110 military attachés and personnel, 180 civil servants, and 300
    906
    locally-engaged staff of the British Embassy, constitute twice as big an Embassy in Washington as any other Western European Embassy.
    Mr. Kershaw: The staffing of the Embassy in Washington, like that of all British diplomatic Missions, is determined by the job to be done in maintaining and promoting British interests. I cannot answer for other Governments.
    Mr. Dalyell: What do all these people do?
    Mr. Kershaw: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the United States is our principal ally, our largest trading partner and in the military, technological and scientific sectors it plays the greatest rôle in cooperation with us. Washington is also the headquarters of international organisations to which we belong. Furthermore, the Inspectors who, following the Duncan Committee, recently reported on the Embassy, said that all these people in Washington were working to good purpose.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my hon. Friend tell us whether Mr. John Freeman, when he was our Ambassador in Washington, supported the budget and the number of staff employed in the Embassy?
    Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend is wrong there. We have reduced it since the last Government left office.
    Mr. Denis Howell: In view of the constant lecturing by Lord Cromer to the last Government that they should considerably improve economy and efficiency, can the hon. Gentleman tell us, now that this gentleman has all these people under his personal control, what innovations he has made in order to secure greater efficiency among his own staff?
    Mr. Kershaw: Lord Cromer has not been there very long, but I am sure that he already has the footmen under control.
    Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend read out a list of reasons for having a large staff in Washington. Is there not another factor—that we have a special relationship with the United States?
    Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of this natural relationship.

  WALES

    Albion Steel Works, Briton Ferry
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will reconsider his decision, conveyed to the hon. Member for Neath by letter, not to receive a deputation from the Neath Borough Council to discuss the further implications of the closure of the Billet Mill, at the Albion Steel Works, Briton Ferry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have already fully explained to the hon. Member the circumstances surrounding the closure, and have offered to see him to discuss the matter further. Every effort is being made to find alternative work for redundant workers.
    Mr. Coleman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I am sure, realise the serious concern felt in the area not only about this closure but about the prospect of the works and future employment in the area. Will he reconsider his decision not to meet a deputation from Neath Borough Council?
    Mr. Thomas: I am aware of the concern, which I share. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman at some length on 26th February and offered to meet him and the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) to discuss this matter further. So far I have not had any response to my offer. That would be an obvious preliminary and we could then discuss whether any benefit would be obtained by my receiving a further deputation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me in response to the letter I sent to him.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Pinnock Finance Co.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now publish the report on Pinnock Finance Company.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): We have decided to publish the Inspectors' Report as soon as possible.
    Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for this Answer. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me when publication may be expected?
    Mr. Grant: Fairly soon. I would not like to commit myself to a precise date but we have obtained the consent of the liquidator and publication will be soon.
    Mr. Ridsdale: How many people affected by the company are going to be paid out?
    Mr. Grant: I cannot give that number without notice but, following the court action on 17th February, the liquidator obtained sanction to pay an interim dividend of 2–5p in the £ to unsecured creditors.

    Industrial Development Certificates (Chesterfield)
    Mr. Varleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the number of industrial development certificates issued in the Chesterfield employment exchange area during the months of January and February, 1971; and how many jobs are expected to arise upon the completion of the projects.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: No industrial development certificates were issued in the Chesterfield Employment Exchange Area in January, 1971. Three were issued in February, 1971, which the applicants for the certificates estimate will provide additional employment for 80 when completed and fully manned.
    Mr. Varley: Does not the situation reflect a serious and deteriorating position in Chesterfield? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, over the last few weeks, 230 men have been sacked while 1,800 are on short-time working? Will he undertake in my Adjournment debate next Wednesday to grant intermediate area status to Chesterfield?
    Mr. Grant: We had better wait and hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say in the debate on Wednesday. But I can tell him that 80 jobs are in prospect as a result of industrial development certificates this month, which compares favourably with the 50 jobs following I.D.C.s in January and February, 1969, and with the 60 in 1970. Generally the prospects of the area are good and Chesterfield offers an attractive location for industry.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Rhodesia (Frozen Assets)
    Mr. Thorpeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of Rhodesian Government assets frozen in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): This information is not available.
    Mr. Thorpe: May we know why it is not available? Without risking the Prime Minister's new-found popularity with Mr. Smith, is there any reason why, since this is a rebellion, these frozen assets should not be used to compensate Rhodesian civil servants living in this country who have been loyal to the Crown and who have opposed the rebellion, and other loyal subjects in this country—the Rhodesian bond holders—who have had no interest paid to them?
    Mr. Higgins: The figure is not available partly because the information about the assets of Rhodesian banks, including the Reserve Bank, was given under the Southern Rhodesia Reserve Bank Order, 1965, and assurances were given in Parliament at that time that it would be treated as secret. The Government have sympathy with the position of the individuals mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but there are a number of others in a similar position and it would be wrong to single out one group for special treatment.
    Sir F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that these assets are held not only privately but also by the pension funds of trade unions in this country?
    Mr. Higgins: I am not quite clear to which set of assets my hon. Friend is referring.
    Mr. Pavitt: Are any of these assets being used to maintain the cigarette plant and factories still in being after all this time of U.D.I.? How is it that these organisations are still able to keep their factories going when they are British-owned and therefore need to have some kind of finance from this country?
    Mr. Higgins: The assets concerned are frozen at the moment.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Nursery Schools (Northern Region)
    Mr. Armstrongasked the Secretary for State for Education and Science how many children over three years of age and under five are attending maintained nursery schools in the Northern Region, and what percentage they form of the total number of children in the three to five age group.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): There were 9,280 pupils under the age of five (excluding rising five's) at maintained nursery and primary schools in the Northern region in January, 1970. This represented about 9·7 per cent. of the three and four-year-old age-groups.
    Mr. Armstrong: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Would he not agree that it represents a very serious situation? Would he not accept that if children are to have any semblance of equality of opportunity, the only way in which to deal with the under-fives, particularly in the Northern Region, is to have a massive extension of maintained nursery schools?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I could not go any further than the public announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters so closely, obviously remembers what that was. However, he will know that in County Durham, part of which he represents, the figure is 24·5 per cent., which is markedly different.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my hon. Friend resist the temptation to expand nursery school education beyond certain limits, as it must be an expensive undertaking which could be done only at the expense of the education budget as a whole, which at the moment is fully stretched?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: There can be no change in the priorities which have already been announced, but my hon. Friend and I would agree that money spent on education in the early stages of a child's life is very valuable. However, I take his point, because it is a matter of priorities.
    Mr. Torney: I am pleased to hear the Under-Secretary say that education in the

    911
    early part of a child's life is of great importance. Has he considered giving special consideration to nursery schools in areas with large immigrant populations where they can be even more helpful, particularly in teaching young children the language?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: That is exactly why the present policy rests on the priority areas.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the deterrents which is keeping children from nursery schools is the fact that they are now charged the full adult fare on buses to and from their homes?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I could not now deal with the specific matter of school bus fares, but I know my hon. Friend's interest in the subject and the special representations which he has been making.

    Schools Broadcasting Council and Schools Council
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make statements on the relationship of her Department with the Schools Broadcasting Council and the Schools Council, on their areas of responsibility, and on the financial arrangements for public funds for their activities.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Department appoints two of the members of the School Broadcasting Council and is represented on the Schools Council and all its main committees. The respective responsibilities of the two Councils are set out in their constitutions, extracts from which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Broadcasts for schools by the British Broadcasting Corporation are financed from licence revenue at its disposal. The Schools Council is financed jointly by the Department and the local education authorities.
    Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer and the expansion in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Who was responsible far circulating what are called package deals which, from my information, seem to be rather unsuitable? What authority has my hon. Friend over the details of package deals which are cir-
    912
    culated by the Schools Council? Do not these deals need careful consideration?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has yet received a letter from me which I have written to her recently—
    Dame Irene Ward: I have not.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: —in answer to certain representations which she made to me. I looked carefully at the specific case which she was good enough to draw to my attention and I hope that I have been able to give her information which will be of assistance to her. In general terms, the answer to her is that my Department is represented on the Schools Council, but we would not normally reckon to interfere in detail with decisions of that kind.

    EXTRACT FROM CONSTITUTION OF THE SCHOOL BROADCASTING COUNCIL
    The School Broadcasting Council for the United Kingdom shall be regarded as being in partnership with the British Broadcasting Corporation in the joint purposes of providing effective programmes and associated materials aimed at meeting the needs of the schools in the United Kingdom and encouraging their most profitable use, shall have the duty of guiding the Corporation in the provision of its educational service to schools, and shall stand sponsor for this service vis-a-vis the educational world. In the discharge of its responsibilities the Council shall:

    1. Study educational practice and trends in the schools of the United Kingdom and consider in what ways the education which they provide can be aided by School Broadcasts.

    2. Formulate the general educational policy of School Broadcasts and associated materials.

    3. Arrange with the Corporation for the provision of all School Broadcasts and associated materials.

    4. Determine the general aims and scope of the several series of School Broadcasts and of the associated materials which the Council ask the Corporation to provide.

    5. Except for School Broadcasts intended for schools in Scotland and Wales only, consider plans submitted by the Corporation to implement the policy of the Council for series of School Broadcasts and for associated materials and recommend their adoption, amendment or rejection.

    6. Obtain and assess evidence on the suitability of School Broadcasts and make this evidence and the assessment available to the Corporation as appropriate.

    7. Conduct and promote research into the methods and results of school Broadcasts and into the educational, technical

    913
    and administrative problems involved in their use.

    8. By the issue of publications and other means, make known the Council's general policy, the aims and content of the several series of School Broadcasts and the findings of the research referred to in 7.

    9. Assist the Corporation in the selection of officers concerned with School Broadcasts.

    10. Assist generally in the development of School Broadcasting and be the official link between the Corporation and the educational world in respect of the duties of the Council.

    EXTRACT FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SCHOOLS COUNCIL
    OBJECT
    The object of the Schools Council shall be the promotion of education by carrying out research into the keeping under review the curricula, teaching methods and examinations in schools, including the organisation of schools so far as it affects their curricula.
    POWERS
    In furtherance of its object as hereinbefore specified, but not further or otherwise, the Schools Council may:

    (a) undertake, or assist any person or body undertaking, enquiries, research and development work;

    (b) offer advice on request to schools and, so far as practicable, to any other persons and bodies concerned with the work of schools;

    (c) prepare and publish, or assist in the preparation and publication of reports, articles and pamphlets relating to the activities of the Schools Council;

    (d) purchase, take on lease or in exchange, hire or otherwise acquire any real or personal property and construct, alter and maintain any buildings; and

    (e) do all such other lawful acts and things as are incidental to, and necessary for, the attainment of its object.

    GENERAL PRINCIPLE
    In the execution of the provisions of this Constitution and in the exercise of all functions conferred hereby regard shall at all times be had to the general principle that each school should have the fullest possible measure of responsibility for its own work, with its own curriculum and teaching methods based on the needs of its own pupils and evolved by its own staff.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Chesterfield
    Mr. Varleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest unemployment statistics for the Chesterfield travel-to-work area showing male unemployment separately and giving the percentage increase in unemployment since July, 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Yes, Sir, and the hon. Gentleman may like to know that male unemployment in the Chesterfield area has increased by 452 since July, 1970.
    Mr. Varley: Will not the information show an alarming trend in the Chesterfield travel-to-work area? Has not the male unemployment figure reached a totally unacceptable level of 6·5 per cent., with an overall rate of 5 per cent.? Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the only way in which to reverse this trend is to grant the area intermediate area status?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The overall percentage is 4·4. It has gone up slightly —by 0·2 per cent.—since February last year. But the Government are certainly not complacent about this and I think that the hon. Gentleman will have an adequate reply from my hon. Friend when he intiates his Adjournment debate later this week. As he knows, the great difficulty of the area is the colliery closures. About 800 men in the Chesterfield travel-to-work area are now looking for other employment because of the closures.
    Following is the information:

    TOTAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED IN THE AREA COVERED BY THE CHESTERFIELD, CLAY CROSS, ECK INGTON AND STAVELEY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES

    Males

    Females

    Total

    July, 1970

    2,811

    394

    3,205

    March, 1971 (provisional)

    3,263

    460

    3,723

    Percentage increase

    16·1

    16·8

    16·2

AVIATION SUPPLY

  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Mr. Millan53 and 54. Mr. Millan asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) when he was first informed, and by whom, of the prospective redundancies at Rolls-Royce Limited, which he announced on Monday, 8th March;
  (2) what discussions the Government had with the Receiver of Rolls-Royce Limited and the directors of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited on redundancies at Rolls-Royce Limited, before his own announcement on Monday, 8th March.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price): On his appointment the Receiver made it clear to all concerned that substantial redundancies would be inevitable. He informed the Department of Employment on 3rd March that redundancies were imminent. Firm information that the redundancies would be announced on 8th March was given to the Government on 5th March.
  Mr. Millan: Do not the Government take any responsibility in this matter? As the aero-engine division is to be transferred to the new nationalised company, should not the Government have had discussions with the Receiver about these serious redundancies? Is he not aware that the redundancies were announced without discussion with the trade unions and that the trade unions, at least at the Scottish factories, were told at the same time as the Press, and that there was no discussion about the selection of the individuals to go, contrary to all past practice in Rolls-Royce and contrary to good industrial practice everywhere?
  Mr. Price: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the receiver is in charge of these assets and the running of the business, and the Government have no control over his activities.
  I understand that the receiver inquired of the Board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited whether it would require the services of these people, and I understand that the Board went along with the redundancies. However, as my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, the redundancies were, so to speak, in the pipeline at the time of the receivership.
  Mr. Rost: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the processes of consultation might have been improved if Rolls-Royce employees at Glasgow had not joined in the one-day strike on 1st March, but had followed the excellent example of the Rolls-Royce workers at Derby who did not strike and who do not intend to strike next Thursday?
  Mr. Price: That is an interesting observation. I understand that the receiver informed the unions, although I recognise the difference between information and consultation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any responsibility
  916
  in the House for the actions of the receiver in so far as he acts within the law.
  Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is that the Government accept full responsibility for the negotiations with Lockheed, when they choose so to do, but disclaim any responsibility for redundancies, although the receiver is in charge of the whole company?
  Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we found that the state of affairs with the contract for the RB211 was such that the receiver was not going on with the contract. Whether we are able to renegotiate the contract with Lockheed will determine which of the assets the Government will require to be retained by the new Rolls-Royce company. But that is completely outwith the subject of current redundancies.
  Mr. William Clark: Does not my hon. Friend agree that these redundancies were in the pipeline irrespective of the continuance of the RB211 contract?
  Mr. Price: That is what my right hon. Friend said from this very Box last Thursday.
  Mr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what conversations took place between 4th February and 3rd March between Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and the receiver about the level of employment estimated for the new Derby Engine Division of Rolls-Royce?
  Mr. Price: I am not aware of positive discussion in the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question although, as I understand it, the receiver did inquire of the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) whether the redundancies he intended to make would in any way make the job of Rolls-Royce (1971) more difficult when it eventually acquired the assets which the Government say it will acquire.
  Mr. Dalyell: If it is true, as the Minister says, that the Government have no control over the receiver, will the Minister spell out precisely what the relationship is between the Government and the receiver, especially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said, when it comes to

  917
  dealing with Lockheed? This is mystifying.
  Mr. Price: The receiver's position is that laid down in the Companies Act, 1948. The Government are prospective purchasers of a large number of the assets, as has been explained by my right hon. Friend at this Box, and therefore the relationship between the Government and the receiver is the normal relationship between a receiver and a potential buyer of assets.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)
Motion made, and Question,
That the Report [11th March] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee).
The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 207.

Division No. 235.]

AYES

[3.31 p.m.

Adley, Robert

d'Avigdor-Goldsmrd, Sir Henry

Holland, Philip

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

Holt, Miss Mary

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Dean, Paul

Hordern, Peter

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hornby, Richard

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Dixon, Piers

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Astor, John

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Atkins, Humphrey

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Awdry, Daniel

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)

Hunt, John

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Emery, Peter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Balniel, Lord

Farr, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Fell, Anthony

James, David

Batsford, Brian

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Fidler, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Bell, Ronald

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Jopling, Michael

Biffen, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Biggs-Davison, John

Fortescue, Tim

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Blaker, Peter

Foster, Sir John

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Fowler, Norman

Kershaw, Anthony

Body, Richard

Fox, Marcus

Kimball, Marcus

Boscawen, Robert

Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Fry, Peter

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Bowden, Andrew

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Kinsey, J. R.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Gibson-Watt, David

Kitson, Timothy

Braine, Bernard

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Bray, Ronald

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Knox, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Lane, David

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Goodhart, Philip

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Bryan, Paul

Goodhew, Victor

Le Marchant, Spencer

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)

Gorst, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Buck, Antony

Gower, Raymond

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'tth, Langstone)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Longden, Gilbert

Burden, F. A.

Gray, Hamish

Loveridge, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Green, Alan

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

Grieve, Percy

MacArthur, Ian

Carlisle, Mark

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McCrindle, R. A.

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Grylls, Michael

McLaren, Martin

Cary, Sir Robert

Gumrner, Selwyn

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Chapman, Sydney

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

McMaster, Stanley

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Churchill, W. S.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Clark William (Surrey, E.)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Maddan, Martin

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Madel, David

Cockeram, Eric

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Marten, Neil

Cooke, Robert

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vers

Maude, Angus

Coombs, Derek

Haselhurst, Alan

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Cooper, A. E.

Hastings, Stephen

Mawby, Ray

Cordle, John

Hawkins, Paul

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hay, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Cormack, Patrick

Hayhoe, Barney

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Costain, A. P.

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Critchley, Julian

Heseltine, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Crouch, David

Hicks, Robert

Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

Crowder, F. P.

Higgins, Terence L.

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Curran, Charles

Hiley, Joseph

Moate, Roger

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

Molyneaux, James

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Money, Ernie

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Temple, John M.

Monro, Hector

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Montgomery, Fergus

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Ridsdale, Julian

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Tilney, John

Mudd, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Murton, Oscar

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Trew, Peter

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Neave, Airey

Rost, Peter

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Russell, Sir Ronald

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Normanton, Tom

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Vickers, Dame Joan

Nott, John

Scott, Nicholas

Waddington, David

Onslow, Granley

Scott-Hopkins, James

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Sharpies, Richard

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Osborn, John

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Wall, Patrick

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Simeons, Charles

Walters, Dennis

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Ward, Dame Irene

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Warren, Kenneth

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Soref, Harold

Weatherill, Bernard

Peel, John

Speed, Keith

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Percival, Ian

Spence, John

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Sproat, Iain

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Pink, R. Bonner

Stainton, Keith

Wiggin, Jerry

Pounder, Rafton

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wilkinson, John

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Stokes, John

Woodnutt, Mark

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Worsley, Marcus

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Sutcliffe, John

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Raison, Timothy

Tapsell, Peter

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Mr. Jasper More.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Dempsey, James

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Doig, Peter

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Alien, Scholefield

Dormand, J. D.

John, Brynmor

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Ashley, Jack

Driberg, Tom

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Atkinson, Norman

Dunn, James A.

Johnson, Waiter (Derby, S.)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Eadie, Alex

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Beaney, Alan

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Ellis, Tom

Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

English, Michael

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Bidwell, Sydney

Evans, Fred

Judd, Frank

Bishop, E. S.

Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)

Kaufman, Gerald

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Kelley, Richard

Booth, Albert

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Kerr, Russell

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Foot, Michael

Lambie, David

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

Forrester, John

Latham, Arthur

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lawson, George

Buchan, Norman

Calpern, Sir Myer

Leadbitter, Ted

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Garrett, W. E.

Leonard, Dick

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Ginsburg, David

Lestor, Miss Joan

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Golding, John

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Cant, R. B.

Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Carmichael, Neil

Gourlay, Harry

Lipton, Marcus

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Lomas, Kenneth

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Loughlin, Charles

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Coleman, Donald

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

McBride, Neil

Concannon, J. D.

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McCartney, Hugh

Conlan, Bernard

Hamling, William

MacColl, James

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

McElhone, Frank

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mackenzie, Gregor

Crawshaw, Richard

Heffer, Eric S.

Mackie, John

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Horam, John

Maclennan, Robert

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

McNamara, J. Kevin

Dalyell, Tam

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Huckfield, Leslie

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Marquand, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Mayhew, Christopher

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Hunter, Adam

Meacher, Michael

Delargy, H. J.

Janner, Greville

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Millan, Bruce

920

921

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

Molloy, William

Richard, Ivor

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Tim, James

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Torney, Torn

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Tuck, Raphael

Moyle, Roland

Rose, Paul B.

Urwin, T. W.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Varley, Eric G.

Murray, Ronald King

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wainwright, Edwin

O'Halloran, Michael

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Orbach, Maurice

Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Wallace, George

Orme, Stanley

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Watkins, David

Oswald, Thomas

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Weitzman, David

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Sillars, James

Weilbeloved, James

Palmer, Arthur

Silverman, Julius

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Pardoe, John

Skinner, Dennis

Whitehead, Phillip

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Small, William

Whitlock, William

Pavitt, Laurie

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

penury, Tom

Stallard, A. W.

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitches)

Perry, Ernest G.

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Prescott, John

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Strang, Gavin

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Probert, Arthur

Swain, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Rankin, John

Taverne, Dick

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Reed, D.(Sedgefield)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Report considered accordingly.
Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

That the Resolution of 4th March of the Business Committee in respect of the Industrial Relations Bill, which was reported to the House on the same day, be varied so as to read as follows:—

That—

(a)the Proceedings on Consideration of the Industrial Relations Bill shall be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;

(b)the six days which under the Order [25th January] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and

(c)subject to the provisions of the Order [25th January], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of Proceedings

First day

…

New Clause 1

Midnight

Second day

…

New Clauses 2 to 4

Midnight

Third day

…

New Clauses 5 to 7

Midnight

Fourth day

…

New Clauses 8 to 10

Midnight

Fifth day

…

New Clauses so far as not previously disposed of,

Midnight

Amendments to Clauses 1 to 151 of the Bill,

New Schedules, and

Amendments to Schedules 1 to 8 of the Bill.

Sixth day

…

Third Reading

Midnight

put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.
Following is the Report of the Business Committee:

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended, considered.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT
  (1) In this section "approved closed shop agreement" means an agreement which—

  (a) is made between one or more employers and one or more trade unions, or between an employers' association and one or more trade unions;

  5

  (b) is an agreement whereby it is agreed, in respect of workers of one or more descriptions specified in the agreement, that their terms and conditions of employment shall include a condition that every such worker, unless, specially exempted, must be or become a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be; and

  10

  (c) is made in accordance with proposals approved by an order of the Industrial Court made under Schedule (Provisions as to certain closed shop agreements) to this Act which is for the time being in force.

  (2) Where an approved closed shop agreement is for the time being in force, the following provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in section 5(1)(b) of this Act.

  15

  (3) A worker to whom the agreement applies, and who is not specially exempted, shall not have the right, as between himself and an employer to whom the agreement applies, to refuse to be a member of the trade union, or (as the case may be) of one of the trade unions, with which the agreement was made.

  20

  (4) A worker to whom the agreement applies, and who is specially exempted, shall not have the right, as between himself and an employer to whom the agreement applies, to refuse to be a member of that trade union, or one of those trade unions, as the case may be, unless he agrees to pay appropriate contributions to a charity.

  25

  (5) In accordance with subsections (3) and (4) of this section, it shall not be an unfair industrial practice for an employer to whom an approved closed shop agreement applies, or for a person acting on behalf of such an employer,—

  30

  (a)to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against a worker to whom the agreement applies, on the grounds that he is not, and has refused or failed to become, a member of the trade union or (as the case may be) of one of the trade unions, with which the agreement was made, or if specially exempted, has refused or failed to pay appropiate contributions to a charity, or

  (b) to refuse to engage a worker who, if engaged by him, would be a worker to whom the agreement applies, on the grounds that he is not, and has refused to become, a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be.

  35

  (6) In this section "specially exempted" and "appropriate contributions" have the meanings assigned to them by Part IV of Schedule (Provisions as to certain closed shop agreements) to this Act, and any reference to an employer to whom an approved closed shop agreement applies shall be construed in accordance with Part V of that Schedule.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members will see from my list of provisional selection that it is proposed to discuss at the same time the following:
  Amendment (a), line 1, leave out ' approved'.
  Amendment (h), line 10, leave out certain'.
  Amendment (j), line 12, leave out 'an approved ' and insert 'a'.
  Amendment (k), line 13, leave out 'notwithstanding' and insert 'in place of'.
  Amendment (q), line 24, leave out 'approved'.
  Amendment (v), line 36, leave out 'approved".
  Amendment (c), line 3, leave out 'an employers' association' and insert:
  'one or more employers' associations whether registered or not'.
  Amendment (d), line 7, leave out 'or become'.
  Amendment (g), line 9, leave out 'an order of the Industrial Court' and insert:
  'recommendations of the Commission on Industrial Relations'.
  Amendment (i), line 11, leave out:
  'which is for the time being in force'.
  Amendment No. 5, page 3 line 37, Clause 5, after 'section', insert:
  'and to section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act'.
  Amendment No. 14, page 6, line 27, Clause 7, at end insert:
  'or in so far as it constitutes an approved closed shop agreement within the meaning of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act'.
  Amendment No. 15, page 8, line 6, Clause 9, leave out 'and the next following section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
  The new Schedule entitled "Provisions as to certain closed shop agreements'', and all the Opposition Amendments to it.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: On a point of order. It will be very difficult to have an adequate discussion, Mr.
  926
  Speaker, without possibly making fairly generous reference to the new Schedule. Will that be permitted during the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman will see from my provisional list that the new Schedule and all the Amendments to the new Schedule can be considered in this debate.
  Mr. Carr: I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss with the new Clause the new Schedule and the other Amendments.
  The new Clause needs to be seen in the context of the basic principles of the Bill. One of the cardinal principles of the Bill is that every person should have an absolute right to join a union, no matter what an employer wishes or says to the contrary, but that equally every person shall possess the right not to have to join a union against his will. Thus, the Bill contains provisions to preclude the implementation of agreements which require workers to be or to become members of trade unions as a condition for employment or engagement. Thus, Clause 7 makes void the pre-entry closed shop, and Clause 5 makes unenforceable any agreement which denies a worker the right freely to choose whether he will be a member of a union. These provisions reflect the importance which the Government attach to ensuring that an individual's livelihood is not dependent on a union's discretion and that a man with the necessary qualifications to pursue an occupation should not be prevented from doing so because he does not wish or, in some cases, is not permitted to belong to a union.
  However, as I made clear in Committee, the Government recognise that the right to join and the right not to join, although both are essential to our principles, are not simply equal and opposite rights. The community's interest in having good order in industry which involves the existence of stable and strong collective bargaining machinery and the democratic right to respect and give effect to the wish of the majority providing there is proper protection for the minority both point to the fact that the right to join a trade union is of a different order compared with the right not to join.
  Hence the proposal in the Bill for the agency shop. The provisions regulating agency shop agreements recognise the fact

  927
  that effective union organisation and responsible and constructive union leadership can and often should be materially assisted by arrangements under which a union has exclusive bargaining rights in respect of employees, or at least employees of a particular kind, in an undertaking and is financially supported by all those employees.
  The agency shop provisions also recognise the justifiable demand of trade unions that the Bill should not, through outlawing the closed shop, encourage the so-called free rider who enjoys the benefits of union bargaining power but contributes nothing to support the union. Therefore, the provisions exclude the free rider. An Amendment which we are proposing to Clause 5 makes clear that in an agency shop agreement an employer can bind himself to use his best endeavours to encourage his employees to join the union or unions which he recognises. We shall stress this point in a positive way in the code of practice.
  In these circumstances, we believe that a high degree of union membership and union security will be voluntarily achieved in the vast majority of cases. As a practical judgment, I would normally expect the achievement and maintenance of an agency shop of a stable 90 to 95 per cent. union membership and often more. I believe, and I know that many union leaders have for years believed, that a union with that degree of voluntary membership—say, 95 per cent.—is in a stronger and not a weaker position than a union with 100 per cent. membership in which the last 5 per cent. are forced recruits.
  We are therefore absolutely satisfied, having listened to all the arguments, that the agency shop provisions represent a carefully balanced and effective compromise between the right of the individual to choose not to have to belong against his will and his social responsibilities as a member of a work group whose standard of living may depend upon the effectiveness of the union which represents them and also the need for stable collective bargaining machinery for the sake of good order in industrial relations. We remain firmly of the view that the provisions for the agency shop represent a reasonable and workable compromise between the two extreme
  928
  positions and will profit and not weaken industrial relations in the overwhelming majority of cases.
  That is the background against which I present the new Clause. Although we hold very strongly the proposition which I have just stated, we do nevertheless accept the force of representations which have been made from a number of quarters and from both sides of the House to the effect that the ban which the Bill imposes upon the closed shop may in a small minority of cases weaken the position of unions gravely, and might undermine union authority, and the integrity of collective agreement which depend to a considerable extent on the ability of unions to discipline their members.
  It has been suggested that in some industries the agency shop provisions cannot secure for unions the same benefits which may be expected in the overwhelming majority of cases throughout most of industry and commerce and employment generally. The case, for example, of preserving the closed shop in the entertainments industry, particularly among actors, and in seafaring, has commanded a certain amount of sympathy among Members on both sides of the House. I indicated in Committee that we would give this careful consideration, although I made clear that we would have to think not in terms of particular industries, or classes like actors or seafarers, but would have to think, of course, in terms of an Amendment which could provide the exception in any case which could justify an exception.
  It has been pointed out, however, taking these industries for example, that many employers in those industries are also as much in favour of the closed shop as are the unions themselves. This new Clause and the associated Amendments seek to remedy this situation to provide this exceptional possibility of post-entry closed shop in the minority of cases where it really is and can be proved to be justified and, indeed, necessary.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: This is complex wording which my right hon. Friend has put down. At first glance it looks as though it goes some way to meet the point. I hope I am not being unfair to my right hon. Friend in asking him a specific question. Does the new Clause validate or invalidate existing

  929
  agreements, for example, through Equity about acting?
  Mr. Carr:I should like to come to this in a moment when I come to the mechanism, although, perhaps, I may say to my hon. Friend now that the application of the principle by which this should be judged is, of course, the work of the C.I.R. What we are doing, and, I think, rightly doing, in the Bill is laying down criteria which the C.I.R. should apply. I believe that what we are putting forward here should, for example, provide a situation thoroughly acceptable to Equity. Though I cannot be sure whether it would mean any changes or not, I genuinely believe it would meet its needs. What I stress is that it would be wrong to try to answer conclusively, because the whole principle on which we are working is not to say that this particular industry or that particular industry shall be exempt from the provisions of the Bill but to lay down conditions which, wherever they apply, would justify exceptional treatment. It is the only proper way in which we can proceed in legislation. It is certainly the case that the criteria, which I shall mention in a moment or two, have been drawn up for cases which have been provided, which Equity wants, because, I believe, it has been a cause of concern that some special provision should be made to meet the needs of those concerned.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Has not the right hon. Gentleman just underwritten at the beginning the principle and philosophy outlined in Clause 5? As I understand what he has said, it means that he still maintains right across the board that principle and philosophy. If this is so, what new situation has been created? Surely Equity and the seamen will be in an invidious position in not being able to enforce a 100 per cent. closed shop, as they had previously?
  Mr. Carr:I made clear in response to my hon. Friend that I was not saying that the position would be able to stay exactly as it is—
  Mr. Orme: Ah.
  Mr. Can:—but I think that when one studies this Clause one realises that something is needed, other than is provided for some exceptional treatment
  930
  which need not necessarily be precisely what it is at the moment. It will be for the C.I.R. to look at this in relation to the criteria. I was not expecting hon. Members who have made their views well known on this to accept this, but we are firmly maintaining what the general principle should be, and we are providing an exception procedure so that, in a minority of cases where the principle which we believe in can be shown not to provide the security, the stability, the conditions, which are required both in the interests of the community and in the interests of those who work in that particular sector of employment, the C.I.R. will be able to approve as exceptions post entry closed shops.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech but it might be of value to both sides of the House if this position were clarified. The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the post-entry closed shop. Would I, therefore, be right in understanding from that that he regards restriction of entry—that is to say, regulation of entry, in effect an element of pre-entry closed shop—as excluding in principle what he is conceding here, or that he provides no concession at all of a character to enable an organisation to limit the number of people or the types of people joining a particular occupation or a particular part of an occupation?
  Mr. Carr: It is true—I did before make this clear—that we are not permitting the pre-entry closed shop, but having studied the problems, and having listened to the representations of Equity and others, we do not believe that a pre-entry closed shop is in effect essential for their purpose.
  Dame Irene Ward:Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Showmen's Guild comes into this Clause? It is a very important matter to the Showmen's Guild.
  Mr. Carr:The point I am trying to make to the House, a point which I think is an important one, is that this new Clause and the associated Amendments do not specify any particular industry, because that would be wrong; we should not legislate for particular industries. What we are proposing to

  931
  legislate for are the criteria, and the machinery for judging those criteria, and in any industry which chooses to apply them it will be for the C.I.R. to decide. My hon. Friend has raised another point; and that is whether the Showmen's Guild comes within this Bill, and whether it is a trade union or an organisation of workers or an employers' association, as the case may be, and if it is not, then, of course, it cannot either use this Bill or come under this Bill in any way; and if an employers' association or trade union in an industry does not exist then it is up to that industry to form the necessary machinery to look after its interests and to set up the right sort of organisation, as in another industry, and to apply for the machinery to be used and tested in that case.
  Mr. Gower: After enunciating this principle about the Bill in relation to the closed shop my right hon. Friend has now introduced an important exception. Can he give an assurance, on examination of it by the Law Officers, that this procedure could not be used to knock a large hole in the general principle against the closed shop?
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Carr:Perhaps my hon. Friend and the House will now let me develop my argument, because I am coming to the criteria in a moment. I will take the two examples which are principally put before the House, namely, the acting and seafaring cases, and look at some of the conditions in those two cases which we believe justify consideration according to the criteria to see whether an approved closed shop may be necessary.
  The nature of the work has characteristics in common which distinguish them from most other industries. Jobs are typically of short duration. The attachment to particular employers is the exception rather than the rule. Seldom are actors or seamen together in the same company or establishment on two successive engagements. The nucleus of permanent, full-time workers is in both cases supplemented by a large transient work force. These are characteristics in these two industries and there may be other industries with similar characteristics. Where characteristics of this sort apply, it is reasonable to suppose that
  932
  there may be a place for an exception and there should, therefore, be machinery for testing that and obtaining exceptional approval of a closed shop if it is necessary.
  It seems reasonable to suppose that the agency shop provisions in the Bill might not deal adequately with some of the special cases which I have outlined. Therefore, following my undertaking in Committee, we gave a great deal of thought to ways in which modifications might be made to the Bill to meet these special cases. As a result of that, we have concluded that the best course is the one put on the Order Paper today, namely, the idea of permitting the operation of post-entry closed shop agreements, subject to certain safeguards and constraints, for the exceptional cases where it can be shown that the agency shop provisions would not provide an adequate alternative. To repeat an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), we do not accept that the pre-entry closed shop, which denies employment to the worker who is not a member of the appropriate union at the time he applies for the job, is either necessary or desirable for the improvement of industrial relations, and therefore the pre-entry closed shop will not be allowed in any circumstances under this procedure.
  The new Clause and Schedule with the associated Amendments will allow post-entry closed shops to operate where employer and trade union are both willing parties to an agreement, and where it is necessary. The criteria, which I am sure will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), are these. First, that it is necessary in order to enable workers to be organised effectively for collective bargaining. Secondly, that it is necessary in order to maintain reasonable terms and conditions and reasonable continuity of employment. Thirdly, that it is necessary for promoting and maintaining stable collective bargaining. Fourthly, that it is necessary for maintaining the integrity of collective agreements. Fifthly, and most important, where the alternative of an agency shop agreement would not satisfactorily serve those purposes, but it will be up to the C.I.R. to judge these cases.
  Our judgment in laying down these criteria—and we have given a great deal

  933
  of thought to them—is that they will provide the gateway for the necessary exceptions when the need really is there, but they will not open the door wide to a general application of the post-entry closed shop, which we believe is neither desirable nor necessary and for which we believe in general the agency shop is an adequate and preferable alternative.
  I will say something about how the procedure will work. When both parties agree that they wish to seek approval for a closed shop agreement, they will make a joint application to the Industrial Relations Court, but it must be a voluntary joint application. It will, therefore, be an unfair industrial practice for any person to organise or threaten a strike or other industrial action to induce an employer to join in making an application for approval for a close shop agreement when he is not voluntarily wishing to do so.
  Having received the voluntary joint application, the Industrial Relations Court will, if satisfied that there has been no similar application within the last two years or that one has not been rejected in the last two years, refer the matter to the Commission on Industrial Relations, who will examine the case on the basis of the five criteria which I have just mentioned.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The House is trying to follow this somewhat complex drafting. My right hon. Friend has referred twice to the five criteria. Paragraph 5(1) of the new Schedule, "Provisions as to Certain Closed Shop Agreements" gives four criteria, in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). Will my right hon. Friend explain where the fifth criterion comes from?
  Mr. Carr: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. The fifth criterion is in paragraph 5(2). What we are saying is that here are four basic criteria and the C.I.R. will also have to be satisfied that these basic conditions cannot be met by an ordinary agency shop agreement. The C.I.R. will apply the four criteria and ask whether or not they can be met by an agency shop agreement. If not, the Commission can grant an exemption. I was short-circuiting by referring to the five criteria.
  934
  Where on investigation the C.I.R. is satisfied that it would be appropriate to approve the closed shop agreement, the court will then allow up to three months to the workers who are to be covered by that agreement to apply for a ballot of all the workers concerned on whether a closed shop agreement should be made. Such an application for a ballot will have to be supported by one-fifth of the workers concerned and, if the ballot is secured, there will have to be a majority of those eligible to vote in favour of the proposed agreement before it can be made.
  An approved agreement will impose an important contractual term on the workers covered by it, and where 20 per cent. of them have asked for the ballot, indicating that at least that number—a substantial number—have doubts about it and are probably opposed to it, it seems to us to be reasonable that the proposed agreement should be required to obtain the support of the majority of the workers in the ballot before it is approved.
  I stress that where no ballot is asked for within the three months by a minimum of 20 per cent. of those eligible, the court will automatically make the closed shop agreement effective, without a ballot. The ballot is there as a right of challenge. It is not a necessary bit of machinery if it is not asked for.
  Mr. David Mitchell:Will my right hon. Friend confirm that only a registered trade union can activate this machinery?
  Mr. Carr:Yes, I was coming to that point next, and 1 will make it straight away. This again is in line with another major principle of the Bill, that registration is perfectly reasonable for any organisation which claims, as unions claim, to exercise great power in our economy and in our society. The provisions in our view are reasonable, and we therefore believe that registered trade unions should have advantages which are not available to unregistered organisations of workers.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls:I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing us to try to clear up certain points about this complex provision. I can understand trade unions which are easily identifiable being registered, but in the theatrical profession employers cannot be so easily recognised.

  935
  There are many employers who set themselves up for one show or one film. Would there have to be a separate application made each time or would the principle of one carry through to the others?
  Mr. Carr: I think it does. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing. In the particular case to which my hon. Friend has referred, they are not covered by the existing Equity agreements, which would be at risk under this Measure without this Amendment. They would be no better or worse off than they are at present.
  Under this Amendment we are providing an opportunity, where Equity has these agreements, to recognise single employers or groups of employers—and my hon. Friend knows better than I do of the West End and provincial employers in this connection—and we are providing an opportunity to provide for the especial nature of what is essential to achieve the requirements of the Bill. We are not, in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, either taking away from or giving to what already exists.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman because he is, in fact, taking away the present power enjoyed by the union to enforce a closed shop on recalcitrant employers. He is taking that power away and is giving nothing whatever in its place.
  Mr. Carr:This must be a matter for argument—[Interruption.]—and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to state his case, when I shall be interested to listen to his remarks.
  I am only saying at this stage that having studied these problems carefully and having listened in great detail to the representations of Equity, which is what we are discussing, we believe—I do not want to commit anybody, but this is also believed by important members of Equity—that provided they get through the gateway, as it were, and the C.I.R., and we have reason to think that that will happen, they will achieve under these proposals what it is necessary for them to achieve to maintain the right conditions for employment in their industry.
  I have spoken about the right of a minimum of 20 per cent. of workers to demand a ballot before one of these
  936
  closed shop agreements becomes officially and finally approved. We are also providing similar provisions to allow workers to challenge the continuance of a closed shop, also by applying for a ballot, but not more frequently than once every two years.
  Thus, if a closed shop is approved and a substantial number of people affected by it do not like it, they will have the right, after two years, provided they can gather 20 per cent. support, to ask for a ballot to see whether they have a majority against its continuance. If they do not, then it will go on, but if they do, then the position will be changed.
  Mr. Harold Walker:Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the scope of the ballot? In other words, would he comment on the eligibility of those who will be entitled to take part in it? How will the temporary work force fit in with the ballot arrangements he has in mind?
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question and, of course, ballots in industries like those he obviously has in mind will not be easy. I recognise that.
  As for the making of an application for a ballot, the applicants will have to show that 20 per cent. of the workers, as defined in the agreement at the date they make their application, support them. We believe this will be possible. They must go to the court with the agreement, and the agreement will specify those workers affected. The applicants will have to show, to the satisfaction of the court, that they represent 20 per cent. of those who, on the date when they are making the application, take the same view.
  When it comes to the ballot—there will be a time-lag between the making of the application, the application being granted, the C.I.R. making arrangements for the ballot and the appointment of the time for the ballot and the ballot taking place —one will need to take the numbers covered by the agreement at that date because the numbers covered when the ballot takes place may be different from the numbers when the application was made. This is unavoidable in an industry with a floating population.
  To sum up, then, the applicants must show that they represent 20 per cent. of

  937
  those covered by the agreement at the date when the application is made and a majority of those so covered must be secured on the date when the ballot takes place. That will be the procedure. I am not pretending that there will not be difficulties—[Interruption.]—but in a matter like this it is essential that an opportunity for a ballot should exist.
  Normally I would not expect it to happen in this type of case because, in circumstances of this kind, which are special, I would expect one to find a clear majority of people wishing to make an application, so that, by definition, these circumstances are likely to occur in only very exceptional cases. However, I consider that the possibility of challenge, approval or disapproval should exist by law in the hands of the majority. Although difficulties may arise, I still believe it necessary to introduce this sort of provision. In other words, though it may seldom be used, it is right that it should exist.
  The Schedule also provides special protection for those who wish, on conscientious ground, not to belong to a trade union. In an ordinary agency shop there will, therefore, be a possibility for those who do not wish to join, in spite of encouragement from their employers and so on, on conscientious grounds, to be able to raise an objection in this narrow sense. In the post-entry closed shop as approved the only exceptions will be those with genuine conscientious grounds.
  I believe it to be right that there should be this special protection. Such individuals will be exempted from the requirement to join a union provided they agree to pay an appropriate contribution in lieu of membership to an agreed charity. In disputed cases there will be a right of appeal to the industrial tribunals, and they will decide on conscientious ground.
  Perhaps I should make it clear that the provisions for the approval of certain closed shop agreements allow such agreements to be made between employers' associations, acting on behalf of their members, and trade unions, as well as between individual employers and trade unions. I believe this to be important in both the acting and shipping industries, to take the two examples I have mentioned.
  I commend the Clause and its related Amendments to the House. Hon. Gentle-
  938
  men opposite have claimed at earlier stages that without at least the post-entry closed shop, the very basis of union security and stability would be utterly undermined. I do not know whether that was the case in times gone by, but I simply do not believe it to be the case today as a general proposition over the vast majority of employment.
  With the provisions we have made under the agency shop—for example, with the specific provision that an employer can, and I believe should, encourage his employees to join the appropriate trade unions—one will, in the great majority of cases, obtain the high degree of union membership which is required to meet the wishes of the majority and provide for orderly collective bargaining, the keeping of agreements and the rest of it.
  I therefore do not accept the Opposition's case as a generality. However, I accept that it may be true in a few isolated cases. If it may be true in a few isolated cases, then we ought properly to provide for exceptions to meet those few cases.
  That is what we attempt and, I believe, succeed in doing in the new Clause, Schedule and the associated Amendments. I beg to commend them to the House.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer:The right hon. Gentleman moved the new Clause in a very amenable way, but then he always does. It is not necessarily his kind and friendly words one has to take note of but what lies behind them. In the Clause it is precisely what is written down and what lies behind the words that is all important.
  We are discussing a tremendously large new Clause. If we take the new Clause plus the Schedule, we find that we have almost, in a sense, a new mini-Bill. This means that we shall require to examine this in much greater detail than possibly we shall have time to do, which is very regrettable.
  The right hon. Gentleman accepted the fact that the right to join a union or the right not to join a union were not necessarily the same, that they were of a different order—I think those were the words which he used. I am absolutely delighted that at least that much is now understood by the Government, that there is a difference between the right to join a trade union and the right not to join

  939
  one. That is something that the Opposition has been trying to point out to the Government all the way through the Bill.
  Listening to the right hon. Gentleman we might believe that an immense concession had been made, that the principle had been given away, on the basis of the recognition that there was a difference between joining or not joining a trade union. But the right hon. Gentleman has given very little away indeed. He has given away practically nothing. I can well understand the satisfaction felt by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) when he was assured that there was not to be a hole knocked in the Government's legislation about the closed shop. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that, which is understandable because it is a basic principle for the Government. On 11th March the Daily Telegraph, referring to new Clause 1, said:
  "A new Clause would make it possible…",
  to have a closed shop
  "…in closely defined circumstances…"
  That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has spelt out this afternoon, that the proposals are on the basis of closely defined circumstances. To that extent they are almost worthless to the trade unions. It is not really a big concession at all.
  What exactly have we here? First, the closed shop must be an approved closed shop, not a closed shop which perhaps is acceptable merely to the employer and to the trade union, but a closed shop which is approved by the Industrial Court, because a joint application has to be made to the Industrial Court. The C.I.R. will then investigate, and on that basis it could become a closed shop under certain circumstances, but only an approved closed shop. What is the right hon. Gentleman giving away? Surely the whole principle of a voluntary agreement between the trade union and the employer is being completely destroyed on the basis of the new Clause, because if a trade union wishes to enter into an agreement with an employer for a closed shop, this is a matter for agreement on a voluntary basis between the employer and the trade union. But what do we find here? We find that there has to be a joint application, not that the trade union can say to the employer, "We want a closed
  940
  shop", and then the employer perhaps might refuse a closed shop, but the trade union cannot make application unless that employer agrees also that there must be or could be a closed shop. If the trade union applies pressure, it will be carrying out an unfair industrial practice.
  How much is the right hon. Gentleman giving away? I should like to explain to him how most closed shops came into existence. For the London Passenger Transport workers the closed shop came into existence on the basis that the workers decided that they would have 100 per cent. trade union organisation. They were the motivating force, the rank and file of the trade union organisation They then decided on that basis to approach the management, and finally, because of the pressure from the rank and file, the management accepted the principle. But if a trade union were to do that now, it would be carrying out an unfair industrial practice under new Clause 2. The unions cannot do this, so they are going into this matter with one hand tied behind their backs. On this subject very little is being given away.
  The application must firstly be made to the Industrial Court. We have the whole rigmarole and paraphernalia once again. The application goes to the Industrial Court, and then the C.I.R. can be asked to look at it. In our Amendment, which is being taken with new Clause 1, we are suggesting that the Industrial Court should be eliminated altogether, that the C.I.R. should be asked to look into the position and then make recommendations, and that there should be no question of a court order one way or the other.
  The right hon. Gentleman is so hedging in this whole business that we are faced with something which is almost unworkable. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who raised the matter of the casting agreements that apply to Equity. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not absolutely sure. Later the hon. Member for Peterborough raised the question of whether there would have to be an individual application on each occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that there might have to be an individual application on each occasion. What does that

  941
  mean? It makes the whole thing absolutely absurd and ridiculous, because if there had to be an individual application on each occasion, the play would be over, the television programme which the people were involved in would be over, and so on. We must have this absolutely clear.
  The right hon. Gentleman also says that it would apply to industries where there are transient workers, and so on. What about the building industry? Will it apply to the building industry? Will it strictly apply to Equity, to people employed in television, to those described as seafarers, and so on? The right hon. Gentleman said that the principles are laid down and that these criteria will perhaps apply to the whole of industry. He has not said that they will apply. There may be an exception. The right hon. Gentleman is giving us very little.
  4.30 p.m.
  Those of my hon. Friends who are concerned with seafarers, with Equity, and so on, will wish to spell out in a little more detail how they believe that the provision will apply to them. Once they have done that, it will be come clear to everyone that the right hon. Gentleman is giving us nothing.
  Having looked at the new Clause, we find that all the stories in the Press about great concessions being made by the Government which would be welcomed by the trade unions turn out to be very small beer. We see a slight extension of the concept of the agency shop, and nothing else.
  If a trade union has a voluntary agreement with an employer that a closed shop is necessary, we believe that it should be accepted on the basis of the criteria established in the first four points of paragraph 5 of the new Schedule, for the purposes of enabling the workers to be organised or continue to be organised, of maintaining reasonable terms and conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of continued employment for those workers, of promoting or maintain-mg stable arrangements for collective bargaining for those workers, and of preventing collective agreements relating to those workers from being frustrated.
  Within reason, those are acceptable principles. They are principles which exist already where closed shop arrange-
  942
  ments and agreements operate. Because they exist now, why do we require the sort of proposals that the right hon. Gentleman is putting to us today?
  The right hon. Gentleman could have produced a very simple new Clause 1 saying that wherever closed shop agreements were reached on a voluntary basis between employers and trade unions, they should continue. A new Clause of that kind would have been accepted. To concede even a minor point as far as I am concerned, such a new Clause might have gone on to state that, where in future there were discussions about setting up a closed shop, there should be reference to the C.I.R., but with the complete elimination of the Industrial Court and all the rest of the paraphernalia with which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to saddle us.
  Mr. R. Carr:Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House and the country that where an employer and a union agree upon a closed shop, if there are some qualified people in that trade or industry who have strong reasons for not wishing to belong to a union, they should be excluded from the possibility of getting a job and earning their livelihood in that industry? I believe that that is what he is saying.
  Mr. Heffer:The right hon. Gentleman does not know what goes on in industry at the moment.
  Mr. Carr:I do.
  Mr. Heffer: I think that the right hon. Gentleman does not know. If he did, he would know that, in industries which have closed shop agreements, there are thousands of workers who have concientious objections and do not belong to the trade unions. That situation exists today, and there is no reason for writing this provision into the law.
  Mr. David Mitchell:Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he believes that it is right that, wherever there is a closed shop, people on conscientious grounds should have the right not to belong to the union?
  Mr. Heffer:That is a situation which exists at the moment. There are plenty of people who do not belong to trade unions for conscientious reasons but who work in industries which operate closed shop arrangements.
  Mr. Carr indicated assent.
  Mr. Heffer:Apparently the right hon. Gentleman agrees. Therefore I cannot understand why he wants to write this provision into the law. Why do we need to have all this paraphernalia to meet a situation which exists?
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect the trade unions not to be suspicious of, the Government's activities and objectives. I understand that he said yesterday in a speech that the T.U.C. was misleading people and not telling them the facts. The facts are that people really are beginning to understand what this Bill will mean. I appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are screaming. It is because people are beginning to understand what is involved in the Bill.
  Mr. Orme: Perhaps my hon. Friend could help hon. Members on this side of the House by telling us whether there is any real difference between the agency shop as proposed in the Bill and what will be implemented by these Amendments. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Amendments are a camouflage and do not alter the basic provisions already outlined in the agency shop proposals?
  Mr. Heffer: There are certain differences between the concept of the approved closed shop and the agency shop arrangements suggested in another part of the Bill, but they are minor differences.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised one vital point which needs to be spelt out clearly. Even this so-called concession will not apply to a non-registered trade union. Only a registered trade union will be able to take advantage of it, assuming that it offers an advantage, which I do not accept.
  The right hon. Gentleman is offering the House, the country and the trade union movement no real advantage by this new Clause. For that reason, we oppose it. Even at this late stage, we believe that the right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to take back the Clause and, after this Bill has been to the other place, to bring forward an Amendment which accepts that, where a trade union and an employer are prepared to reach a voluntary agreement
  944
  on a closed shop, that principle will be embodied in the Bill.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It may help to commend my right hon. Friend's new Clause to hon. Members opposite if I say to the House that I am very far from happy about it. Indeed, if my right hon. Friend were to take the advice just given to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and, in the light of the reaction to it, withdraw the Clause, I would not wish to stand in his way. Because as my right hon. Friend said in his admirable speech the party to which he and I belong has for a long time believed in the right of the citizen to join or not to join a union, and the closed shop is a very serious interference with that right.
  I fully understand the practical reasons which cause not only trade unions but many employers to like an arrangement of this sort. There is in many cases very great practical convenience—I do not waste the time of the House by disputing that for a moment—but there is here something more important even than practical convenience in industry, and that is the right and freedom of the individual citizen.
  Our great trade unions today, for all their significance in the State, are still basically private bodies. They are not part, and I hope that they never will be part, of the apparatus of the State. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be the function of legislaation to assist in compelling, as opposed to persuading, individual citizens to join them. In the corporate States of the Fascist and Communist type the converse is the case: there one has the complete closed shop. The unions are part of the structure of the State, and the State insists that citizens join their individual trade unions. But here we have the fact that there are citizens—not, I think, very many—who simply do not wish to join a union. Do I hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) say "ridiculous"?
  Mr. Orme: No. I was saying that the point that the right hon. Gentleman is now emphasising, the right not to belong, is met in the terms of the new Schedule and of the new Clause. That is the point we are contesting.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment he will see that I do not go with him the whole way.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps I may intervene in order to save an interruption later. My right hon. Friend started by saying that he was speaking on the principle of Conservatism. He and I are in the same party. I have never understood that the principle of Conservatism means that we have to be slaves to dogma. While I would go along with my right hon. Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I would say that we always have been a practical party, and have recognised that a rule is strong when we recognise an exception to it. I merely ask my right hon. Friend, because he is a very powerful member of the party, to recognise that point in putting his submissions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Baronet below the Gangway equating a belief in individual liberty with an ecceptance of dogma. I should have hoped that the principle of individual liberty, of the right of the citizen under the law to do all that the State does not forbid him to do and not to be compelled to do things other than the State itself for necessary purposes compels, went a good deal further than dogma. That is one of the principles upon which our society is founded.
  To return to what is said by the hon. Member opposite, I know that provision is made for conscientious objection, which is right and proper, but there may be perfectly reasonable objections, even if one disagrees with them, that are not conscientious. People may not want to join a union whose leadership is fomenting a political strike. I do not think that that is unreasonable. They may not wish to join a union because it supports a certain political party, and that may be a perfectly reasonable attitude.
  So I start on the principle that the closed shop is a bad thing because it is apt to face an individual with a decision either to do what he does not want to do, and join what is, after all, a private organisation, or lose his job. That is a form of compulsion on the individual in aid of a private organisation which is, I think, unacceptable in a liberal and civilised society.
  946
  My right hon. Friend accepted that view. His argument was the traditional one of the servant girl's baby—it is only a little one—and he was supported in that argument by the hon. Member for Walton. But the principle is right, even in respect of a little one—and I must say that I am very unhappy about this Clause.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend has rejected the pre-entry closed shop, because I agree that that is the worst possible form of closed shop. I had a case of this in my constituency, a year or two ago. A printer, who had been a member of the appropriate union for some years, went to New Zealand, where he joined the appropriate printing union. On his return to this country he got a job at once as a printer on a local newspaper which had a closed shop agreement. When he tried to join the appropriate union, of which he had been a member in the past, he was denied membership because the union preferred to put forward another of its members for the job which my constituent had secured. I do not think that that is tolerable, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has rejected it.
  But following from my example, which related to the pre-entry closed shop, I should like a little more clarification of the meaning of what I hope my right hon. Friend does not think it discourteous of me to describe as a somewhat cumbersomely drafted Clause. If he looks at subsection (5)(a), he will see that provision is made in which it is open to an employer
  "…to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against a worker to whom the agreement applies "—
  I must say that I do not like the sound of "dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against a worker" in any circumstances—
  "on the grounds that he is not, and has refused or failed to become, a member of the trade union…"
  or another trade union.
  What I should like to know from my right hon. Friend is the significance of the words "or failed". It is perhaps revealing that these words do not appear in the parallel provisions of subsection (5)(b) which are
  "…that he has not, and has refused to become…"
  a member of the trade union.

  947
  It must on the ordinary canons of interpretation be that the words "or failed" have, or are intended to have, some meaning, though after the recent revelation of how the Finance Act, 1968 was drafted, that is perhaps an optimistic view.
  4.45 p.m.
  What is meant by "or failed"? It seems to me at least capable of the interpretation that a person who is not a member of a trade union, who has not refused to join but fails to join, is a person who, like my constituent in the case to which I have referred, has applied for membership and has been rejected by the union. If that is so, it casts a rather different light on the operation of the Clause than my right hon. Friend put upon it, because it would mean that the worker who was willing to join the appropriate trade union under these arrangements but who was blackballed for membership by the union would be liable to be dismissed, penalised or otherwise discriminated against by his employer.
  I cannot believe that this is what my right hon. Friend wants. I am sufficiently conscious enough of my own limitations in understanding the drafting of these Clauses to believe that there may well be some other interpretation than that to which, on the fact of it, this seems to lead. But I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend at some stage, whenever convenient to him, could clear up this point because, unhappy as I am about the Clause as a whole, if this wording really meant what it seems possible for it to mean, I would find it impossible to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby.
  Mr. R. Carr: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, let me answer that one point. My right hon. Friend should remember Clause 61, because that Clause lays down guiding principles for the organisation of workers, and it lays down that membership may not be arbitrarily or unreasonably refused. I think that we recognise that a union has a perfect right to make a condition of membership: reasonable terms, for example, to ensure qualifications necessary for safety in some particular trade. Therefore, it would be proper for somebody to fail to get in for
  948
  failing to meet the perfectly proper conditions laid down in the law. But we are saying that in future, once this Bill is law, in the sort of case that my right hon. Friend quoted of his constituent, who clearly had been accepted as being properly qualified in every way in the past, he should not be refused membership under this Bill.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The example which my right hon. Friend gave of an insufficiently qualified man carries some weight, but surely he will appreciate that in this new Clause we are dealing with a man who ex hypothesi is already working for an employer—otherwise he does not come into the sub-Clause—and who presumably would have been able to continue to work unless a closed shop arrangement had been imposed.
  Are we not, therefore, in this position, that either the union rejects him for something reasonable, like qualifications, or, if the union acts unreasonably, the unfortunate man who has been discriminated against has got to take up the case as an unfair industrial practice under Clause 61. However theoretically possible, I suggest that that is not in the real world. There is, therefore, a very real difficulty here.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has been arguing the case from the point of view of the freedom of the individual. I want to refer to three specific Amendments which I think are essential to the new Clause if this Clause is to be in any sense useful. I am afraid that the consequence of accepting these Amendments would make the Clause even more offensive to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames than it is at present.
  Nobody would deny that the freedom of the individual is important. But we on this side of the House are concerned with the freedom of the group who protect the individual. We maintain that that freedom is no less important, for unless the freedom of the group is maintained to enable the group to look after those who belong to it, we deprive those individuals of their freedom. There is, therefore, a difference of philsophy here. In our experience on this side of the House, the freedom of the individual

  949
  cannot be preserved unless he is within a group. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. Our whole experience leads us to the conclusion that we can be free only within the expression of a collective freedom.
  It is recognised that in some professions the total collective organisation which makes up the profession is essential, on behalf of the community as a whole and on behalf of the indivduals who belong to that group. What is sauce for the doctors and the lawyers is equally sauce for the trade unionists on this side of the House.
  Mr. David Waddington rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I will give way in a moment. We say that this is equally sauce for the trade unions, and we make no distinction between actors or seamen or others who feel that freedom cannot be served except by a collective organisation.
  Mr. Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman has referred to lawyers to illustrate his argument. There is no obligation upon a member of the Bar to be a member of the Bar Council. The two things are quite separate.
  Mr. Jenkins: Whether or not the legal profession possesses adequate disciplinary powers to control those within the profession, we might reasonably debate on another occasion.
  I will now turn to the three points to which I specifically want to draw attention—
  Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman is passing to another point, would he give way? I am grateful to him for doing so. I think there is some misconception on the other side of the House. I have often heard it said on previous occasions during the passage of this Bill that the lawyers operate a closed shop. Does he not concede that there is a great deal of difference between the law requiring that before a man can pratise a certain profession he should have certain qualifications, a law which is designed for the protection of the public, and a man being compelled to join a particular organisation? Would the hon. Gentleman not reconsider his earlier remarks on this subject and concede that a doctor has
  950
  not got to be a member of the B.M.A., that a barrister has not got to be a member of the Bar Council and that a solicitor has not got to be a member of the Law Society? Therefore, there is no question of the closed shop principle in those professions at all.
  Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. All he is saying is that under certain different circumstances different compulsions apply. That is indeed the case. But one cannot say that because a particular compulsion is necessay in one case, all other compulsions are automatically rulled out. I think I shall illustrate my point better if I am allowed to continue.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)rose——
  Mr. Jenkins: I will give way in a moment to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think I could best illustrate my case if I were to proceed to the particular arguments which I wish to adduce, without taking up too much time, and if I do not allow myself to be diverted too much on this issue. I will now give way to the Solicitor-General.
  The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He said that in different professions different compulsions apply. The point is that there are no compulsions to belong to any organisations in any of the professions which he mentioned. The only compulsion which applies, if one is to continue practising as a doctor, a lawyer or a barrister is that one should comply with the qualification conditions, and that one should not be discharged or dismissed by bodies like the General Medical Council on grounds of misconduct and not for failing to belong to a particular organisation. There is no compulsion to belong to any organisation in order to continue practising. The only compulsion is to conform with standards asserted by bodies like the G.M.C. in the public interest.
  Mr. Jenkins: What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that in those professions in which an examinational qualification is laid down, that qualification is all right; but he is not ready to accept that in other professions a qualification agreed by people in the profession as a whole is reasonable. We could argue about this for a long time.

  951
  It seems to me that the proposition which hon. Members opposite put forward—that there is only one form of qualification which should be recognised, and that other forms of qualification laid down by people in other occupations are entirely unacceptable—is one which we on this side of the House could never accept.
  Mr. R. Carr: May I point out that we have no objection, for example, to a union agreeing that certain standards of competence and certain qualifications should be essential for employment in a particular trade. What we object to is that in addition to those standards of competence, one has compulsorily to be a member of a particular organisation. The Bar does not do that. Medicine does not do that. They require standards of competence which are decided by examination. That is not the only way of laying down standards of competence.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman gives the impression, at least, of being a reasonable man, and I shall hope to explain to him later precisely why the forms of qualification about which he has been talking do not apply elsewhere, and why other forms of qualification are necessary.
  I come now to Amendment (c), which, in spite of what has just been said, I believe to be non-controversial and acceptable to the Government. Amended in this way, subsection (1)(a) of new Clause No. 1 would read:
  "…is made between one or more employers and one or more trade unions, or between one or more employers' associations whether registered or not and one or more trade unions".
  After I have explained the purpose here, I hope to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he regards this change as acceptable, but, in order to explain the matter, at the risk of wearying the House, I shall have to give a little of the history of how the Equity shop came about.
  Up till the 1930s, there was an appalling background in the acting profession, with bad employers, with people not being paid, and with appalling conditions of work. At that time, there were two competing trade unions, a Left-wing union called the Actors' Association and a Right-wing union called the Stage
  952
  Guild. Neither of those two organisations could cope with the situation because they were not universal.
  In the state of chaos then existing, a group of actors, the leading actors in the country, got together and decided that those things must stop. They signed an undertaking, which is preserved in the Equity offices to this day. It was signed by the leading actors in this country at that time, irrespective of their political views—they were not militants—and it was in these terms:
  "We, the undersigned, pledge ourselves not to sign any contract which would deny our right to refuse to work with non-members of Equity".
  The House will see that what is being asserted there is the right of the group to refuse to work with one individual.
  That decision has applied ever since. The morning after the declaration was signed, the Equity officers were besieged because it was recognised by employers and employees that, if the distinguished actors in the country were determined to assert their right to refuse to work with non-members of Equity, the thing to do was to join.
  For the first time, there was a qualification, and that qualification was membership of the trade union. For the first time, there was the possibility of order being brought out of chaos. The Government of the day, a Conservative Government, recognised the situation, and Oliver Stanley, who was the Minister of Labour at the time, set up an organisation, to give validity to the principles set out in the declaration. The London Theatre Council was created, and, after that, the Provincial Theatre Council. Those two Theatre Councils brought out a series of contracts which were known as Esher contracts. The name of Lord Esher is revered throughout the theatrical profession, because these Esher contracts contained a union-shop principle which made possible the establishment of order and decency in the acting profession—and, incidentally, on the basis of that order and decency, helped to make this country the finest theatrical country in the world. It is the basis of those contracts which the Government are now out to destroy.
  The Esher contracts provided also that in the provinces two theatrical managers'

  953
  associations should be parties. There were four organisations, the Theatrical Managers' Association, the Association of Touring and Producing Managers, the Variety Artistes' Federation, and Equity. These four organisations validated the contracts, and every contract said that the employer should be a member of the employers' association, or, if he were not, he had to put down a deposit to ensure that the money would be there for the actors' salaries at the end of the week. On the other side, the contract said that the actor would be a member of Equity, or, as it was at that time, the Variety Artistes' Federation.
  That principle has operated ever since. Every actor's contract, from the top to the bottom, is essentially the same, and that is the basis upon which security has been effected, through the existence of the union shop.
  Who carries out the discipline? The contracts are not one-sided agreements. They are negotiated between the employee and the employers' organisation, and they are issued by the Provincial Theatre Council, the chairman of which has always been appointed by the Minister of Labour, and would, no doubt, be appointed today by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State if a change were to be made.
  The system brought into being in that way has been run on the basis that discipline is enforced by the trade union. It is the trade union which collects fines if the employers and the union collectively decide that there will be fines. It is the trade union which ensures that the actor is there when the curtain goes up.
  This discipline can be enforced only by an organisation which has the power to enforce it, an organisation which can go to any employer and say, "You will not have any workers, you will have no one on the stage at all, unless you are prepared to use the Esher standard contract", which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, in his wisdom, decided was the right system to operate in this field.
  Without the changes which I am pressing upon the Government, it will be impossible for that system to be maintained. Since these days, the Theatre Council system has been extended to the cinema
  954
  and television. Throughout the whole range of entertainment, with some changes and differences, it has operated to bring some security into a life which is notoriously insecure. It is that which we seek to protect and maintain, but it is that which the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would take away.
  Now, Amendment (d), to leave out the words "or become" in paragraph (b), so that the closing words would read:
  "…every such worker, unless specially exempted, must be a member of that trade union.…"
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was a little worried about a similar provision a little lower down. I was at first surprised that he was not worried about this one, too, but I think that I now understand, because the subsection as at present worded preserves what the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to preserve, namely, that it shall be a post-entry shop.
  If the post-entry shop is the only form of shop allowed, in the world with which I am most closely concerned it will mean that no form of restriction can be operated. Everyone knows that in the entertainment world the problem is not to get people in, it is not a question of recruitment or forcing people to be members of the trade union; it is to keep them out. They all want to come in, and the problem is to try to keep unemployment at about one-third of the total of workers. At the moment, unemployment among actors is nearer half, and if the right hon. Gentleman's Clause goes through unamended there will be many more people unemployed than there are employed, because it will not be possible to operate the casting agreements as they are operated at present.
  If the trade union and the employers together are not able to say, "You are not already a member of the union, and we are not admitting any extra members to this area", every casting agreement which Equity now has will be invalidated overnight.
  Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Gentleman go so far as to contend that the most appropriate instrument to dissuade people from entering a trade or industry in excessive numbers would be a closed shop? Is he saying that a closed shop agreed between the employers and the

  955
  trade union is the best and most appropriate instrument for restricting the number of people in a trade or industry?
  Mr. Jenkins: I am saying that experience has shown it to be the only way, when the occupation carries with it a certain spurious glamour and when people mistakenly believe that the occupation is one in which they will enjoy themselves and earn vast sums with very little effort. The true situation is nothing like that. By the time they discover that it is nothing like it, it may be too late. Their opportunity to learn another useful occupation and one which they could put to the use of the community is by this time gone, because the learning years may have passed.
  For this reason, I believe that the Equity shop is an absolute necessity and that, unless the Government accept my Amendment, the preservation of the trade union's power to control the number of people coming in will be destroyed. This is why I find the Clause as it stands unacceptable.
  I turn finally to Amendment (jjjj) on page 2445, which seeks to insert in line 196 of the Secretary of State's proposed new Schedule—
  (c) every employer of relevant workers shall be covered by such agreement whether or not the employer is a member of the employer's association or associations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who so ably represents the interests of seamen in the House, and I commend this Amendment to the House.
  I hope that this Amendment, too, will commend itself to the Secretary of State. This Amendment seeks to deal with the bad employer. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman about good employers. If we had to deal with only good employers, there would be no great problems and there would be hardly any necessity for trade unions. The problem is that we have to deal with all kinds of employers.
  In the car industry we have to deal, not only with the employers where there is relatively little trouble, but also with Fords. Similarly in the entertainment world, the problem is not usually the large and established employers. It is the smaller employers. It is also those employers who may be very good but who
  956
  are very temporary, who are here today and gone tomorrow, and who are not members of the Association.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will seek to say a few words about this as it affects those about whom he is particularly concerned. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find this Amendment acceptable, because without it it will be impossible, even if other Amendments are accepted, to maintain organisation throughout. The essence of organisation in the entertainment world is that it must be universal.
  For these reasons, I commend to the House the three Amendments which I have been advocating. Without these three Amendments, the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House and which he suggests will meet the problems of those with whom I am particularly concerned and of those with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is particularly concerned will do nothing.
  If that be the case, my advice to those people must necessarily be this. If the Government will not concede these points, they are making no real concession and the only thing people can do in these circumstances is to put their backs to the wall and fight the whole thing through to the end.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I will not follow the direct argument which has been adduced by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new Clause, which will go further towards obtaining industrial discipline than some of the speeches we have heard so far may have suggested. It is not only a question of the seamen, the actors or the individual objecting to joining a union. It has become apparent as the Bill has proceeded through its stages that trade unions and management have wished to have the opportunity of having a closed shop for the benefit of the industry and of the workers. The fact that my right hon. Friend has introduced the new Clause shows that he has not a closed mind, even on aspects of major principle.
  Whether we like it or not, in certain industries management, perhaps because of the size or dispersal

  957
  of the industry or the size of the firm, has lost the ordinary control which management should have over industrial discipline. The control over industrial discipline has in such circumstances passed to the trade unions. Whether the trade unions want it is another matter. The power of management in certain areas has decreased as the power of the trade unions has increased. The docks are perhaps an easy and useful illustration.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: Talk about the coal mines.
  Mr. Emery: In the docks the operation of more than one union has allowed militancy amongst certain organisations of workers to work against the desire of the Transport and General Workers' Union, which is the main union. It is no secret that the main union has not wanted to intervene to deal with problems until a strike has been running for two or three weeks.
  The operation of a closed shop in that industry, with one union dominating, will allow the unions to have control over its militants, something which has not happened up to the present. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I think that a trade union should have the right to preclude certain people from being members of the union, whether by depriving them of their union cards if they are already members or by stopping them from obtaining employment, because the trade union believes that such people will not assist in operating the arrangements which the union has entered into, and I hope registered, under the Bill.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the question whether a man is employed or not employed should be decided by the union and not by the employer?
  Mr. Emery: Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) likes it or not, that is the case in certain industries today. He may dismiss the fact, but let him at least be practical and open-minded enough to acknowledge that, in certain industries, this power rests not with the management but with the trade unions. The trade unions know it.
  Mr. Gower: But has my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) not gone a little further than that? Has he not said that it is highly desirable? He said that it is highly desirable that a trade union should have the right to dissuade or prevent persons from being members not because of any deficiency of qualification but because of some other matter at the discretion of the union.
  Mr. Emery: I said that, in certain instances, it may be desirable. Perhaps I may spell it out again so that my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) may absolutely understand it. Supposing there is a militant who is disrupting agreements which the union and the management may want to have under a closed shop. It will be possible for that person to be disciplined and perhaps to have his trade union card taken away, if that is necessary. One of the matters with which this Bill is principally concerned, and which is important surely to both sides of this House, as it is to both sides of industry, is to obtain a greater degree of industrial discipline. This is one of the weaknesses which Henry Ford has been talking about over the weekend. Responsible trade unionists are willing to discuss it in private. They do not want to discuss it in public but they recognise the difficulties in that they have not always been able properly to control some of their members. It is not surprising, but it goes against the interests of trade unions. If the Bill can strengthen the powers of trade unions in this matter, it is a good thing.
  One must, therefore, go against the argument propounded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. He said that individual liberty must be defended by this House. He referred to the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen. It is certainly the individual's right to work, but it is not his right to be able to disrupt an industrial organisation purely on his right, for example, to be given a certain job.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend puts it, it sounds reasonable, but what he is asking for is the right, at the discretion of a trade union, to deprive a man of the right to work, whether he be disruptive or whether his fault be the opposite one, of working too hard.
  Mr. Emery: The rights of the individual worker in that matter are covered by Clauses 61 and 62. The rights of the individual in those instances where both the industry and the trade union wish to come to an agreement should be preserved. Both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. have argued this and I congratulate the Government on ensuring that it will happen.
  How does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State envisage this in practice? What delay does he see in the matter having to go to the Court before it goes to the Commission? There is force in the argument that it would be useful for it to be possible for the matter to be referred directly to the Commission Without having to go to the Court first. Why, therefore, must the Government have this extra proviso in the procedure when it seems to involve delay and is, on the whole, unnecessary?
  Will my hon. Friend say something about the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames concerning the way in which a trade union might or might not be able to discipline a person under a closed shop arrangement by taking away his right to work? If a man is shown to be disruptive of an agreement or of the rules of his union, that seems to me to be a fair reason and one which would normally be substantiated. If such action is taken, has that worker any right of appeal? A right of appeal would meet the point put by my right hon. Friend. Surely no one could have any objection if the worker had a right of appeal against the action of his union in depriving him of his card. All we are trying to ensure is that this shall be done properly and legitimately and not out of personal pique or the personal feelings of a trade union official.
  The matter of greater consideration, above all, is that it has been proved that a closed shop agreement can be beneficial—indeed, it is beneficial at the moment.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: Sometimes.
  Mr. Emery: I am not saying that it has been beneficial in every instance but that it has been beneficial where management and unions have wished to have it brought about and substantiated.
  960
  I wonder whether the Government are certain that the right criterion for establishing this is that 50 per cent. of all those who are able to vote should be in favour. The criterion is not that 50 per cent. of those who actually vote must be in favour. We all know, from our knowledge of elections in trade unions and other associations and societies, how difficult it is to get those who are qualified to vote to do so. Particularly if a very large union is involved, the result will be very difficult to obtain. I wonder whether the Government should not alter the requirement so that a closed shop could continue if 50 per cent. of those actually voting were in favour.
  My general view of the new Clause is that it is a step in the right direction, and I hoped that it would be welcomed to a greater extent by hon. Members opposite than has been the case so far. It goes much further towards benefiting both sides of industry than was expected.
  Mr. John Prescott: I represent a seafaring constituency and I want to address my remarks to the difficulties of the merchant seamen in relation to the new Clause. The Secretary of State talked about 5 per cent. of the trade union movement—not the other 95 per cent. It is my belief and that of my union—the National Union of Seamen—that the closed shop principle is applicable to all trade unionism and is necessary in many cases for the development of strong trade unions. In certain cases, to abolish it will entail degrees of severity which will vary from union to union. In the case of the National Union of Seamen, the difficulty arises from the abolition of the pre-entry closed shop.
  The new Clause obviously represents a rethinking of the Government's attitude on this matter and is perhaps a welcome departure from some of the rather abstract arguments we heard from them at earlier stages. It reveals some rather more practical thinking about the problems which a number of trade unions face.
  5.30 p.m.
  The new Clause recognises something that we have frequently attempted to explain to the Government—that the right to belong and the right not to belong to a trade union are not equal. The Clause

  961
  is long and complex in its attempt to cover 5 per cent. of the country's labour force, and in that it reminds me of one of the theories advanced in technology—that the smaller the problem, the more money is needed to buy the equipment to deal with it. A similar principle seems to have been applied to the Clause, which is to cover about 5 per cent of the labour force. I believe that the figure of 5 per cent. is based on the Donovan Report, which said that 5 per cent. of the labour force was covered by closed shop agreements, but how many unions could qualify under the Clause is debatable.
  The Clause is meant to be a compromise. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) explained one of the difficulties, in that the Clause will deny rights to non-trade unionists who may be parties to an agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has strong views about the liberty of the individual. I should like to draw the attention of the House to other difficulties which have already been mentioned to the Government in their discussions of the problem.
  The Clause may not completely destroy the National Union of Seamen, but it is a long step towards crippling effective trade union representation in the shipping industry. It has frequently been said that the Bill is designed to cripple the trade union movement and especially shop floor representation. The new Clause is drafted in the hope that it will meet some of the difficulties which have been explained to the Government, but it will not solve the problems. It ducks the main issue. It does not say that seamen or anybody else will be exempt, but it provides that the Commission for Industrial Relations will decide the issue and, once again, authority in important matters is therefore delegated to outside bodies.
  Mine is a pre-entry closed shop union and we control the labour force. I shall not weary the House with the reasons for that, for I have given them in other speeches. It is important to remember that in this industry the labour force does not just do its job and then go home. It does its job and then lives as a community aboard a vessel, and that creates major difficulties in working relationships and introduces tensions which might be
  962
  increased if there were no union control of the labour force. Most important, by the maintenance of a pre-entry closed shop, we have been able to establish some degree of safety aboard vessels. The competence of the crews in our ships is maintained at a standard which is much higher than that of the ships of other nations which sail in our channels. That is an important achievement for a union.
  I give one small example in justification of my view. The Government lay down manning standards for vessels in that certain members of a crew must have certain certificates if they are to sail on certain vessels. However, in the past many companies have required seamen on large vessels only to clean bulkheads for instance. These men have been able to leave to go to smaller ships. We call these men "deck hands uncertified ". Special problems are created by the increase in the number of uncertified seamen in the industry and the problem will be increased if the pre-entry closed shop is denied. I will not develop this theme, although there are other examples which I could give.
  The Government have recognised the special circumstances in which an approved closed shop agreement could apply. The closed shop is applicable to all trade unions, but how strictly it is applied will vary from industry to industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) detailed the provisions of the Clause. It requires, in line with the principle of the Bill, that a closed shop agreement should be made by a union approved by the Registrar. The application must be jointly made by the union and the employer. It is conditional on all the criteria being satisfied. It is conditional on the union registering as such and, in certain circumstances, applying to the courts which so many of us find so objectionable.
  Why should joint application be necessary? The argument should be as sound if only the union applies. It is always with the bad employer that we are concerned and if he does not agree to go for registration, the whole exercise will fail, and yet it is the bad- employer who is the kind of person who will not want to recognise the development of trade unionism anyway. An employer or

  963
  employers' association may refuse to register and should then be subject to the same provisions as a union in similar circumstances.
  I may be asked why an employers' association would refuse. It may be that it did not want trade unionism at any price in that industry, and it might be that there were good economic reasons for its view. In America, for instance, a number of oil companies have opted out of union agreements because of their special kinds of development, and a number of companies may find it attractive to employ labour more cheaply or, as in my industry, there may be access to foreign labour, to an international pool of unemployed seamen.
  There may be powerful economic reasons for it refusing to do anything. This may be thought to be pushing the point, but the Cunard Steamship Company, in which I served for many years and from which I was ultimately banned for trade union activities, has said that it is thinking of manning British ships with Greek crews. There is a powerful economic incentive not to register as a company or employers' association. There will be some companies excessively powerful within an association which can exercise a disproportionate amount of influence upon the decision of an association as to registration. If it did not register then the whole thing would fall. We are giving to employers the right to frustrate and deter the development of trade unionism.
  Mr. Stainton: Can the hon. Gentleman develop this important point about the possible arrangement between Cunard and the Greek shipowner? Can he develop it in terms of chartering?
  Mr. Prescott: I certainly could, but I am conscious of the need to remain in order. This is a constant problem. The chartering is made easy because if the company charters a ship there is no requirement that the crew should be British. The crew is chartered with the ship. This is happening constantly with a lot of Liberian shipping as I have pointed out in this House. It is a threat to our stability and that is why we need to have international solidarity in my industry, because it is an international threat.
  964
  This gives the right to the employer to frustrate and deter the development of trade unionism. Taking the argument in the context of the Bill as it stands, if an agreement is to be made with the consent of the employers' association and the trade union, we have to go through the process of drawing up a closed shop agreement, submitting it to the Court to be passed to the C.I.R., which considers it. If an employer refuses to be a party to that application and the C.I.R. decides that a closed shop is necessary, in such conditions can the agreement be forced upon the employer who refuses to be a member of the association?
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would it not be true to say that the recalcitrant employer could organise 20 per cent. to ballot against the proposal and defeat the whole plan?
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend has taken my second point from me. Assume that the C.I.R. has decided that there should be a closed shop. There is then a period of one to three months during which such an employer could get 20 per cent. to object to this and have the agreement set aside if 51 per cent. of those eligible to vote do not agree. If we give the employer the right to ask for a closed shop I assume we also give him the right to do what he can to prevent the imposition of a closed shop if he does not wish it.
  I come next to the independent workers' organisation, that is, one that is not a trade union by definition. In this context trade unions are those bodies which have registered. If it is right that there should be a closed shop in an industry, because of reasons which have convinced the C.I.R., ought that not to be available also to the independent workers' organisation, if the Government wish to maintain a strengthened trade union organisation? The argument is equally valid.
  We have heard of the "gateways" argument dealing with the "gateways" embodied in the Bill. However, we have heard the various interpretations that can be placed on the words in the Bill inside this House. The whole course of trade union history shows that different judges have interpreted things differently and, no coincidence, have interpreted such things against trade unions when there has been strong anti-trade union feeling. There is,

  965
  for example, the word "reasonable." The Bill talks of reasonable terms and conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of continued employment. I do not suppose that anyone would be able to give me a tight definition of "reason able ". We have tried but it is not possible. How can we get an interpretation of a reasonable wage or a fair wage?
  What is "stable collective bargaining "? Is it when only 35 per cent. is in the union, as happens in America? We shall have no influence in the interpretation of these words and instead the extent and course of trade union development will be determined by an outside body.
  If it is decided by the C.I.R. that an agency shop could apply, then the closed shop is denied. The most important thing is that a union has to satisfy all those points set out. That will make it extremely difficult. That is why we can justly say that this is an attempt to cripple the development of trade unionism in certain areas.
  Extreme difficulties will arise with ballots. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay attention to this. It is particularly so because of the transient work force in my industry. Both the Pearson and Rochdale Reports into the industry show that 80 per cent. of those in the industry will have left it within five years. That means that in a three month period over 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the seafaring population will have left, and that can bring about problems with balloting. There will be all sorts of disputes about whether the 20 per cent. contains people who have left the industry.
  The problem about ballots is that we have thousands of ships all over the world and it is not possible to get a letter to them in three months. Ships go to places which are almost inaccessible where there are no means of radio communication or of getting ballot papers to them. My union has found it increasingly difficult to carry out elections for its executive council and for the office of general secretary. Despite extending the period of the ballot to over six months, only 5.7 per cent. of the membership took part in the ballot in 1969, although many more applied for papers through the Electoral Reform Society, which runs our elections. Another difficulty is
  966
  that the length of the voyage may be so considerable that it is not possible to get in touch with the men in time. They may be away for two years and therefore would be disfranchised.
  Will an agreement apply to an industry or to a company? Many of our men change their ship in a matter of weeks. If an agreement applies to a company, will the company be able to opt out? It is proposed that the court will be able to take into account special circumstances, but it will be absolutely impossible to get 51 per cent. of the membership to take part in the vote. Imposition of the kind of conditions proposed makes the Clause almost meaningless.
  Mr. Orme: Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of the approximate number of members of his union who are in the United Kingdom at one time?
  Mr. Prescott: I cannot. It is extremely difficult to give the number. However, 20 per cent. of seamen are ashore waiting for jobs.
  What power will be available to discipline the rogue company which does not want to agree to trade union development? The new Clause denies us the use of pressure to ensure the maintenance of a closed shop. Suppose that a company desires to employ a foreign crew. Companies are employing Spanish seamen, for example, in places like Rotterdam. They may say," We have made them members of the trade union ". The situation can be controlled only by the existence of a pre-entry closed shop. If there is no such control, companies will be able to go abroad and employ foreign labour and pay the union contribution in order to keep the men on the ship.
  I come to the question of special exemption and the conscience Clause. The effect of the Clause is that a member of a closed shop agreement can be sacked for being a member of a trade union. Clause 8 gives a man a period in which to make up his mind whether to become a conscientious objector. His vessel may be in any part of the world. There will be no pressure on him because the company cannot discharge him since the Merchant Shipping Acts prevent it and it will be obliged to bring him back to this country. If it is said that he must make a decision before he joins the ship, he might have to make it half an hour before joining.

  967
  My union and I feel that the Clause is a compromise which will go a very short way to solving our problems. We adhere strongly to the overriding principle of the collective agreement. We believe in the voluntary development of trade unionism. Like all trade unions, we are against the Bill. The conditions which the Government lay down make it almost useless. This attempt to compromise satisfies no one and will serve only to cripple the development of trade unionism in the shipping industry.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: After the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), mine will be a very boring, nitpicking speech and therefore I warn hon. Members that now is the time to go.
  I was interested in the defence of the pre-entry closed shop put forward by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He said that the Clause would be useless to his union because it forbade the pre-entry closed shop. I ask the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) who knows all about these things, to tell me how the pre-entry closed shop works. I understand from the hon. Member for Putney that membership of his union, Equity, is given only to actors and actresses of experience. Yet they are not allowed to get a job unless they are already members. How on earth do they get into the union in those circumstances? My hon. Friend is going to give the answer.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I would like to put my hon. and learned Friend right at an early stage because I know that the rest of his speech will be constructive and helpful. The qualification has been made perfectly clear. In the special conditions of the acting business it is not possible to have easily recognised qualifications as do lawyers or doctors who have to pass examinations. The qualification asked for is that one satisfies an employer that one has been offered a job and has carried it out. That qualification enables one to become a member of Equity. It is the only qualification an actor has for this purpose.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If one has to have had a job there can surely be no absolute
  968
  pre-entry closed shop. If people have already been employed before becoming members of the union, I do not quite see the absolute severity of the pre-entry closed shop which the hon. Member for Putney seeks to maintain.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to explain to him now rather than later? As the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has just said, there is no attempt to prevent or to control entry into the profession as a whole. The position is that, within the general freedom, there is what is called a casting agreement whereby certain sectors of the industry are enclosed, as it were, and it is possible to enter those sectors—the films are a case in point—only if a person has entered already through another sector and so acquired a degree of training before he gets into the area of the enclosure. I am sorry to take up the time of the House on this but I think it may save the hon. and learned Gentleman from being under a misapprehension if I explain that within the general freedom of entry, provided there is a contract, there are restricted sectors, closing around those who have acquired some knowledge and experience of the business.
  Mr. John Page: I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for allowing me to remind him that representatives from Equity came to visit us in the House and that they accepted the view that they did not operate a pre-entry closed shop.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am most grateful for those three informative interventions, and it seems to me that according to the last and most received opinion there is no pre-entry closed shop. In that case I do not quite know why the hon. Member for Putney was so insistent that it should be preserved.
  I heard with great interest my right hon. Friend say that this was a post-entry closed shop. I was not sure, from reading this long and complicated new Clause, and I am still not absolutely sure, on that. It is true that the sidenote to Clause 7 says
  " Pre-entry closed shop agreements to be void."
  We all know that a sidenote does not govern a Clause or a Bill but at any

  969
  rate this one helps. But in what will presumably be the sidenote to this new Clause we see
  "Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement."
  giving one no indication whether this would be a pre-entry or a post-entry agreement.
  The first request 1 would make is that that should be made clear in the sidenote when it is put into the Bill, because I think there is some ambiguity about it. I will try, without boring the House, to explain why.
  An approved agreement means, we know from subsection (1)(b) of the new Clause,
  "an agreement whereby it is agreed, in respect of workers of one or more descriptions specified in the agreement, that their terms and conditions of employment shall include a condition that every such worker … must be or become a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be".
  That may be read in two ways. That can either mean that it is to the option of the employee either that he is or will subsequently become a member; or it can mean that there can be agreement that he must already be a member or alternatively there can be an agreement that he can become a member.
  The first of these readings, or rather, the reading of an agreement that the employee must be a member, is, of course, a pre-entry closed shop, and that possibility of that reading is, to my mind, strengthened by the words "as the case may be".
  Here is a real nitpicking point. It will be said, "Oh, no, that means only a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions as the case may be ". That is to say, that the words "as the case may be" govern only the latter alternative. I wonder whether that is right, because subsection (3) uses the words "as the case may be" in brackets immediately governing the alternative trade union or one of the trade unions; and the same matter applies in subsection (5,a) where the words are in brackets, and there they clearly govern only the second possible alternative.
  If there is any doubt about it, then I hope that it will be very carefully redrafted even if it means keeping their Lordships' House up another night. The
  970
  hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said so eloquently one thing with which I strongly agree, and that is that different judges interpret these things differently. He knows that and I know that. Therefore, I want this matter taken out of the realm of judicial choice and made quite clear, if necessary by redrafting, that in subsection (1,b) the word "or" does not give the alternative of a pre-entry closed shop as one reading of that subsection might do.
  I do not think, if I may say so with great respect—I do not wonder, because, obviously, the Clause has been drafted quickly—that it is altogether clear in other respects. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out to me another similar difficulty in subsection (5,b). This is a case in which an approved closed shop agreement applies and an employer is entitled to
  "refuse to engage a worker who, if engaged by him, would be a worker to whom the agreement applies, on the grounds that he is not and has refused to become, a member of that trade union …"
  What about the worker who tried to become a member of the union and was blackballed? It is true that he is not a member of that trade union because he has been blackballed, but he has not refused to become a member, because he applied.
  In those circumstances, although he was not a member of the trade union, the employer would be obliged to employ him. It cannot be right that an employer should be obliged to accept a man who has been blackballed, for good or bad reasons, by the union in the case of a closed shop agreement. It is true that he is not a member of the union, but he has not refused to become one, because he applied and was rejected. There is the word "and". Before he is rejectable he has both not to be a member and to have refused to become a member, and in the case which I am posing he did not refuse to become a member: he asked to become a member but was rejected. Nevertheless, the employer is obliged to accept him under subsection (5,b) as drafted.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Am I not right in thinking that under Schedule 3 the union does not have a right to refuse membership if the man' is reasonably well

  971
  qualified, and therefore the blackballing to which my hon. Friend has referred does not arise?
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I was not on that point, although it is a good one. I am assuming that the man has been rejected for good and sufficient reasons. This is not a Clause 61 case. He has not been excluded by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, but has been rejected because, for example, he is a notorious trouble-maker. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was bitter against trouble-makers today and thought they should be thoroughly disciplined. Let us assume such a man has asked the union for membership and the union has refused membership not on arbitrary and unreasonable grounds but because the man never pays his dues and has been thoroughly shifty all his life, nobody will work with him, and so on. That man is not a member of the union. But he has not refused to become a member of the union, because he has asked for membership. He has been rejected, but nevertheless he is entitled to be employed under the closed shop agreement as I read subsection (5)(b).
  Mr. James Thin: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if the employer may be obliged to take that man on under subsection (5)(b), he could then dismiss him under subsection (5)(a)?
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and this illustrates that the drafting of the Clause cannot be right. It is absurd to suppose that the employer is not entitled to reject him and must engage him, and then after two days is entitled to sack him. That must be wrong. Although the hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that paragraphs (b) and (a) must be read together, they are not simultaneous in their application. One deals with a situation in which the man is already employed, and the other with the man who is applying for employment. That is why I said that this would be a nitpicking speech. I have picked two nits. I have picked the one about the ambiguity of the word "or" in line 7—if I may recapitulate now that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is
  972
  here—and my view that the word "and" in line 32 should be "or ". With those two corrections my nits would disappear.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), referred to his speech as nitpicking. I hope he was not referring to the three interjections which were made when he was dealing with the pre-entry closed shop. I do not know whether he was any wiser after receiving the advice of the three hon. Members who interrupted him, but it did not make sense to the rest of the House. We are still uncertain whether Equity is a pre-entry closed shop, but I suspect that it depends on what is meant by "entry" to a stage career.
  The first question of principle before the House is whether closed shop agreements should be exempted at all under the Bill. Having listened to the Committee stage, I thought that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made a very powerful case for the exemption of the National Union of Seamen from the provisions of the Bill. I started out from the position of being instinctively against a closed shop, but he made out a very good case for exempting the National Union of Seamen, because of the difficulties of the Merchant Navy. These have always been recognised in our law. The Merchant Shipping Acts, which contain special provisions dealing with the Merchant Navy, show that seamen are in a different category of employment from anyone else. I found the hon. Member very convincing again today. His specific and detailed attack carried a certain amount of conviction even to the untutored, such as myself. He was much better in his specific attack from the point of view of the special interests of the seamen than in his general remarks which he thought he was obliged to make against the Bill in general.
  In the same way, I think that a case has been made out, though not with the same conviction, for exempting the stage not from the pre-entry closed shop but from the prohibition of a closed shop. I have not in the course of the debate heard arguments that would entitle the House to say that there should be a general or blanket approval, even under certain conditions, for other closed shops.

  973
  6.15 p.m.
  Having been convinced that an exemption should be given to the National Union of Seamen and to Equity, I think the right way of doing it would be to exempt them from the provisions of the Bill. There are few general rules which do not bear some specific exceptions. The right place to establish exceptions to the general provisions of the Bill is on the Floor of the House. I know it can be argued that the new Clause, together with the Schedule, gives greater flexibility, and that referring the matter to the C.I.R. enables other closed shops to be established, but I do not like this process.
  If the House thinks that the case of the National Union of Seamen and of Equity is made out, those two unions should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, full stop. There should be no further provision to enable closed shops to be established. I do not like the process whereby gradually there could be a considerable enlargement of the number of closed shops and, if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is correct, the National Union of Seamen might eventually lose its closed shop because of the difficulties which he pointed out.
  I do not think the Clause and Schedule would necessarily secure the objectives immediately in the mind of the House, namely, the exemption of those two bodies. They might have the opposite result and enable many more closed shops to be established while not enabling a closed shop to be established in the Merchant Navy. Having approached the debate with a fairly open mind, and having listened to the arguments, I have become more and more convinced that I should vote against the new Clause and that we should make the two specific exceptions and leave it at that.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was concise and sound in his arguments, but I hope that he will change his mind on his last few words. The case has been made out for the National Union of Seamen and for Equity, and it is unanswerable. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will vote for the new Clause and the Schedule, and so move some way towards getting what we
  974
  want, rather than against them, although I respect him for his clear thinking.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who put the seamen's point of view. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, he had to bring in a certain militancy to keep in with his brothers, but by and large his speech dealt with the special difficulties and complexities of the words used. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will pay heed to the points he made about the National Union of Seamen which to a large extent are endorsed by those who feel that Equity has a similar case.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East pay tribute to the attempt of my right hon. and learned Friend to meet the points made in Committee. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), for whom I have great respect, was rather churlish in the way in which he threw the proposals out of the window, lock, stock and barrel.
  Considering that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and I are virtually brothers in arms in this matter, I was surprised, disturbed and indeed sorry that he could not find it possible to pay tribute to the trouble which the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have taken between the Committee stage and today to try to meet the points that have been made in this context.
  They have kept their promise. They said they would look into the matter and they have accepted, in general, the strength of the case and have tried to find words to cater for Equity and the National Union of Seamen. In the absence of others paying tribute to the occupants of the Government Front Bench, I do so.
  I must, having said that, join forces, at least to some extent, with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in considering in detail the words suggested by the Government, who have made it clear, through the mouth of the Secretary of State, that they believe that we should not have the closed shop principle over the whole of industry, that they agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that if it is to be allowed, it should occur in the minimum

  975
  of cases, that it would not be in the nation's interest to have a general acceptance of the pre-entry closed shop system and that Equity and the National Union of Seamen should have a way out.
  The view having been clearly expressed that a way out should be found for Equity and the seamen, words should be found to make that abundantly clear. I intervened earlier—as I did so from a sedentary position I was out of order and my remarks may not have been noted—to point out that I had faith in my right hon. Friend. However, the words in the Bill when it becomes law should be such as to be crystal clear to all concerned that these two organisations should be allowed to carry on their work with some sort of closed shop idea because that is essential to their existence.
  Remembering that the Bill has yet to pass through another place and return to this House before receiving the Royal Assent to give it the force of law, I hope that my right hon. Friend will keep up the high standard we expect of him and ensure that the Bill contains such words which make it crystal clear that it is accepted that Equity and the seamen should be enabled to carry on as at present.
  The theatrical business is not only important but vital, because the very existence of our economic strength is largely dependent on our being able to attract an ever-increasing share of the world's tourists to this country. As we have been able to produce the skill and know-how in other spheres which have given us a good share of the world's trade, so in theatrical terms we should not be doing our duty if we injured what has already been set afoot with considerable success; namely, establishing the United Kingdom as the centre of world theatreland. New ideas and skills in acting happen in this country and they provide a tremendous inducement to tourists to come here and spend their money.
  I am speaking not for a small pleasure group but for a large business which is a vital ingredient in our capacity to attract our share of the world's wealth through tourist spending. As my right hon. Friend said in no uncertain terms that he wants Equity to get through the net
  976
  which he is properly laying down to preserve the freedom of the individual, I hope that he will find words which will avoid any doubt in this matter to those interpreting this Bill.
  I hope that he will give a clear indication whether, in his view, the present casting agreements will be considered as pre-entry or post-entry conditions. In what he described as a nitpicking speech, but which I found to be entirely helpful, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) thought that casting agreements would be post-rather than pre-entry closed shop conditions, and that is my view. However, they have been interpreted in the past in certain official quarters as being pre-entry conditions. This point should be made absolutely clear and the answer should be identifiable in the Bill.
  I had some sympathy with an Opposition Amendment which seeks to allow a closed shop agreement to be made with more than one employers' association where there is more than one such association in the same field of employment. This is the case in respect of the provincial theatre. It is not possible in this business to say that the union is on one side and an association of all employers is on the other.
  In this and the film business, the unions and Equity are clearly and easily identifiable and they will, no doubt, maintain the highest standards, but on the employers' side, while the bulk of the industry is gathered together by owners and producers, a large section of employment is, of necessity, covered by temporary theatre and film companies, which are set up for perhaps one production and disbanded immediately thereafter. It is essential, therefore, that the Bill contains words which clearly allows for this.
  A critical defect in the Schedule is that while it provides for approved closed shop agreements made with employers associations to be binding on present and future members of those associations, it does not provide for them to be binding on non-member employers in these spheres. Independent managers will be bound in terms of the provincial theatre and, to some extent, in the West End, but in the film industry it is the rule, rather than the exception, for each film to be made by separate limited companies.

  977
  Indeed, this may be the only way in which this industry can obtain its vitality and new approach.
  6.30 p.m.
  I do not think that my right hon. Friend will accept Opposition Amendment (jjj). I understand that. I should like him to look at it. Here again, it should be possible for him to find words which will have the effect of bringing out what is good in the Amendment without interfering with the general principle of the Bill as he sees it. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it may be worth looking at the precedent set in the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, set out in Schedule 6 of the Bill. The principle contained in that Act is that it provides that where terms and conditions are established in any trade or industry by negotiation between employers and unions, terms not less favourable may be enforced upon employers who are not members of the association which was a party of the negotiations. But the safeguard contained in the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act is that before such negotiated terms and conditions became enforceable on non-member employers, it has to be established that the employers' association and the trade union concerned were both representative of a substantial portion of the employers and the workers in the trade or industry concerned.
  Between now and the time when Royal Assent is given to the Bill, my right hon. Friend may wish to have a look at that as a basis of further thought. It may well remove one of the big difficulties in our accepting the present words, as set out in the new Clause, as words which will be understandable by whoever has to take the decision and may make less likely a silly decision.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will recollect his own Amendment tabled during the Committee stage, which did not seek to extend the provisions of a closed shop agreement beyond the members of a given employers' association. I should like to know whether he is now propounding a different argument from that which was then advanced on that point. On the second point, Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, enables terms and conditions
  978
  agreed to be extended across the whole of an industry, does not apply to any terms or conditions relating to trade union membership. I wonder how Equity, at the moment, with its closed shop agreement, be it pre- or post-entry, ensures the adoption by a non-member employer of the conditions which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend to the nonmember employer in the way he suggests.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am contemplating putting down an Amendment, which is still possible until next Thursday, which to some extent would give my views on the last point which the Solicitor-General has put to me. On the first point, I agree that there appears to be some contradiction, but that arises out of the complexity of the answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given to the points I made during the argument on the Committee stage. That is the sort of thing which happens when we have to take the long way around instead of the short cut suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who suggested that we should have exempted these two industries. I reinforce the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
  Whilst there may be general objections to the Industrial Relations Bill, for political or sectional reasons, or whilst certain parts of the House may have to accept a decision eventually which is unpalatable to them, both sides of the House seem to recognise that Equity and the Seamen's Union ought to be exempted from the terms of this closed shop provision. It may well be that to use a few words and exempt these two unions from the terms would be the cleanest and quickest way of doing it. But if that is not possible, if we have gone too far down the other road, of having to use the maximum words, I beg of my right hon. Friend to try to make certain, between now and the Bill becoming accepted legislation, that there can be no doubt that when the matter eventually goes to some court, these two industries will find their way through the net which he properly, in general terms, has put around this subject, in the interests of individual freedom.
  Mr. Orme: It was very interesting to hear that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) had come round firmly to the view that a case had

  979
  clearly been made in favour of omitting Equity and the National Union of Seamen from the provisions of the Bill. That is based not only on his own eloquent argument on behalf of the acting profession, of which he has great detailed knowledge, but also on the case made today and on previous occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), which has been unanswerable in regard to the seafaring profession.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough would recognise, if he refers to the original debate on Clause 5, where this all begins, with the ending of the closed shop, which is ended in some detail in Clause 5 and subsequent Clauses, that on that occasion equally powerful arguments were made by my hon. Friends on behalf of the mining industry, the docks and the distributive industry. Equally powerful arguments were made on those occasions in great detail, showing, as the hon. Member for Peterborough has shown this afternoon, how the application of the closed shop can be in the interests of the industry concerned and is welcomed by both the employers and the trade unions.
  It must be a little disheartening to the Secretary of State to see all his work, the new Clauses and a Schedule of five pages, completely destroyed in argument on both sides of the House this afternoon. This was not only on one side of the House. We even had an intervention from the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) who made one of his infrequent sallies into this debate. He completely astounded his hon. Friends because he carried the argument to an extreme which they could not countenance at all. In every instance he completely justified the case for the extension of the closed shop. Hon. Members on this side of the House could not have made the case more clearly.
  On the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough, the fact that the Secretary of State has not been able to answer the compelling arguments raised this afternoon, the intervention of the Solicitor-General just now did not carry the Front Bench arguments any further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that in a way this was an extention of the agency shop provision; it goes a little further,
  980
  and there is some element of compulsion involved in it, particularly if one looks at subsection (5)—the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) took exception to this—which gives the right for an employer to discipline for not being a member of a trade union, and we have the unusual words—
  "it shall not be an unfair industrial practice"—
  to take action against a person because he is not a member of a trade union. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that it is a most unusual term of words in the Bill.
  In a way, this debate has become an argument about semantics. The interesting point is that the Secretary of State was very careful at the beginning of his speech to say that Clause 5 had not been diluted and, therefore, that the right not to be a member of a union was still paramount and still included in the Bill. However, I find it difficult to equate that with subsection (5). Furthermore, we see in new Clause 2 that the rights written into Clause 5 are taken away. It spells out in detail the right of a person not to belong to a trade union and of an employer not to compel him to be a member of a trade union. If that is so, where are we?
  As I said just now, it must have been very disheartening for the Secretary of State to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), supported by the hon. Member for Peterborough, completely destroying all the right hon. Gentleman's good work and the night oil that has gone into it—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I thought that I made it clear that, in a way, I thought that the hon. Member for Putney did not reflect the view of Equity about the proposed wording. Equity has not turned it down out of hand. My impression is that it would like to see some clearer form of words, but it does not reject it. which is the impression that may have been gained from the speech of the hon. Member for Putney.
  Mr. Orme: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is an extremely serious argument. It was the hon. Gentleman who appealed to the Secretary of State to make it crystal clear that Equity will

  981
  be assisted. However, it is not the Secretary of State who will give a ruling. The Industrial Court will give that ruling.
  Mr. R. Carr: Ministers never give rulings on Bills. It is the courts which always give rulings.
  Mr. Orme: I thank the Secretary of State for stating the obvious. That is the very point that I was making. It has been said that debates in this House cannot be used in a court of law to interpret an Act of Parliament and that the Act must stand or fall by itself. In this case, the Industrial Court will give a ruling. Nevertheless, it is a judicial court which will give the interpretation.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough appealed to the Secretary of State to write into the Bill a provision which will strengthen it from his point of view. He was admitting, therefore, that despite the concession that he said that his right hon. Friend has made and that we were churlish in not accepting, the legislation would not work as it was framed at the moment. He went on to strengthen the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who asked for the exclusion of Equity and the National Union of Seamen from the provision. If that is not to say that the provision will not meet the point, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend has referred to the position of Equity in this matter and, in view of what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has said, it might assist the House if I make my position clear. Whereas the hon. Gentleman is interested in and has a wide knowledge of the theatre as a whole, my position is that I am a member of Equity and a part-time member of its staff. Although what I say may not be identical with the view of the Equity Council which, to be fair, has had no time to pronounce on this new Clause, when I refer to the position of Equity what I say about its view is not without substance.
  Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the situation as it is now with the hon. Member for Peterborough, through me.
  It is the duty of the Government to explain to the House how this provision
  982
  will work. We have not been told so far. We need to know about the operation of new Clause 2, the effect of subsection (5) and the overall effect of the original Clause 5, which encompasses the whole argument which must be answered. I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton to say that I thought that these Amendments were only a slight extension of the agency shop. I still believe that to be the case.
  I turn briefly to the possibility of excluding other organisations of workers. It is obvious that the Government do not intend the trade union movement to have any freedom of action. There is an element now of real compulsion in regard to registration and the exclusion of other organisations. That is now coming out very clearly, and we shall probably hear more about it on Thursday of this week, when these matters are to be discussed by the trade union movement.
  Trade unions should realise now that they are being circumscribed by a form of law which will deny them freedom of action. This tortuous new Clause is not easy to understand. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is not only a distinguished Member of this House but a distinguished member of the Bar, and he has said how difficult he finds it to understand the new Clause. Most of us are not lawyers, but we recognise that this so-called concession on the closed shop will be of no assistance to Equity and the National Union of Seamen. For that reason, I think that we are right to oppose the new Clause.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am extremely grateful to you Mr. Speaker to be called at this point, because I am most anxious to get in on the act, since I am concerned for the Writers' Guild of Great Britain and the Musicians' Union. I was horrified to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) suddenly come up with the suggestion that Equity and the National Union of Seamen should have specific exemption when the same opportunity would be denied to the Writers' Guild, members of which provide the scripts, and material essential to members of Equity for their livelihood.
  I do not find the new Clause a difficult one to construe. In saying that, I am not

  983
  talking about the small points for amendment which were made admirably by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I have just had the opportunity to check on this matter in a short interlude with my right hon. Friend the Minister and it is clear that the Clause deals with the one aspect of post-entry closed shop agreements.
  In the case of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain which, as I say, is the body which provides virtually all the material for our theatres and films, this point arises from certain specific agreements which have been built up over the years with the television producers, I.T.C. and the Film Production Association. Curiously enough, there is no agreement with the B.B.C. Every writer or author has the opportunity to join the Guild. He is not obliged to do so until he has established himself with a script or shown himself to be an author. Once that is done, he is obliged to join the shop and become a member of the Guild if he wants to send his script for acceptance to the various organisations with which it holds an agreement. Therefore, there is no obligation to become a member of a union in the pre-closed shop sense. It is a post-closed shop provision.
  The Clause clearly applies to that. It thus gives, beyond doubt, the power to the Guild to go before the Court and if approval is given by the Court, it is plain that the Guild's agreements can be maintained. Provided that the Guild and the employers agree, this covers the whole of its present position. As I see it, it must, therefore, be eminently satisfactory as one way by which it can achieve the whole of its needs.
  Furthermore, it is clear that this can equally well apply to the Musicians' Union. Here again, if that union likes to take certain steps, it may have to make a number of changes, but with those changes this Clause will apply because of the skill of its members as musicians—who equally provide for the tourist industry. What would we do without proper provision for our great orchestras or without our pop musicians, for that matter, who one and all are members of the Musicians' Union and many of whom could well be the subject, after they have established these changes, of a post-closed shop entry agreement
  984
  which could be so approved. Therefore, we have not merely the Writers' Guild of Great Britain: we have the musicians and Equity, too; to whom these provisions could apply.
  I must tell the House, because this is not confidential in any sense, that together with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who is chairman of our own Labour Committee, and colleagues who serve us in the Conservative Party, we met a deputation both of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain and of Equity after the Committee stage and before Report. This was no secret meeting in any sense.
  At that meeting, we had the advantage of hearing the President of Equity speak. He made it plain that the changes which he wanted to see were on the basis that Equity was not pre-closed shop entry. That was the opinion that he expressed as president speaking on behalf of Equity and its members.
  Under the subsisting agreements, there are various types of agreement into which Equity has entered. Some of those agreements clearly provide for the case in respect of post-entry. One or two of the agreements are ambiguous. I think that the West End agreement looks as though it is pre-closed shop entry. At least, there are a number of different agreements. I do not think that the Floor of the House is the place to go into the intricacies of the various subsisting agreements.
  I recognise that under the new Clause, Equity does not get everything that it wants. It does not get it in the example given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solocitor-General in which it is trying to operate with non-members of any type of association. If there is a body of outside producers who are wholly independent and are not formed together into one type of association, it is virtually impossible to operate an agreement when one has no body to agree with. There cannot be agreement with a single employer. The Clause deals only with an association of employers.
  To that extent, it is true that Equity will not get everything that it wants. If, however, it seeks cleverly to make union agreements saying that employers who are worthwhile must become members of

  985
  an association, otherwise Equity is not willing to treat with them, the individual employers will find that they have to join together in an association in order to be able to get the advantages which employers would seek in relation to the agreements which they would then be able to undertake with Equity, which would then be enforcing a closed shop under the Act.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) raised a point concerning not only construction of the Clause. I think that he was right in saying that our construction will not inevitably be accepted. It does not follow that the Industrial Court will do so. One thing does, however, follow. It is true that the Industrial Court is not entitled to take our opinions in this House as to the construction that we place upon the words we use. The hon. Member was correct about that. Let it not be forgotten, however, that the Industrial Court can take into account the debates in this House. If we have made it plain in this House, as we have done, that Equity is one of the cases to which we want to see the Industrial Court give the benefit, it can take note of this.
  One of the reasons why I am raising the question of the Writers' Guild of Great Britain and the Musicians' Union is to put firmly on record that we believe that that type of union, which gives a particular form of service to the arts and to tourism and is, in a sense, a service union of that kind, should receive consideration which we in the Conservative Party believe to be very special.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I hope that the hon. Member is right in his interpretation of the meaning of the new Clause, but his riǵht hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not entirely seem to be in agreement with him. In view of what the hon. Member has just said, I take it that when, tomorrow, we consider new Clause No. 2, under which it will be an offence for a trade union to seek to induce an employer to enter into a closed shop agreement, I shall find the hon. Member in support of our Amendment to the new Clause.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I shall not encroach upon tomorrow's debate. There are more speakers yet for today and I am concluding. However, I shall certainly listen
  986
  to what the hon. Member says and what my right hon. Friend says in reply.
  This seems to me to be a tremendous move forward by the Government without sacrificing the principle of the closed shop which is enshrined in Clause 5 while, at the same time, drawing the distinction between those who have joined a profession—because it is a profession in reality; the theatrical profession, the Writers' Guild and the musicians are really likewise professions—that they shall be able to maintain their status where it is seen to enure for the public good that they shall join together and where employers, too, see that it is good that they join together in one shop for the public good. That distinction shows that the Government are right and always ready, as they have done in this case, to give way to meet not only what is for the benefit of the individual, but the general good as well.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I have listened to most of the debate, although I apologise for having to leave a moment or two ago. I broke my reading spectacles and had to get a standby pair from my locker.
  I have listened to a number of hon. Members who have spoken from the Government side, one of whom described his speech as nit-picking. Again, we get the same sorry tale that we have had in every debate on the Bill. We have had the lawyers demonstrating clearly that whatever may be the intention of the Secretary of State in drafting the regulations, the regulations were to no avail because they did not mean what they were intended to mean.
  Then we had the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who is, I think, associated with the film industry. I was beginning to think that he had coined the phrase "White man speaks with forked tongue ", because if he did not speak with a forked tongue at least he spoke with two tongues in his cheeks. He said that as long as his right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he was happy for Equity and the seamen's union to be under the umbrella of the Clause, he would accept it. It is surprising. The hon. Gentleman wants further consideration to this provision to be given in another place so that there may be an attempt to specify precisely what

  987
  the Secretary of State means. But, according to the Secretary of State, the Clause is the result of an attempt to meet objections in Committee, and to deal with the situation of Equity and the N.U.S.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why does the hon. Gentleman despise the parliamentary system? The whole purpose of the Committee and Report stages, and discussion in the House of Lords, is that there may be a sharing of minds. Ministers' views are not sacrosanct. The idea is to share minds and experience, and that is what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman must not despise the parliamentary system. It does not become him in his new glasses.
  Mr. Loughlin: If I despised the parliamentary system I would not be here—it is as simple as that. I attach as much importance to the parliamentary system as does any hon. or right hon. Member here.
  The hon. Gentleman is not showing his usual astuteness. What happened in Committee was that a measure of criticism was levelled at the application of the Bill to the closed shop and, in particular, to Equity and the N.U.S. It was levelled also at its application to other unions which I shall mention later. When the Secretary of State introduced the new Clause and the new Schedule he made it perfectly clear that he was attempting to meet criticisms made in Committee about the Bill's application, in particular, to the two unions I have mentioned.
  We now have it that the hon. Member for Peterborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and other hon. Members conclude that the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to meet that situation fails. If it fails, I do not see how the Secretary of State can allow further revision, because the Clause is his thought on the whole issue as expressed to him in Committee. That is why I say that the hon. Member for Peterborough was speaking with his tongue in his cheek.
  I am not altogether au fait with the situation of Equity, but I gather that in regard to individual contracts it was impossible to ensure that there was anything like a post-entry closed shop in
  988
  what the Secretary of State has submitted. If that were so, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to withdraw the Clause, but he showed not the slightest indication of agreeing even with what hon. Gentlemen who are most conversant with the industry say will result from the Clause and the Schedule.
  Mr. Gower: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that this provision fails? Surely from all we have been told it appears that those who represent Equity and the employers in the theatrical industry, and the two sides in the seagoing industry, should be able to satisfy the Industrial Court.
  Mr. Loughlin: Like the hon. Gentleman, I can only listen to what the representatives of the industry say. I listened to the hon. Member for Peterborough and to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, and to the case for the seamen presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) —
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I may be able to help here if I say that I hold here a letter written today above the signature of the General Secretary of Equity in which he makes it clear that the union would not be satisfied that the Clause would have the effect desired unless the three points which I have made were conceded.
  Mr. Loughlin: I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend, but I now want to turn to the shipping industry, because that is, perhaps, an industry about which I know a little. The criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East are almost unanswerable. At any given time we have very many ships spread across all the seas. If one looks at the balloting procedures involved in the Schedule—relating either to the one-fifth where there is an objection, or otherwise to the total number eligible to vote—and thinks in terms of the changeover in ships and lines, one can see at once how difficult it will be for the Commission to determine who is eligible to vote.
  It is laid down:
  "The persons eligible to vote in the ballot shall be the workers who, on a date specified by the Commission in making arrangements for the ballot, are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply."

  989
  One has to remember that time will have passed since the first application to dispense with or object to the closed shop. I should have thought that the intention of the Government was that those people employed, in the main, at the time of the objection—always allowing for wastage of labour—would be eligible to vote in the ballot.
  But here one has to think in terms of the movement of personnel in ships. To begin with, these men are not on longterm engagements, and many of them who were originally involved in whether or not there should be a closed shop will no longer be employed in the firm concerned, because there is an interchanging of ships. On the date fixed for the ballot the men involved could be sailing on almost every sea. It is not one ship which is involved, but a number of ships. All the ships of a particular line or all the ships in a number of lines may be involved.
  So once the date is fixed the Commission faces physical difficulties in ensuring that the ballot is safe in every possible way; that it is not in any way rigged. Once the Commission has fixed the date for the ballot, those eligible to vote in it can be almost anywhere. It is farcical to imagine that one can apply the regulations as set out in this Clause and in the Schedule to the Merchant Navy. Even if one thinks in terms of the fishing industry, it is equally difficult to apply these kinds of regulations.
  Let me pose a question to the Secretary of State about the right of 20 per cent. of the workers involved to object to the registration of the closed shop principle. I think there are doubts as to whether this would apply in the case of a single employer, or whether it would apply solely in the case of an association of employers. I certainly have not been able to be clear in my own mind which applies, or whether both apply. The Secretary of State could help me by telling me whether it applies to a single employer or to an association of employers. There is so much which is ambiguous in the wording.
  I will put a case to the right hon. Gentleman, and I have got to oversimplify it. Take, for example, a single line with five ships, and assume that they are manned with equal numbers—
  990
  although there could be a case of this kind in which the numbers fluctuated to some extent. But let us consider this case in which the crew of one ship have a dispute with the union. The application is in. The lads say "We will make an objection ". All the procedures would have to be carried through on an issue of that kind. It seems a little futile to allow a situation of that kind to develop, knowing full well that by the time the application is being determined a great number of the people who have lodged the application will cease to be employed by the individual employer. I am trying to ascertain how the application of these regulations will work in the fishing industry.
  I was going to talk about joint applications, but I now want to widen the scope of my speech for a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in Committee I instanced the case in which employers and trade unions agreed beforehand that it should be a condition of employment that every employee should be a member of a trade union or of a number of trade unions. I put to him what I think is the classic example of democracy in action. In the Cooperative movement we have complete control of the society by the membership itself. We have an enormous number of agreements—I am speaking of my particular union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—applying to the members of the society, all the people who have shares, and they are predetermined at an organised and regulated meeting of the society, not by the board of management acting as representatives of the members but at regularly convened annual meetings of the members of the society. They have said that every one of their employees shall be a member of a trade union or a number of trade unions.
  7.15 p.m.
  I hear a lot of tripe talked today about the freedom of the individual. We always get it from the other side of the House. They never talk about the freedom of the individual when employers are using every possible device to get rid of people whom they do not want to employ. They say, "Ah, but the employer has a right to hire and fire ". This Bill will circumscribe the employer to some extent, but, if I know industry half as well as I think

  991
  I do, hon. Members can take it from me that there will not be a single employer who will not be able to get rid of any worker in one way or another.
  Mr. Prescott: It is in the small print.
  Mr. Loughlin: Whether it is in the small print or not, we have had all sorts of agreements at national level and at Joint Industrial Council level whereby we have been able to tie down the employer, but when it comes to dismissing workers there are a thousand and one excuses for getting rid of somebody whom the employer does not want.
  I cannot understand hon. Members opposite talking the cant and humbug which they do about the freedom of the individual, when they refuse to accept the freedom of the whole of the membership of the co-operative society to safeguard its employees. The co-operatives decide with the union that there shall be a condition of employment. This does not come about by pressure. It comes about because there is an identity of interest. It is a social ownership industry. We own it. The people who trade at the co-op, who put the £1 shares in, own it. It is democratically controlled. It does not have a surplus in the usual sense of the term. We have a right to determine our own conditions on the basis of any of the definitions that are given to us.
  But when I put this point to the Secretary of State, he had no sympathy with U.S.D.A.W. and with the circumstances which I described. I do not think they will come under this Clause. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman says they will, I shall be highly delighted. I shall take the first opportunity of congratulating him during the discussion of this Bill, and I shall do so with great sincerity.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the words "come under this Clause ". If the cooperative employers and the union wish to make a joint application, of course they can do so. Whether the C.I.R., on judging that application, would decide that it was necessary for there to be a closed shop in order to achieve the objectives and the criteria, or whether they could not equally well be achieved
  992
  by the agency shop, would be a matter for the C.I.R. But, of course they can apply and have the case judged by an industrially sophisticated body which would go into the matter in great depth. That is the object of the procedure.
  Mr. Loughlin: Of course, they can apply, but I think we all know that they would not get anywhere. We can all assume that they would not get anywhere. Look at the criteria. If it will not apply to the seamen and to Equity, it will not apply to U.S.D.A.W.
  The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that his new Clause and Schedule are so riddled with loopholes of every kind that they amount to no more than a bit of window dressing to kid people into believing that his policies are more progressive than they really are. I do not for a moment believe that the Tories want to safeguard any trade union, whether it be Equity, the National Union of Seamen or any other.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) made an observation about the freedom of the individual in relation to the bad employer. He has been assured by this side of the House on many occasions that few of us—none of us, I hope—would stand up for the rights of the bad employer. We want to encourage, through the medium of the Bill, the good employer and the good party in all sections of industry.
  Although it is designed to operate very narrowly, the new Clause and its associated new Schedule are, in my view, a significant and important departure from the main provisions in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite say that this is not so. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that there was no great concession here. It all depends upon one's vantage point in looking at the change proposed. If the closed shop is desirable in all circumstances, as the Opposition say it is, this is no concession. If, on the other hand, one takes our view, that the closed shop in most circumstances is highly objectionable and to be avoided, this is a considerable concession.
  Mr. Concannon: But the Bill says that a closed shop is highly objectionable in every circumstance.
  Mr. Gower: That is our general view.
  Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman has just qualified it.
  Mr. Gower: I said that that is the general view which we have expressed, though with one or two individual exceptions. We have heard from one of my hon. Friends this evening a slightly different view. It is not the universal view on this side, but the large majority of us object strongly to the principle of the closed shop obtaining widely in industry.
  If one takes that view, this is a large concession, as I say, but it is no concession if one takes the view that the closed shop is highly desirable in any case. In Committee, however, a good many of us were persuaded, through the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and of the hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), that unusual and special conditions obtain in the theatre and among seamen. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has today mentioned another body which, he says, should have similar consideration.
  Many of us were persuaded that unusual conditions prevailed, in particular, in the theatre and in the merchant marine, and it appears that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department were likewise persuaded that there was good reason for making a narrow and special concession in this restricted respect. Because I should not like it to be a general concession, I asked earlier whether it could be used as a means to drive a gap into the principles of the Bill and make possible a wide extension of the closed shop.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made the interesting suggestion that we could achieve our objective merely by conceding an exemption to the two named unions. That is a matter for thought, but I do not think that it would be right, for the reason already pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet. Conceivably, there could be other claimants with similar grounds for exemption. If we specified the seamen and people in the entertainment business, we should permanently exclude any other body such as the Musicians Union or others not yet named which might have just as strong and meritorious a case as those which
  994
  have been brought to our attention. I think it better, therefore, to adopt the method outlined in the new Clause and the Schedule.
  I feel, however, that the wording should be carefully reconsidered. There seem to be grounds for questioning some of the words, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has already raised one point in that connection.
  It has been objected that the concession or exemption does not go far enough. I hope that I have dealt with that. It has been objected, also, that the conditions surrounding it are too tight. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East expressed that view, and the hon. Member for Walton went so far as to say that, if the union and the employer agree, that should be sufficient; there should be no other requirement. In my view, that would be extremely dangerous.
  Mr. Loughlin: Why?
  Mr. Gower: We all know that employers do not always do the things which they deem proper, because they are under heavy pressure. If a joint application has virtue and validity, why should either party object to its being considered by an impartial body? That is all that is prescribed here.
  Mr. Prescott: The important point is that there has to be a joint application for this provision to be operative.
  Mr. Gower: I take the point which the hon. Gentleman makes, that if there is this fairly elaborate procedure it might not be necessary to have a joint application. I think that that could be considered.
  Mr. Prescott: When?
  Mr. Gower: I was objecting to something different. I want the safeguards embodied in the new Clause because it confers tremendous powers. A person may be dismissed from his trade or industry—
  Mr. E. Fernyhongh: Not uncommon.
  Mr. Gower: Not uncommon, says the right hon. Gentleman. We do not want to make it more common.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Last month's unemployment figures will show the hon. Gentleman that quite a lot of people are being dismissed now.
  Mr. Gower: Unfortunately, that is related generally to causes not in the individual trade or industry but in some respects worldwide. We are discussing here something which could extend the field of unfair dismissal. The Clause gives power for a person to be discriminated against in various ways, on the ground that he is not a member of a union, that he has refused to join a union, or that he has failed to join. I share the apprehensions expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames about this wording. What does it mean?
  A man may apply to join a union and, in its wisdom, the union may reject his application not because of any defect in the person, not because of any blemish of character, not for any shortcoming in his skill or qualifications, but merely because it has decided that there are enough people in the trade in that locality at the moment. It could be dangerous to include this in the Bill in this form.
  Mr. Heffer: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, except that neither he nor the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has read the print. The reference is not to not joining a union but to failing to pay to a charity. I am not agreeing with the principle, but we should argue what is in the Bill.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gower: That is a special exemption in subsection 5(a). These safeguards are necessary. I agree with those who have argued that the wording should be re-examined, but the closed shop imposes fearful consequences. They give great power where such a closed shop is created. For that reason, we want the field to be limited to the industries whose special conditions and requirements have been indicated to us.
  This underlines our view that in general the Bill should encourage people to be voluntarily members of their appropriate union. We want that as much as hon. Members opposite. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I emphasise "voluntarily". For a union to be efficient and effective it is far better that
  996
  it should rely on volunteers than on pressed men. Compulsion does not create the best spirit or effect.
  This is a narrow but considerable concession. Those hon. Members opposite who have asked for it should welcome it and recognise that the Government have tried to create a wording which is framed expressly to meet these cases. It is in that spirit that I welcome the new Clause.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I have come to the conclusion from listening to the debate for most of the day that the Government did not in the first instance understand the nature of the closed shop and got themselves into such a mess with some of their backbenchers that they have to table a new Clause which is hatched around with so much verbiage that it has made confusion even more confounded.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said, it has become obvious as the debate has proceeded that the division sought by hon. Members opposite is strictly on class lines. [Interruption.] It may well be that some hon. Members have not been listening closely. It has become obvious to me that some hon. Members opposite are prepared to countenance a closed shop in some professions whereas they would deny a closed shop to other professions.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that we on this side appear to represent a class because we have espoused the cause of a certain closed shop. Will he indicate which class is representative of seamen or of actors?
  Mr. Stoddart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a lesson from me in giving way and give way himself in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) put the case of the seamen very clearly. As he said, the Clause will not deal with their case because it precludes the pre-entry closed shop, and it is only the pre-entry closed shop which would do anything for seamen.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made it clear that they

  997
  were in favour of closed shops for certain professions but did not wish the closed shop to be extended to other activities. Indeed, the hon. Member for Peter-borough criticised the Clause on the ground that it would have been simpler merely to have named two professions. We on this side do not accept that.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston- upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned the case of a constituent of his who had been a printer, who had gone to Australia, who had returned, who had obtained a job here and who had then found that the print union would not give him a card because it wished some- body else to take that job.
  There may be a good reason for that, and it is a good reason for the operation of the closed shop. In that area employment in the print trade might well be restricted and many printers who had not left the country to seek their fortune might have been out of work for long periods. In such circumstances a closed shop which regulates employment on a reasonable and fair basis is worthy of consideration.
  One of the most interesting points which has been made was made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) who seems to understand the problem to a much greater extent than most of his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman clearly understands that it is useless for the Government to talk about strengthening the trade unions while taking from them the opportunities to enforce decisions on their members.
  The Government should heed what the hon. Member for Honiton said. Operations on the shop floor are different from operations at the Bar or in a lawyer's office. If trade unions are to be strong and able to force their members to accept policies, policies which have often been agreed with employers, the closed shop is perhaps one of the most powerful weapons in their armoury.
  Hon. Members opposite appear to think that trade unions are against the operation of the closed shop and that the closed shop is imposed from above. They appear to think that Mr. Jack Jones or Mr. Hugh Scanlon says, "We will have a closed shop here and we will use all
  998
  the force at our command to put it into operation."
  Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is on a very valuable point and it follows what he said earlier. In the old days in the ship-repair industry in Liverpool, before we had an agreement, we used to have to line up at the ship-repair firms and be selected from the stand. That meant that some people were selected and others never got any employment at all. When we got a closed shop agreement with the ship-repair employers, we were able as part of our agreement to get work allocated through the trade unions and every worker had a fair allocation of the work that was going.
  Mr. Stoddart: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing what I said about the printing trade. It reinforces my point that trade unions are able to assist in the regulation of employment and the proper employment of people who are allocated to do the job.
  I return now to the theme I was enunciating regarding pressure for the closed shop and where it comes from. It does not come from the top. It comes from the bottom—make no mistake about that. It is the people on the shop floor themselves who object to working with free riders, with scabs, with people who, in time of crisis, may well let them down. It is the people on the shop floor who see their very livelihood threatened by those who will not band together for collective action for the benefit of all. Hon. Members opposite should take a few more trips to the factory floor.
  I worked in the electricity supply industry, and to emphasise my point I will relate what happened there not so long ago. In the industrial grades, a postentry closed shop agreement was reached by the management and the trade unions—with, incidentally, provision for the exclusion of those with genuine conscientious objection whereby they paid a sum of money to a charity. Shortly afterwards, pressure came from people in other grades for the same sort of agreement—from the clerical and administrative grades, for example—because they were experiencing the situation in which they were paying their subscriptions every week, doing the work of trade unionism, manning the national, regional and local

  999
  committees, while the free riders, the people they could never trust, were drawing the benefits but making no contributions.
  Furthermore, there is evidence to show that people who will not belong to a trade union in the main have no conscientious ground at all. Indeed, where an employer has said that he will pay increases in wages only to those belonging to the trade union, there has been a stampede the next day to join the union, with the result that a virtual closed shop has been created.
  7.45 p.m.
  I turn now to the balloting for a closed shop or agency shop. The Government are making a big mistake by insisting that the voting in favour must be of 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote and not 50 per cent. of those voting. That is completely wrong. In all our electoral activities, we have to take into account those who cannot be bothered to cast a vote. If the Government had had to have 50 per cent. of those who actually voted in the General Election, they would not be in power, let alone 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote. This point really should be reconsidered. It is undemocratic. It is against every electoral principle in our political life, and is unfair and unworkable. I cannot understand on what basis the Government continue to insist that a closed shop or agency shop should only operate providing that 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote make the decision rather than 50 per cent. of those actually voting.
  I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this because undoubtedly the Bill, even with these additions, will do nothing for industrial relations—nothing good, anyway. I think that it will do everything bad.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) spoke of the closed shop being the result of pressure from the shop floor and not imposed from above. Knowing my views on this subject, he may not be surprised to find that I am in entire agreement with him. He went on to speak eloquently of the feelings of shop floor workers against the free rider, the person who takes all the benefits without contri-
  1000
  buting. Again, he will find me in entire agreement with him. He went on to speak of the stampede to join a union which occurs when there is a financial advantage and financial pressure on individual workers to join. In view of what he said about that, I am astonished that he voted against the agency shop proposal in the Bill, which is designed to do just the very thing he has been telling us ought to be the way things are done. The agency shop proposal will put a financial pressure on the non-member of a trade union, who will have to pay the union subscription.
  I agree also that the conscientious objections of many of those who say they are opposed to union membership are as deep as their pockets, and that they are really trying to secure for themselves the advantage of union membership without contributing.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I merely ask him if he will continue to agree with me and put pressure on the Government to alter the balloting arrangements for the agency shop. That would make it much more likely that we should get agency shops. That is not the whole argument, but I think he will agree that the electoral rules ought to be altered.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swindon. I intended to come later to the subject of voting systems. I say in response to his aside—" if we have any agency shops "—that I know of one major company which is now negotiating to have an agency shop with the co-operation of the workers and the union concerned. It is a large firm which is not particularly anxious for me to give its name this evening because it fears that it may run into politically motivated troubles which do not now exist.
  The new Clause and the Schedule are in response to appeals on behalf of actors, musicians and seamen during the Committee stage.
  Mr. Prescott: What we did was not to make appeals but to explain what would be the results of the Bill. It was not a matter of appealing but of explaining the logic of the situation.
  Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that the minutia can be smaller than objecting

  1001
  to that phraseology, but if the hon. Gentleman objects to it I will say that the new Clause was introduced in response to what was brought out in Committee. It proves the sincerity of the Secretary of State when on Second Reading he gave an assurance that he would be prepared to listen to arguments and accept Amendments if persuaded by the case for them. This evening we see the fruition of that undertaking and the practical way in which the Minister is prepared to meet reasonable and responsible representations.
  There is a second and extraordinary aspect of the situation today. In Committee, at least 15 Clauses were taken in one day. In response to the Opposition's request, through the Business Committee, one whole day is now to be spent on the narrow issue of the special needs of the seamen, the actors and musicians, the narrow issue of an exemption for certain people, contrary to the normal processes which will apply through the rest of the Bill.
  I am not alone in finding it extraordinary. Throughout the time that I have been here today there have never been more than a score of Labour Members in the Chamber to discuss a matter which is supposed to arouse the deepest anxiety throughout the trade union movement and supposed to be the cause of great concern to the Labour Party. If I were in opposition I should call a count at this moment to have the House counted out, at least in view of the lack of Opposition Members. I do not know what they are playing at, but the business was arranged, because of their request through the Business Committee, in such a way that a whole day is spent on a narrow issue which could have been disposed of in two or three hours. Yet we shall be here until midnight discussing it, and so the House will be denied an opportunity on Report of discussing many important Amendments which have been suggested because of the requests of Labour Members.
  Mr. Heller: The hon. Gentleman must not make statements like that. We are discussing a new Clause and a number of Amendments to it, plus a Schedule which has five parts, and we are discussing all this in one day. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the country by suggesting that the matter could have
  1002
  been discussed in less than a full day. The Opposition would have been justified in asking for two days on this subject.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) must get his tongue out of his cheek before he chokes himself. He knows as well as I do that his tactics at this stage of the Bill will result in some 150 Government Amendments and many Opposition Amendments not being discussed on Report because so much time will have been spent on the comparatively small beer of today's subject.
  Several Hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that will be enough on that topic. Perhaps the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) will come to the terms of the new Clause.
  Mr. Concannon: On a point of order. As I was a member of a Standing Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman served, which considered the Transport Bill, in reply to his accusation may I remind him what happened with the Transport Bill at that time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even although I know better than anybody else what happened, that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Mitchell: As you rightly observed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have strayed a little. I was incensed by the extraordinary behaviour of the Opposition.
  The new Clause recognises that there are special problems for transient workers, those who do not work for one employer for a long time. It enables them to have a continuing closed shop when the employer and the trade union agree and there is a joint application, when it is necessary to enable to organise workers who could not otherwise do so where that is necessary to secure reasonable terms and conditions.
  I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General could say what he means by "reasonable terms ". I am not a member of the legal profession, but I believe that nothing gives rise to more litigation than the interpretation of "reasonable ". I am as anxious as any other hon. Member to limit recourse to the law, and I should like a little more explanation of the precise

  1003
  meaning of the word in this context. Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that it will not give rise to considerable litigation?
  Would he also kindly explain how the Clause will apply to musicians, actors and seamen, but not to construction workers? Many Irish workers come here to work seasonally on building sites in London. I understand that there are certain taxation advantages in working here for six months and somewhere else for six months. How is it that the Clause does not allow those transient workers to charge through it? If they can charge through it, where shall we end, for a gateway will have been opened? I am sorry to be critical of my hon. and learned Friend, but he will know that I speak up when I feel any doubt about the activities of the Government.
  I am considerably concerned that the C.I.R. will be asked to decide some intensely political questions. Whether there should be a major let through of industries permitted to use the closed shop is a political question. At some time in the future, there will undoubtedly be a change of Government and a new Government would be able to pack membership of the C.I.R. and so upset one of the Bill's major principles without even introducing new legislation.
  8.0 p.m.
  In purely practical terms as to what may happen in future my right hon. Friend should take another look at this part of his proposals to see whether he can do anything to strengthen it. It seems that a dangerous situation could develop if a new government were to change the membership of the C.I.R. and allow a number of major industries to re-present themselves. If the hon. Member for Walton and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and Mr. Frank Cousins were members of the C.I.R. they would accept that every industry in the country complied with the terms of the requirements of the Schedule. The Government have a difficult question to deal with. They have to balance individual freedom against the perfectly legitimate requirements of a trade union and its members to act collectively.
  The Government have a choice. They can make trade unions unobjectionable
  1004
  to anyone or they can proceed as they are doing. Let us look at this question of making a trade union unobjectionable. It would mean that we would have to remove the political objectives of trade unions, because it is difficult to defend anyone compelling people to join an association the objectives of which stick in their gullets, to which they are completely opposed.
  Many trade unions have political objectives in their rules. Let us look at the Amalgamated Engineering and Foundry Workers. Its rules on objectives state:
  "to co-operate in every possible way with all other organised workers in the transference of industry from private ownership to Socialist and Co-operative ownership."
  Mr. Prescott: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Mitchell: It is natural for the hon. Member to say that and to wish to join an association which has that sort of objective. Would he not agree that it would be equally understandable if some other people who do not have that objective and do not believe in that political philosophy, choked at the idea of being forced to join and subscribe to an association with unacceptable objectives?
  Mr. Prescott: A trade union is involved in certain issues, sometimes industrial, sometimes political and the division between them can be a matter of argument, as is the case with the strike of 18th March. However, a person has the right to contract out of a political contribution.
  Mr. Mitchell: I hear what the hon Member says but it is not as simple. These objectives I have read out are not objectives confined to a subsection of the union financed by the political funds They are the objectives and rules of the main trade union, supported by the weight of union subscription and undertaking many political activities which are not reserved for the political fund of that union.
  Mr. Hefter: How long have they been there?
  Mr. Mitchell: I accept that they have been there for a long time. Because an organisation has deeply-entrenched, long-held objectives, it does not make them any less acceptable to those who are opposed to them. If the hon. Member for

  1005
  Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were asked, as a condition of his employment, to join an association which said that he had to co-operate in every possible way with other workers in the denationalisation of steel and the transference from State control to private ownership of many industries I imagine that he would take offence.
  Mr. Prescott: If the policy of the trade union movement was to go for denationalisation or any matter of such political importance, it would have been decided by the membership, through the branches and the offices. That is where the decision is made and that makes it a joint decision.
  Mr. Mitchell: This is fascinating. The reality, as the hon. Member knows, is that if it was a condition of his employment that he belong to and finance an organisation deeply committed to the ideals of the Conservative Party he would be furious about it, he would be seething. He would take his case to the International Court, in all probability. Because it is to his advantage he does not look to the disadvantage to other organisations.
  The Government appear to have the alternative of making the trade unions unobjectionable or doing something similar to that which they are doing now. If they are to make them unobjectionable then it is not only a question of political control and objectives. There is a need to ensure a higher standard within the unions' rules. For example, I have a constituent who has been fined £20 by her trade union for having given offence to one of the officers. I am not commenting on the circumstances now in which the union decided to fine her, but the rules of that union provide that she has to pay the £20 before she can appeal against the fine.
  This good lady is off work, nursing a sick husband and on Social Security benefit. We have a situation in which a woman who has not got £20 has to find this substantial sum of money before she can exercise a right of appeal.
  Mr. Heffer: Smear.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton says that it is a smear, but it is not, it is a straightforward fact.
  1006
  If the hon. Gentleman likes to challenge me on the facts I will produce them.
  Mr. Heffer: Do it now.
  Mr. Mitchell: Since the hon. Gentleman asks me to do it now, I will, but I think that it is rather delaying the House. I have an original letter from the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades (Division "A") Basingstoke Branch. There are a series of letters, one from the branch secretary, one telling her of the charge, "having insulted an officer or member etc." Then we come to a letter which says:
  "I am writing to inform you that as you did not attend the branch committee meeting on 20th January to which you were summoned under General Rule 27, Clause 'A', the case was heard in your absence. The decision of the Committee was that you be fined a sum of £20."
  Mr. Heffer: What is wrong with that? If you do not go to court, you are fined.
  Mr. Mitchell: Let me finish.
  " I would draw your attention to the General Rules concerning the payment of fines and also the rules concerning your right of appeal."
  The right of appeal arises when the fine has been paid. Here is a woman on Social Security who has to pay £, and she has not got it, before she has the democratic right of appeal to her own union.
  Mr. Heffer: I still say it is a smear.
  Mr. Mitchell: It is a smear on the good name of trade unions, but that sort of thing should not be in a union rule book. Because it is in a union rule book, it strengthens my argument that the Government should legislate to make the rules of unions unobjectionable at the same time as they are eliminating the political requirements.
  In many unions—I am not talking of S.O.G.A.T. or of the case to which I have just referred—there is no right of appeal in a disciplinary case to a different committee from the one which originally heard the matter.
  Mr. Heffer: What has this to do with the Clause?
  Mr. Mitchell: I will explain what it has to do with it. Either the Government can make union rules unobjectionable to anybody, or they must provide a

  1007
  let-out so that people are not compelled to join unions.
  Hon. Members opposite have bitterly opposed any suggestion that the Government should interfere with union rules. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, I think, gone perhaps too far but as far as is conceivable in meeting the case. Therefore, he has not been able to make regulations which provide that the rules of a trade union are unobjectionable to many people. If the rules of a union remain objectionable to many people—if people still have commitments to the Labour Party and must do things which are unacceptable to them—it must be right that they should be able to say that they will not join.
  Mr. David Stoddart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trade unions can alter their rules, and would not members who disagree with them be better employed by going to their branch meetings and conferences to alter them?
  Mr. Mitchell: That is a valuable point and perhaps I can deal with it in a moment. I shall try not to forget it.
  Mrs. Barabara Castle: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman began by describing the Clause as narrow. We are now listening to a long and filibustering speech by the hon. Member comprising the whole principle of registration and the reform of union rules. Those of us who have other Amendments on the Notice Paper are anxious to get on to them. May we have your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, against this discursiveness?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is rather spreading himself. He should relate his remarks more closely to the Amendment.
  Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. What my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is saying interests me enormously. As part of our democratic processes, are not we entitled to hear his views?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, many things interest us which are not in order. Hon. Members should do their best to remain in order. I am sure that
  1008
  the hon. Member for Basingstoke will do just that.
  Mr. Mitchell: I apologise to the House if I have strayed outside the bounds of order, but the hon. Member for Walton said that this was a very important debate on a major aspect of the closed shop, and I have been following his example.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have nothing to do with the point.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) was a surprising ally of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) when he argued in favour of the pre-entry closed shop. Many distinguished trade unionists take a different view. Sir Lincoln Evans, a very distinguished trade unionist, said:
  "Such is the logic of the closed shop that a man expelled from his union, which in itself may be quite justified, can then be prevented from following his trade because he has no union card—a piece of injustice that no trade union principle can justify or any trade union need condone."
  I believe that those words are as true today as when they were said. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not know some of the great figures of his own trade union movement.
  In 1948 the Labour Government were signatories to Article 20 of the Charter of Human Rights, which says:
  "No one may be compelled to belong to an association."
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that I was filibustering, but she is asking for the application throughout industry of a Clause aimed at a very small number of industries. It is therefore essential to the argument whether a closed shop should be applied throughout industry. I am legitimately arguing—and I am sorry if the right hon. Lady does not like it—that the closed shop should not be applied throughout industry.
  Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it a legitimate use of the time of the House, when a guillotine is in operation and when the Opposition have tabled Amendments which they are anxious to discuss, for him to take more than half an hour explaining a point which has been admirably explained by

  1009
  other hon. Members on his side of the House in much less time? Having had plenty of time to explain his point, will the hon. Gentleman follow the normal courtesies of the House by sitting down and allowing the democratic rights of the Opposition to operate?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am astounded by the right hon. Lady's remarks. In view of the "vast" number of hon. Members sitting on the benches behind the right hon. Lady—all four of them—who are anxious to speak, and since I have given way on innumerable occasions to hon. Members opposite, the right hon. Lady's comments are a little unkind and are uncalled for.
  The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) referred a few moments ago to the democratic right and opportunity of union members to alter the rules if they wish. On 18th March we are to have a strike by a major trade union whose general secretary was elected by less than 10 per cent. of his membership. A fat lot can be done by the membership of that union to prevent themselves being brought out on official strike against their will! I have had telephone call after telephone call and letter after letter from angry constituents who do not want to be called out on strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stooge."]—and who are deeply torn between loyalty to their union and loyalty to their conscience. I think that that is an adequate answer to the hon. Member for Swindon.
  The hon. Member for Walton said that at present there were many closed shops in which hundreds of men were allowed to contract out on conscience grounds. I therefore wonder what all the fuss is about in allowing agency shops to exist and permitting people to contract out on conscience grounds.
  Mrs. Castle: I had hoped that the Solicitor-General would have acceded to my request and got to his feet by now. I think he is aware, as other hon. Members are aware, that we have other Amendments embodying important principles which we want to reach and that we are under a very severe restriction on time because of the guillotine, and that it is part of the normal courtesies of the House, when there has been ample time for everybody to put his point of view, to meet the Opposition's request when
  1010
  they are anxious to move on to other Amendments—
  Dame Irene Ward: I should have liked to speak.
  Mrs. Castle: I am sure. the hon. Lady would have liked to speak, and there are many of my hon. Friends who would have liked to speak, but they restrained themselves because they were aware that we were anxious to move on. I think it an abuse of the procedure of this House for an instruction to go out from the Government Front Bench to keep the debate going till the end of the dinner hour for the convenience of certain hon. Members opposite. I hope that we can now sum up what has been an extensive debate and move on to some of the other principles. If we do not, the House will be able to judge the Government for the high-handed behaviour they are showing to Parliament, as, indeed, they are to the trade union movement under this Bill.
  I must say that I thought it was rather fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) begin his speech by complaining that we were spending a lot of time on what he called a couple of narrow points and then to hear him go on not only to widen the debate beyond this new Clause and the Amendments attached to it but to drive a coach and horses through the whole of the Government's case by saying that it was not only, as he had begun by suggesting, just a small group of unions which might be affected, namely, Equity and the N.U.S., but the construction workers. If we add the construction workers we could add the National Union of Mineworkers as well. Indeed, we could add the engineers, because, as I said in Committee, British Leyland itself, faced with the problems with which it is faced in the motor industry, has decided that it could best deal with some of the industrial unrest and instability in the motor industry by going ahead with the closed shop, with a 100 per cent. union shop.
  In fact, contrary to what the hon. Member for Basingstoke tried to suggest, we are, by this new Clause and in this debate, discussing a wide range of issues which have attracted enormous interest from both sides of the House and not least from the other side of the House.

  1011
  It has been fascinating to watch the intra-Tory debate on this new Clause and the issues raised by it. The debate has shown that, in reality, we are not on Report at all, but in Committee on a new mini-Bill, because in this new Clause we have a major modification of the principles which were hammered home to us during the whole of the Committee as basic to the Government's approach to the industrial relations issue.
  Where are we getting to on this new Clause and what exactly does it mean? I suggest that at the end of what is by now some four and a half hours of debate there are still an enormous number of confusions and obscurities. In Committee we knew at least where we stood, because right hon. Gentlemen opposite took their stand upon the very simple issue of principle, and they insisted that it was basic to the Government's philosophy that a worker should not only have the right to belong to a union but, in the words of the Consultative Document and of the right hon. Gentleman, the equal and unqualified right not to belong to a union.
  Mr. David Mitchell rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but I cannot give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke. If he has not been able to get what is on his mind off it in the last forty minutes no intervention in my speech could enable him to do so.
  I repeat, we were told all through Committee that it was basic to Conservative doctrine on industrial relations that the worker must have an equal and unqualified right not to belong to a trade union. What this meant was that even if an agency shop were established a man could claim the right not to belong to the recognised union or indeed to a particular union provided that he paid contributions in lieu of membership to the union; and, in addition, it was an unfair industrial practice—it is an unfair industrial practice under the agency shop provisions—for a union to pressurise anybody to join the union or to try to get the employer to accept the agency shop except through the elaborate procedure laid down in the Bill; or, of course, to have a pre-entry closed shop.
  We do not like the agency shop provisions and we do not like the Govern-
  1012
  ment's philosophy, because we say that the agency shop provisions of this Bill encourage non-unionism, are almost a deliberate incitement to people not to join a union. They also prevent an employer from reaching, in the light of his own industrial needs, a voluntary agreement with the unions represented amongst his employees. Moreover they may weaken a union's discipline over its members. As a result of this principle, for which the right hon. Gentleman was almost prepared to go to the stake, the right of any citizen not to belong to a union, we shall have greater industrial instability and not less. So we opposed the agency shop; but at least we recognised that, in their attitude to this, the Government were being consistent.
  Now, suddenly, here in this new Clause, we have a complete volte-face, we have the abandonment of this basic principle —because the Government found that we were right, and they found that we were right because of the general effects of this right not to belong. The effects were elaborately demonstrated with particular clarity in a number of cases, which have been discussed again today as they were in Committee. Particularly and outstandingly there were the cases of Equity and the National Union of Seamen, though hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Basingstoke have quoted other examples where the same difficulties apply as a result of the narrow restriction of the agency shop provisions.
  Faced with these practical consequences, the Government have had second thoughts, and the right hon. Gentleman has come along with this new Clause and with a speech which has thrown us not only into more drafting complexities but into complete metaphysical confusion. I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) feels that he has been betrayed. He has listened to all this talk about the importance of the equal and unqualified right not to belong to a trade union, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman when he told him that this was important to Conservative philosophy. To day he has heard the right hon. Gentleman singing a very different tune. There was a marked difference between what the right hon. Gentleman said philosophically this afternoon and what he said philosophically earlier.

  1013
  8.30 p.m.
  This afternoon we were told by the Secretary of State that the right to belong to a union and the right not to belong—and I am quoting him accurately, I think —are "not simply equal and opposite rights". So we have an amendment to the Consultative Document and we have the Government going back on something which we have been told we must swallow as the justification for the agency shop. The right hon. Gentleman said that the right not to join a trade union was of a different order. Like the "grand old Duke of York" he has led his men to the top of the hill and led them down again, because at the top of the hill he saw industrial chaos.
  We must ask why he now says that the right not to join a union is of a different order from the right to join one. The answer he gives—and we applaud his answer—is that the interests of the community must be taken into account. We were told that the purpose of the Bill was to get industrial stability and industrial order. But the right hon. Gentleman now finds that his precious principle of the agency shop gives the opposite, so he tells us that it is right to subordinate individual freedom of action to the collective needs of socity.
  This is a principle to which we subscribe, but the right hon. Gentleman has now given us our whole case against the agency shop and in favour of the closed shop. The right hon. Gentleman invented the agency shop only to embody the principle of the equal and unqualified right not to belong to a union and that principle finds its expression in the device of making contributions in lieu. Now, that absolute right not to belong to a trade union has gone, in the name of expediency, in recognition of the fact that the 100 per cent. union shop can and does make for industrial stability.
  It is important here to define our terms. Even with the new Clause, the pre-entry closed shop is void. We are not talking about the pre-entry closed shop, but about who should have the right to belong to a closed shop, and which union should have the right to enforce a closed shop. By definition we are talking not about a pre-entry closed shop but about a 100 percent. union shop. We are not, therefore, debating the inalienable right of every citizen to refuse to join a union—that has
  1014
  gone, and we are glad of it. We are debating why and on what grounds we should give that right to some people and deny it to others.
  The right hon. Gentleman has insisted on dealing with this in terms of general criteria. He said in Committee and again today that he has been asked by some of his hon. Friends to make one or two exceptions by name. He said that it would be wrong to pick out a couple of unions and to say that they shall be excluded from the law, because that would be extraordinarily difficult to justify. So he has had to think terribly hard to find criteria to enable him to pick the sheep from the goats.
  The criteria on the basis of which the C.I.R. is to decide who should have what the Tories once called a "basic and inalienable right" are laid down in the new Schedule in paragraph 5(1)(a) to (d). When one looks at those criteria, one finds that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the examples which the right hon. Gentleman gave in his opening remarks. They have nothing to do with whether the workers are transitory, whether they are liable to work for one employer in one month and for another employer in another, nothing to do with whether their work is intermittent. Paragraph 5(1) reads as follows:
  "…the Commission shall consider whether it appears to them … that it is necessary for those workers to be comprised in an approved closed shop agreement for the purposes—

  (a) of enabling them to be organised, or to continue to be organised, as mentioned in section 1(1)(c) of this Act;

  (b) of maintaining reasonable terms and conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of continued employment for those workers;

  (c) of promoting or maintaining stable arrangements for collective bargaining relating to those workers; and

  (d) of preventing collective agreements relating to those workers, which have been or may thereafter be made by the applicants, from being frustrated.

  Those criteria could apply to absolutely any industrial situation. For what is the 100 per cent. union shop wanted if it is not to maintain stable arrangements? British Leyland wants to adopt it because it knows that it promotes stable collective bargaining arrangements. This is the language of the ordinary union shop, of every industrial situation, and not merely of Equity or the National Union of Seamen.

  1015
  If the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) were in his place I would tell him that although he asked, rather pathetically, if his right hon. Friend was sure that these criteria would not knock a large hole in the principles of the Bill, his right hon. Friend cannot be sure of anything of the kind. They are bound to knock a large hole in it. Therefore, the Government are philosophically creating a non sequitur by trying to draw divisions between approved and prohibited closed shops. If the Secretary of State wants to achieve the 95 per cent. trade unionism of which he was speaking, he should enable the 100 per cent. union shop to be pursued in the way it has been pursued in the past.
  An enormous discretion is being given to the C.I.R. Imagine what that body could make of this proposed Schedule. Its finding—on whether a union shop is necessary or on any other subject—will depend on its membership, and with one sympathetic supporter of trade unionism after another leaving it or refusing to serve on it, we can imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be careful to pack his C.I.R. with the sort of people who will not interpret those criteria as they could and should be interpreted.
  In any event, the Government have a double protection. Not only will they have control over the membership of the C.I.R. but, as my hon. Friends have illustrated effectively time and again, they are not making a real concession to the voluntary principle. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) congratulated his right hon. Friend in moving terms for having shown an "open mind" and for having recognised that where the two sides wished to come to an agreement, that right should be retained.
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman is supposed to have had in his open-mindedness, but is there a voluntary right to reach an agreement if both sides want to do so? First, however much an employer and unions might want to do so, they cannot have a pre-entry closed shop. They are debarred from having one. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out, even if both sides want a pre-entry closed shop, they cannot have
  1016
  one, nor can they have a 100 per cent. union shop, unless their proposal goes through the machinery of the C.I.R. and the industrial court.
  Thirdly, the order of the industrial court can be challenged by a minority of workers, but if it is and if a ballot is held, there then comes into operation just about the most undemocratic principle it is possible for a Government to think up. Again, the hon. Member for Honiton pointed out that one cannot democratically say that a ballot is not successful unless a majority of those eligible to vote, in fact vote in favour.
  Finally, all the difficulties referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about allowing people time to become members remain unsolved. Yet while denying the voluntary principle, the Government will not allow the principle of compulsion either. What Equity, the National Union of Seamen or any other union wants is the chance to bring pressure to bear on a recalcitrant employer. That is the only power, freedom and right which is worth having, yet under the Clause, in the very situation where a 100 per cent. union shop is most needed because the employer is anti-union and is resisting it, a union has no more rights than it had under the agency shop. Unions cannot even consult the C.I.R. as to whether a 100 per cent. union shop, in their situation, is desirable. They have to win the approval of the employer first. The chances of exercising normal union pressure on a bad, recalcitrant employer are still denied them. The Government have sacrificed their initial principle for a meaningless mess of potage.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am trying hard to follow the right hon. Lady. In the last part of her speech she has been saying that there is nothing in the Clause at all, no concession at all. The early part of her speech was devoted to saying that we had sold what was previously a fundamental principle. The right hon. Lady can have one or the other, but I do not see how she can have both. Might it be that one was trying genuinely to do what one has always been trying to do, to get a reasonable balance between the two extremes?
  Mrs. Castle: In his speech the right hon. Gentleman denied the very principle which he said was basic to the Bill, and he produced a philosophic justification for abandoning his own principle. I pointed out to him that if it were right to abandon his principle, the logic of it was to enable us to have the voluntary exercise of the right to the 100 per cent. union shop. If his first principle were wrong and he now wants to amend it, the only way to give a reality to his Amendment is not through the new Clause, which is a meaningless mess of potage, but by recognising that he has given us our whole case against the agency shop.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was in support of the abandonment of the agency shop and the restoration of the right of employers and unions to negotiate and agree on the 100 per cent. union shop where it seems to them proper and appropriate to do so, and not to offer us, having modified and abandoned his principle, a new Clause which hamstrings the unions in just the same way and does not change the situation for Equity, for the National Union of Seamen or for anyone else.
  That is why we shall divide the House against the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has given us our arguments but not our remedy. We reject the principle that a closed shop should have to be approved. That is why we shall also vote for our Amendment (a) and, at the appropriate stage in our proceedings, as we also reject the role of the Industrial Court in this situation, we shall vote on our Amendment (g).
  8.45 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) sought to suggest, I think, that I should have replied to this debate before she spoke. I seek to intervene at this point in the debate, after the right hon. Lady has spoken, in order to deal with the points which have been advanced, including those made by the right hon. Lady. I know that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite and some of my hon. Friends still wish to discuss one or two aspects of the Clause, so I do not seek to curtail the debate.
  I start by making this point. The right hon. Lady sought to describe my right
  1018
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State as the Duke of York. Anyone less resembling that noble military figure than my right hon. Friend I find it hard to imagine. If we are to consider the activities that he is alleged to have committed and to which the right hon. Lady referred, one wonders what is her title to speak about the Duke of York. If anyone is to qualify for comparison with that military gentleman, surely it must be the right hon. Lady, who solemnly led her troops to the very top of the hill, about to do battle for the sake of the nation and for the sake of reforming industrial relations, and then just as solemnly led them right to the bottom of the hill again. I know not about the pot calling the kettle black, but if we look for any parallel to that military gentleman tonight we see the Duchess of York herself.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: Answer the debate.
  The Solicitor-General: I intend to.
  The debate began with the suggestion that we stood upon some point of principle which is inviolable and unassailable and cannot be modified. Certainly we on this side of the House stand upon the principle that coercion into membership of any organisation is unattractive and should be resisted. It was that important principle that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) reasserted early in the debate. But we have never attempted to adhere to that to the selfish exclusion of all else. The agency shop agreement is an attempt to arrive at a balance between the right not to belong and the right not to be coerced and the other factors which have to be taken into account.
  My right hon. Friend has always sought a balance. The agency shop proposals represent that balance. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) pointed out, equally my right hon. Friend made it plain that he is willing and anxious to listen to the discussion in this House and elsewhere to make sure that the balance at which we have arrived is a proper one.
  There is no question of the new Clause driving a coach and horses through fundamental principles of the Bill, as the right hon. Lady suggested at the beginning of her speech. Indeed, she demonstrated later that if this is a coach and horses

  1019
  it is, by her later arguments, a very modest coach drawn by some singularly under-powered horses. That is why I commend the new Clause as one representing special provisions to deal wtih special cases of the kind which have been discussed both in Committee and in this debate.
  The object of the exercise is that, if a union like Equity or the National Union of Seamen has a case which is as good and strong as their advocates suggest, it is right that it should have the chance of making that case, within the framework of the new Clause, along the lines that we propose. It is extraordinary to find the second thoughts contained in the Clause being denounced on the ground that they represent what the right hon. Lady described as an "intra-Tory" debate, when they represent what we have sought always to achieve, the proper balance between conflicting factors, as in almost every aspect of a free society.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On the strength of what my right hon. Friend has said, I shall vote with the Government on this matter, but I shall vote in the belief that these words do more than give Equity a chance to state its case. I shall support the Government in the belief that their proposed words mean that Equity's case as a general proposition has been accepted and that it will be able to win its appeal to the court if it makes it.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has made the point already and I shall deal with it in more detail a little later. Certainly, it will be plain that what the new Clause offers is more than, as I perhaps inelegantly put it, a chance for Equity to put its case. However, we will look at it in a little more detail presently.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) suggested that we could have achieved this just as readily by listing, in his case, he suggested, the two unions, the National Union of Seamen and Equity. I suggest, however, that that would be wrong, for several reasons, but principally because although those have certainly been the two unions whose case has been most strongly put in the general sense in this House, there may well be others, some of which I shall mention presently, for whom the case
  1020
  could be put, if not with equal force, certainly with force which deserved to be considered in the context of the Clause.
  If I may mention some of those unions to indicate that it is not easy to arrive at the right conclusion, the construction industry was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as being one which should qualify, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke as one which should not qualify, within the provisions of the Clause.
  On the face of it, there seems to be a great difference between the Irish transient employee, if one may accept the "shorthand" as my hon. Friend put it, and the members of the acting profession, who are in much greater danger of being exploited in the kind of conditions which gave rise to the growth of Equity in an under-organised profession. Employees in the building industry come on to the market and return from it to Ireland or wherever they may choose to retire and move from place to place under quite different pressures and subject to quite different disadvantages from those in the acting profession. On the face of it, therefore, it would not be right to accept the case that could be put for the construction industry.
  One can, however, perhaps visualise certain circumstances in which an agreement of that kind could be put forward and match the criteria laid down in the new Schedule. It is for that reason that we do not accept the attractive and beguiling simplicity of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery of simply including a list; and plainly, we could not go as far as the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested by including without further ado, for example, the docks industry, which was one of those mentioned by the hon. Member, which is surely one in which the restrictive effects, both upon individuals and on the economy, of the closed shop, whether pre-entry or post-entry, are most apparent. We believe, therefore, that it is right to proceed in this way but no further than the new Schedule allows.
  We would certainly be doubtful—several hon. Members have commented on this—about the wisdom of going anything like as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) thought that we had gone. One comes

  1021
  back to the central principle that any situation arrived at by agreement between third parties, between the employer and the union in this case, which imposes an obligation upon employees to join an organisation is a denial of liberty. For the reasons put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and others, such a denial of liberty must be strictly limited to that which is strictly necessary and reasonable.
  We have, therefore, arrived at the general approach, which is set out in the new Clause and the new Schedule, that the approach to the C.I.R. for this kind of agreement to be approved should be, as in other parts of the Bill, through the National Industrial Relations Court, because at the end of the day that agreement can have far-reaching legal effects. It can be arrived at only subject to certain clearly defined conditions, because it can be linked in certain other circumstances with the restraining order which only the court can give. Equally, we think it right to make these provisions available only to registered organisations.
  But I take the opportunity of rebutting yet again the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Salford, West that this is another demonstration of our determination to secure compulsory registration of unions. Nothing could be further from the truth. New Clause 12 on the face of it makes plain the right of unions themselves to invite the registrar to remove them from the register, be it provisionally or finally, so there can be no question of compulsory registration.
  But the rights, options and gateways provided by the legislation should certainly be open only to unions which, by their registration, comply with certain standards. It is to meet the kind of point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that we included that provision, so that this kind of privilege can be made available only to the union which accords with the sort of standards laid down in Clause 61 and Schedule 3.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the Solicitor-General about to say that he intends to accept Amendment (jjjj) to the new Schedule, which provides that an employer not a member of an employers' association, and therefore not registered, will nonetheless be subject to the tests laid down in the agreement? Is he say-
  1022
  ing, in effect, that it is not necessary for an employer to be a registered employer to be subject to a closed shop agreement if one exists generally for the industry, or is he providing a let-up for the recalcitrant employer not to register or to belong and, therefore, not to be subject to the agreement? If so, the hon. and learned Gentleman is destroying the whole thing altogether.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member raises a quite separate point with which I intend to deal in a moment. I am at present dealing with the right of access to this set of provisions for exempting certain closed shop agreements, and that is available to registered unions and employers associations. The position of the employer outside membership of an association is a rather separate point. The hon. Gentleman has seized his chance of making his point, again now, but I will come to it in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke then directed attention to one of the other principles upon which the Clauses are founded; that the assessment of whether or not a closed shop agreement qualifies for exemption should be made by the C.I.R. He suggested that this would be unwise, because the tests, as he put it, are political and could, therefore, be wrongly judged by the C.I.R. But the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, from a different point of view, put the opposite argument in the same context.
  The tests are not political. They are defined in paragraph 5 of the new Schedule. They are cumulative, and they would have to be complied with. It is certainly the intention of the Government to see that those tests have to be made. The four tests in paragraph 5(1) and the fifth test, in paragraph 5(2), by the C.I.R. before an agreement can qualify for exemption in this way—
  Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he means by saying that the Government certainly intend to see that those tests will have to be made? Is he implying that the Government will exercise a right of veto over the C.I.R.'s recommendations?
  The Solicitor-General: I imply no such thing. I imply that the Government intend that the legislation shall have that

  1023
  effect, and I suggest to the House that it would have that effect. But my hon. Friend has expressed some anxiety about it, and for that reason one would look at it to make sure that it will have that effect—but within the framework of the legislation and not by extra legislative action by the Government.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Can my hon. and learned Friend assure me that if membership of the C.I.R. were to consist of hon. Members of the present Opposition Front Bench or to be appointed by them, they would not then be able to accept every union within these criteria?
  9.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has again asked the qestion that he put before, and I give the same answer, that each one of these requirements has got to be complied with, and in particular the important one contained in Clause 5(2), that the agency shop agreement could not achieve the same results. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn mentioned one or two of them as being in line with the argument on which she would rely in support of the closed shop throughout industry. But I suggest that it would be very difficult to find any case outside those of the kind that we have been debating today which would qualify within each one of those full tests, each one of them to be taken cumulatively, including the maintenance of stable bargaining arrangements and the securing of reasonable terms and conditions of employment. That is the point that my hon. Friend put to me. That is directed to the sort of situation in which an unorganised industry, such as the theatrical profession, in the absence of a closed shop, might indeed revert to the old days of which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) spoke.
  Mrs. Castle: This is really very important. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that, say, Mr. Patrick Lowry and Lord Stokes were coming to the C.I.R. together with their appropriate unions, hand in hand, to say that they felt that these conditions would be more successfully achieved in the motor industry, if they had approved a closed shop, the C.I.R. would not be able, under this drafting, to agree with them?
  The Solicitor-General: It would be possible in some situation which might be put forward for the C.I.R. to agree, but I do not think that in the particular case which the right hon. Lady puts, of Mr. Patrick Lowry from British Leyland, it would come within each of these criteria.
  The central argument towards that proposition is this: not only have each of these criteria got to be met, but also it would be necessary that the standards could not equally readily be achieved by the adoption of an agency shop agreement. This is a question to which the C.I.R. would have to address itself—for separate tests, and the additional one in Clause 5(2). It would have to be satisfied that the purposes could not be expected to be fulfilled by means of an agency shop agreement. It is for that reason that the test is laid down as appropriate in the special cases.
  One has once again the example of the right hon. Lady advancing inconsistent arguments. On the one hand, we are being accused of having introduced criteria which are so thin as to be valueless, and the next moment the right hon. Lady suggests that the criteria are so wide ranging as to have destroyed the intentions. The proposition is that they are, in fact, well balanced to achieve the objectives which we have in mind.
  It is interesting to compare them with the Amendments originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), although not in quite the same form as his. But, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, his own would not have ensured a particular consequence in any given case. They require a value judgment to be made. I think the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery at one time had his name to comparable Amendments which required the same kind of value judgment to be made. It was on balancing all those factors that we arrived at these tests here, which are intended to justify the exemption of agreements when that is necessary and the agency shop cannot achieve the same result.
  Mr. Heffer: I should like the position to be clarified. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was here when I referred to a case. On Merseyside in the ship repair industry in the past, workers had to go to what was

  1025
  known as "the stand" and wait to be picked out by an employer or a foreman for employment on a ship repair job, which might have lasted for only half a day or for a week if they were lucky. It was only by a closed shop agreement that we could eliminate this situation in which men were being picked out like cattle, and workers when they came up on rotation got a fair employment agreement. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether, under this criterion, such an application could be made to the C.I.R. and whether he feels that the C.I.R. would be justified in agreeing with the closed shop on that basis?
  The Solicitor-General: That is exactly the kind of point which I have in mind when I say that that kind of situation, if it were to arise or to recur, is the kind of situation which would, in fact, be met by the agency shop agreement. As the Government have contended from the beginning of the debates on the Bill, that is precisely the sort of situation in respect of which the employees, and the union, by application could secure an agency shop agreement if the employer were unwilling to concede it. It is because that kind of case can be met in that kind of way that these criteria are as strict as they are, since they are not intended to go further than they do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) raised the question of the Writers' Guild and the Musicians' Union. Both those cases would have to be considered separately in the light of these criteria, but I should have expected that the Writers' Guild was not an organisation which would qualify, or would need to qualify, under these provisions. The Writers' Guild effectively asserts its own standards by ensuring that its members, who belong to it voluntarily, do not deal, on the basis of new contracts with people who are unwilling to meet the terms which it suggests. It is, therefore, taking part not in strike action or industrial action but a different kind of action which really falls outside the scope of this legislation, and this legislation certainly would not affect its right to operate in that way.
  The Musicians' Union would be a different case, but it is a case the strength of which could be tested before the C.I.R. by reference to the criteria set out here.
  1026
  Both the hon. Member for Putney and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised points about the existing agreements arrived at by Equity and their prospect in the future. The first question was really whether existing Equity agreements are or are not pre-entry closed shop agreements and are caught by Clause 7. The position of the hon. Member for Putney is clear: he wants to delete the words "or become" in order to ensure that pre-entry closed shops are exempt or entitled to be exempt under the Clause.
  The particular agreements with which Equity is primarily concerned are, first, the West End theatre managers' agreement and, second, the repertory theatres agreement outside London. There are others which are less secure and less extensive. As I understand it, the West End theatre managers' agreement is operated ultimately under the control of the London Theatre Joint Council. The effect is that, in the last resort, the employment of a non-member of Equity by a manager who is party to the agreement requires the concurrence of that Joint Council, and the union side of the Joint Council may insist upon a new employee becoming a member of Equity or being a member of Equity before he is taken on. To that extent, the West End agreement—although it is not always operated in this way, I agree—is a pre-entry closed shop agreement.
  The agreement operated with the Council of Repertory Theatres is a rather plainer case, I think, because, as I understand it, it requires that 75 per cent. of the artists taken on for a particular engagement shall be members of Equity at the time of engagement, and there is a free 25 per cent. who can be non-members but become members on engagement. That, again, would have the effect, once the 25 per cent. of nonmembers had been taken on, of operating as a pre-entry closed shop. So that both those agreements, to that extent, would come into conflict with Clause 7.
  However, so far as the pre-entry closed shop agreement is concerned, the objectives of Equity, to ensure either that a proportion of or that certain members of the cast of any particular performance were suitably qualified so as to protect standards and protect job opportunities

  1027
  and limit them to people suitably qualified, could be, in fact, achieved by insistence in a new agreement upon appropriate qualifications by reference either to length or quality of service or to length or quality of training. To that extent the objectives, so far as they are necessary, of the pre-entry closed shop so far as they are achieved in the theatrical world can be achieved in another way in that way.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Surely the casting agreement as a separate agreement, wherein the last word lies with the employer and only after their employment do they become members of the union, would not be considered a pre-entry closed shop and is separate from the two examples my hon. and learned Friend has quoted to us.
  The Solicitor-General: The example my hon. Friend has given is a third example—the separate casting agreement whereby the employer has the choice of employment, but that is a condition of being taken into employment. That is not a pre-entry closed shop. That is the kind of agreement which would fall within the provisions of the new Clause and the new Schedule and one which, if that employer and that union made a joint application as set out in these provisions, provided that the criteria were met—one would expect them so to be met—would qualify; and it could be disturbed and would cease to be effective only if 20 per cent. of the people covered by it sought to change it.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The casting agreement to which the hon. Member for Peterborough referred provides that in the normal course of events the manager shall cast his play from amongst existing members of Equity. That is the first point in the agreement. Second, if the manager then decides that he cannot find from among existing members of Equity everybody he wants he has the right to table a case to the union and the union can then decide whether he has made a case for the recruitment of a new member. In the event of a dispute arising, a decision can be taken by the Theatre Council. In these circumstances will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether that arrangement gets through under this Clause?
  The Solicitor-General: I have just dealt with the two examples because as put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, on the one hand, and by the hon. Member for Putney on the other hand, they are rather different cases. The case put by the hon. Member for Putney is rather closer to the West End London Theatre Joint Council situation, whereby it has got to go to the Joint Council for decision as to whether a particular additional person shall be taken on. In that event, if the Council's decision could have the effect of excluding somebody on the grounds of nonmembership, that would be a pre-entry closed shop and would be caught by Clause 7. However, if it stops short of that so that the obligation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough put it to me, is to secure membership by the person engaged on engagement, it would not be caught by Clause 7 and, indeed, would expect to qualify under this in so far as an agency shop agreement would not do it equally well. I therefore suggest that the balance that we have struck is right and effective.
  The other point raised by my hon. Friend was the suggestion that it would be possible, by adopting Amendment (jjjj), to secure a wider effectiveness for a closed shop agreement—in other words, by extending the provisions of a closed shop agreement to non-members of the employers association, if necessary to do so by means of the machinery contained in Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959.
  The truth is that that cannot be done today within the theatrical industry as it is now. The 1959 Act does not achieve that. We do not think that it would be right to go that far. It was put in a different way when it was suggested that several employers' associations, rather than one employers' association, could be party to an agreement of this kind. At the moment an agreement with several employers' associations made separately by the union with each of them separately would have to go to the Court for approval as a package of separate agreements. That would probably, I should think, have the same effect as an express reference to several employers' associations as far as that is necessary. One doubts whether it is necessary to go further than that but, like the other

  1029
  points which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and by others in the debate, it can be looked at.
  9.15 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) raised a number of points, some arising from the same kind of situation—the difficulty of securing a licensed closed shop agreement in respect of non-conforming employers. That, of course, is difficult already with the non-conforming employer who chooses not to belong to any association and withdraws from any kind of agreement. There is no effective remedy, save, of course, an assertion by the union of unwillingness to enter into new engagements with such a non-conforming employer.
  Mr. Prescott: That is the point. The union has some means of sanction at present against a recalcitrant employer if he decides to break away from an association. It can refuse to provide him with workers who are already in the union. But the Bill will deny us the sanction in that sense.
  The Solicitor-General: No. The way in which a union would deny such an employer labour from its own membership would be by expelling a member of the union if he tried to work for him. The same situation applies in the theatre. If such a union member were to work for a non-conforming employer and were expelled from the union, he would be consigning himself to a very difficult employment future, because it would be difficult for him to gain re-admission to the union if he had been expelled on that ground. So far as the non-conforming employer is concerned, there is now provision for application for an agency shop in respect of that person.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also raised some difficulties about organising a ballot, in particular of securing a sufficient number to vote to endorse a closed shop agreement. It is important to remember that a ballot would only arise, where an agreement had been arrived at between the N.U.S. and an employer's federation, if 20 per cent. of the employees sought to challenge it. It is only in a very vexed situation that a ballot would be sought at all. If the situation were so vexatious
  1030
  as to attract the support of 20 per cent. of the employees covered by the agreement itself, it is more than probable that an attempt would be made to resolve the question.
  Mr. Prescott: But I have understood the argument to be the opposite. Surely the idea of the ballot is to ascertain the will of the people in the industry and give them the right to exercise that will. I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that it will be difficult to get a ballot in these conditions, and he can assume that it will be difficult for the 20 per cent. to apply for a ballot in conditions where the closed shop agreement will apply. I pointed out to the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier that it is difficult to apply a ballot in the situation in which seamen find themselves. Now he says to me, "Do not worry too much because the 20 per cent. will find it very difficult to ballot anyway."
  The Solicitor-General: I am saying that both in this context and in the agency shop context there is nothing to stop an employer or employers' association and the union, as one would expect if the hon. Gentleman's case is correct, making an agreement under these provisions and seeking to get the approval of the C.I.R. It is only when and if that is challenged effectively by 20 per cent. of the employees covered that one ever reaches the question of a ballot at all. The same is true in the agency shop situation, so there is no real problem here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the right hon. Lady questioned the use in this context, as in the agency shop provision, of "the majority of those eligible ". I come back again to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—each of these provisions, the agency shop and the exempt closed shop, represents a curtailment of liberty, and it is therefore right that there should be this high threshold of approval before it can be adopted.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwin (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) raised some points about the provisions of the new Clause itself and in particular suggested that there was an inconsistency in the placing of the phrase "as the case may be" in subsection (1) and

  1031
  subsequent subsections. If that inconsistency has the effect of licensing the pre-entry closed shop, as he suggested, we shall look at it again to make sure that the provisions cannot operation in that way.
  He also suggested that there was an inconsistency in line 27 and line 32 between the inclusion in one place and the exclusion from the other of the words "or failed". The pattern follows the precedent contained in Clause 5 and I believe that it fulfils the object of the exercise. However, if on further examination it appears that the omission of the words "or failed" from subsection (5)(b) produces an inconsistent effect, we shall look at the matter again.
  I emphasise that the new Clause and the new Schedule are not expected or intended to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton hoped. The agency shop proposals will cope in the vast majority of cases. It is only if they do not cope that an application under the new Clause can become effective.
  I give much more attention to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). It is right to point out, as they pointed out, that under these provisions, when an exempt closed shop agreement has been approved, dismissal from the union could result in dismissal from employment and loss of employment opportunity at that place and perhaps thereafter. It is because of that that we have tried so hard to balance these conflicting factors, to arrive at a properly controlled balance in the Clause. Such a dismissal can be fair only if the employer can justify it as fair and such dismissal in consequence of expulsion of the union can be fair only if the union can justify expulsion from the union under Clause 62, and the member would have the opportunity of challenging under Clause 97 and Clause 95. I remind hon. Members that Clause 77 allows the member to get the Registrar to take up his case for him so as to protect him in that kind of situation.
  I commend to my right hon. Friend and to the House what we have qualified and balanced in this way. The right hon. Lady suggested that union membership
  1032
  and the rights of unions to recruit members should be allowed to be pursued hereafter as in the past. We are not prepared or disposed to make any kind of concession in that direction.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would my hon. and learned Friend confirm whether the interpretation which I tentatively put on subsection (5), that a man can be dismissed in these circumstances because the union failed to elect him, is right and whether, if it is, it means that that man has no remedy other than the fairly prolonged procedure of getting it declared to be an unfair industrial practice?
  The Solicitor-General: I was acknowledging the point made by my right hon. Friend. He will remember that the Donovan Commission suggested that that and that alone, without any of the other provisions of the Bill, would be sufficient protection of a man's right to work. We do not subscribe to that. It is only in the very narrow situation here defined that we believe that it can be accepted as my right hon. Friend puts it. The position is as he puts it, that if someone is not admitted to the union and thereby required to lose the job offered to him, his remedy consists of getting his rights of membership of the union established and declared.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How long does my hon. and learned Friend think it would take before a man dismissed in these circumstances could have the position rectified using this procedure?
  The Solicitor-General: It would depend, but I would have thought in this kind of case it would be possible for someone in employment and threatened with the loss of his job as a result of expulsion to get an interim relief that would enable him to hold the position, in other wards his appeal procedure would have to be gone through before it would take effect, so that in most cases it would operate in that way.
  As my right hon. Friend appreciates, the fact that that kind of remedy was available to him would make it much less likely that a person would be dealt with in that way. We are trying here to maintain the difficult balance of which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke spoke, the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of

  1033
  society. We have accepted that there are some cases where the membership of a union as opposed to paying the contribution to the union funds should be necessary but we have accepted it only upon conditions which should be stringent.
  We have done it upon the basis of our belief that the agency shop proposals will meet almost all justifiable cases. We have been persuaded on this narrow aspect to advance this alternative proposal to meet these cases. I commend the new Clause and the new Schedule in association with it to the House as representing a balance which is fair, satisfactory, democratic and workable.
  Mr. Concannon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Mr. Waddington: On a point of order. The hon. Member is seeking to move the closure—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order when the Motion has been moved, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division; Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Alan Fitch were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 242.

  Division No. 236.]

  AYES

  [9.30 p.m.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Eden, Sir John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Emery, Peter

  James, David

  Balniel, Lord

  Farr, John

  Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fell, Anthony

  Jessel, Toby

  Batsford, Brian

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fidler, Michael

  Jopling, Michael

  Bell, Ronald

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Benyon, W.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Keltett, Mrs. Elaine

  Biffen, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kilfedder, James

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Foster, Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Body, Richard

  Fowler, Norman

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Knox, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fry, Peter

  Lane, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Gardner, Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bray, Ronald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Loveridge, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  MacArthur, Ian

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Buck, Antony

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Burden, F. A.

  Gray, Hamish

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Butter, Adam (Bosworth)

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maddan, Martin

  Carlisle, Mark

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Madel, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Marten, Neil

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maude, Angus

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maudling, Ht. Hn. Reginald

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mawby, Ray

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cooke, Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Coombs, Derek

  Hastings, Stephen

  MillS, Peter (Torrington)

  Corfield, Rt. Ho. Frederick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hay, John

  Mitchell, Lt. -Col.C.(Aberderenshire,W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Critchley, Julian

  Heseltine, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Crouch, David

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Molyneaux, James

  Curran, Charles

  Hiley, Joseph

  Money, Ernie

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Monro, Hector

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Dean, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Dixon, Piers

  Hornby, Richard

  Mudd, David

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Murton, Oscar

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Neave, Airey

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Normanton, Tom

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Trew, Peter

  Nott, John

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Tugendhat, ChristoPher

  Onstow, Cranley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Om, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sharples, Richard

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Osborn, John

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & amp;Whitby)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Waddington, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Simeons, Charies

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Walt, Patrick

  Peel, John

  Soref, Harold

  Walters, Dennis

  Percival, Ian

  Speed, Keith

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Spence, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pounder, Raftan

  Stanton, Keith

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Whitelaw, Rt,Hn. William

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Wolrigs-Gordon, Patrick

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stokes, John

  Wood, Rt.Hn. Richard

  Quennel, Miss J. M.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Raison, Timothy

  Sutcliffe, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rawlinson, Rt.,Hn. Sir Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thatcher, nt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Detargy, H. J.

  Hunter, Adam

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dempsey, James

  Janner, Greville

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Doig, Peter

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&SLP'cras,S.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ashley, Jack

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Driberg, Tom

  John, Brynmor

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Dunnett, Jack

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  English, Michael

  Judd, Frank

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Evans, Fred

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Booth, Albert

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Kelley, Richard

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

  Kerr, Russell

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lambie, David

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)

  Foot, Michael

  Latham, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Lawson, George

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Leonard, Dick

  Cant, R. B.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Golding, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Gourley, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Cohen, Stanley

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Conlan, Bernard

  Haming, William

  McBride, Neil

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McElhone, Frank

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McGuire, Michael

  Cronin, John

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hefter, Eric S.

  Mackie, John

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Horam, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Davidson, Arthur

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Davies, Denzil (LlanellY)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marquand, David

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  1036

  1037

  Mendelson, John

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Rees,,Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Roberts, Albert (NOrmanton)

  Tinn, James

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Moyle, Roland

  Roper, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Murray, R. K.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Ogden, Eric

  Sheldon, Robert(Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wallace, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Watkins, David

  Oram, Bert

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Weitzman, David

  Orbach, Maurice

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Sillars, James

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Julius

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Palmer, Arthur

  Small, William

  Whitlock, William

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Re. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Prescott, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Woof, Robert

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Probert, Arthur

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Rankin, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Clause accordingly read a Second time.
  Amendment (a) proposed to the proposed Clause: In line 1, leave out 'approved'.—[Mrs. Castle.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 264.

  Division No. 237.]

  AYES

  [9.41 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Albu, Austen

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hamling, William

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Ashley, Jack

  Davies, I for (Gower)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Deakins, Eric

  Hattersley, Roy

  Barnett, Joel

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Beaney, Alan

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Horam, John

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dempsey, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Doig, Peter

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hughes, Rt.Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Booth, Albert

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hunter, Adam

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilton)

  Janner, Greville

  Buchan, Norman

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n& St.P'cras,S.)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  English, Michael

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Evans, Fred

  John, Brynmor

  Cant, R. B.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Castle, Rt.,Hn. Barbara

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Forrester, John

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Harn,S.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Judd, Frank

  Coleman, Donald

  Garrett, W. E.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gilbret, Dr. John

  Kelley, Richard

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ginsburg, David

  Kerr, Russell

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Golding, John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lambie, David

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Latham, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oram, Bert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Leonard, Dick

  Orme, Stanley

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Swain, Thomas

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Taverne, Dick

  Loughlin, Charles

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Tinn, James

  McBride, Neil

  Prescott, John

  Tomney, Frank

  McCartney, Hugh

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Torney, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tuck, Raphael

  McGuire, Michael

  Probert, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rankin, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mackie, John

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wallace George

  Mahon, Simon (Bootie)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Watkins, David

  Mallatieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weitzman, David

  Marquand, David

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  wellbeloved, James

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roper, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mendelson, John

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Whitlock, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Molloy, William

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Short, Mrs. René (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silkin, Rt, Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woof, Robert

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Small, William

  Murray, R. K.

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ogden, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  O'Malley, Brian

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Derek

  Gower, Raymond

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gray, Hamish

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Costain, A. P.

  Green, Alan

  Awdry, Daniel

  Critchley, Julian

  Grieve, Percy

  Balniel, Lord

  Crouch, David

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Curran, Charles

  Grylls, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Dalkeith, East of

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gurden, Harold

  Bell, Ronald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Benyon, W.

  Dean, Paul

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Biffen, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dixon, Piers

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  du Cann Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Body, Richard

  Eden, Sir John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Boscawen, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hasethurst, Alan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Emery, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Braine, Bernard

  Farr, John

  Hay, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Fell, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Heseitine, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fidler, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Bryan, Paul

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N& M)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Buck, Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fortescue, Tim

  Holland, Philip

  Burden, F. A.

  Foster, Sir John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fowler, Norman

  Hordem, Peter

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray& Nairn)

  Fox, Marcus

  Hornby, Richard

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fry, Peter

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Goodhew, Victor

  James, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  1040

  1041

  Jessel, Toby

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Neave, Airey

  Stainton, Keith

  Jopling, Michael

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Normanton, Tom

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Nott, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Kilfedder, James

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stokes, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Oppertheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Osborn, John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Knox, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lane, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Tayfor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Peel, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Percival, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Loveridge, John

  Pounder, Raftan

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tilney, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  McLaren, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Trew, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pym, Rt Hn. Francis

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  McMaster, Stanley

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Raison, Timothy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Madden, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Waddington, David

  Model, David

  Refs, Peter (Dover)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Renton, Rt Hn. Sir David

  Wall, Patrick

  Marten, Neil

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walters, Dennis

  Maude, Angus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mawby, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rost, Peter,

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn, D.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mitchell,Lt. Col.C.(Aberdeendshire,W)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Sharpies, Richard

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Molyneaux, James

  Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh & Whitby)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Money,Erine

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Simeon, Charles

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Monro, Hector

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Younger, Hn. George

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Soref, Harold

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Mudd, David

  Spence, John

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. Speaker: I now call Amendment (b), and with that can be discussed the other Amendments set out in the provisional selection, as follows:
  (e) in line 7, after union ', insert: 'or independent organisation of workers'.
  (f) in line 8, after unions ', insert: 'or independent organisations of workers'.
  (1) in line 17, after union ', insert: 'or independent organisation of workers'.
  (m) in line 18, after unions ', insert: ' or independent organisations of workers'.
  (n) in line 21, after union ', insert: ' or independent organisation of workers'.
  (o) in line 21, after unions ', insert: 'or independent organisations of workers'.
  (r) in line 28, after union ', insert: 'or independent organisation of workers'.
  (s) in line 29, after unions ', insert: or independent organisations of workers'.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment (b) to the proposed Clause, in line 2, after unions ', insert:
  'or independent organisations of workers'.
  After that dramatic collapse of Government support—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members withdraw quietly, if they must?
  Mr. Walker: As I was saying before I was so rudely and persistently interrupted, after that dramatic—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the only interruption the hon. Member had was from me.
  Mr. Walker: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but from this end of the Clerk's Table we could hear an awful lot of other hubbub, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not like the word "other ". I do not like that at all.
  Mr. Walker: That is what it sounded like at this end, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that the Government's performance suggests that perhaps at last the light is getting through to them and perhaps, if they could try a little harder on this Amendment, they might finally collapse altogether. No doubt we shall have some kangaroo courts in the Government Chief Whip's room in the morning with perhaps the Prime Minister and one or two of his colleagues there, too.
  Turning to the Amendment, the House will recognise that its wording reiterates an attitude that we repeatedly expressed from this side of the House during Committee, both in debate and in the silent words in print on the Order Paper. It is not only for the sake of consistency that we have tabled it again throughout the new Clause and the Schedule, wherever we deem it appropriate. The omission of the words on the Order Paper,
  " or independent organisations of workers"
  not only casts further doubts on the practicability of what the Government are proposing but also raises again what we believe to be an important matter of principle.
  Taking the lesser point first, though it is still an important one, it is the practical problem which arises during the transitory period of the provisional register and the sanctity or otherwise of an existing closed shop which might ultimmately be eligible for approval under the provisions of the new Clause and its Schedule.
  It may be that the difficulty is explained in the Bill and that the answer is there if one is prepared to plough through a labyrinth of cross-references. But I have not yet been able to find it. That is hardly surprising when so many Government back benchers, today and on other occasions, have drawn attention to the complexity of the Bill. I might recall to the right hon. Gentleman's mind occasions in the past when he chided me from this Box and in Committee about abstruse and complex provisions in Government Bills. I remember the right hon. Gentleman charging me with present-
  1044
  ing the House with gobbledygook. Today, that word was never far from the lips of some right hon. and hon. Members on the benches opposite.
  The first question which poses itself with regard to the practical problem which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether entry under the provisional register constitutes registration for the purpose of the new Clause. If it does and an organisation which is so registered enters into an approved closed shop arrangement, what happens if subsequently that organisation refuses to go on to the permanent register or disqualifies itself from entry? Does the closed shop agreement in that case automatically become an unfair industrial practice which will be outlawed? Alternatively, if the provisions of Clause 76 apply, that is to say, that entry on the provisional register does not of itself constitute registration, what happens to an existing closed shop pending registration, bearing in mind the Government's new proposal to extend the interim period to 12 months?
  Having posed the practical problem which arises, it appears to me that today's debate has centred round the position of two groups-the position of seafarers and that of members of Equity. However, we should not overlook the fact that there are some 3⅛ million workers at present covered by closed shop agreements, and they will want to know their position on the day that the Act comes into force. They will want to know the status of their closed shop, no matter what their organisation may do subsequently about registration. It seems to me that on the day that the relevant Sections of the Act come into force, most if not all existing trade unions will become organisations of workers by virtue of moving on to the provisional register, in the light of Clause 76, or not being registered.
  It seems highly likely, whether deliberately or not, that most if not all unions will be organisations of workers. It seems equally likely, especially in the light of the recommendations that the T.U.C. will be putting to its member unions later this week, that many trade unions will continue to be organisations of workers as long as the onerous and odious registration provisions are part of Government policy.

  1045
  It is at this point that I turn to the issue of principle. Our detestation and the loathing of the trade union movement of the inequitable and iniquitous registration provisions, and the rÔle of the registrar with his arbitrary power to impose specified conditions of registration, have all been spelled out from this side of the House without any shadow of doubt. The Government aim to make the new Clause yet another instrument of coercion to push the recalcitrant into the cage of registration.
  It seems to me that even the crumbs that we have had offered from the Government today are to be denied to those who will not jump at the command of the registrar. We have said before that the registration commitments such as are set out in the Bill, administered by the almost absolute and near-unrivalled power of the Chief Registrar, are an affront to any concept of the rÔle of trade unions in a free and democratic society.
  Adopting the terms of the Bill, the other side of the registration coin—the side of freedom—is that which is epitomised in the phrase that we have chosen for our Amendment: "organisations of workers ". By putting this Amendment before the House, we put ourselves on the side of that freedom.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: It is said that there is no gratitude in politics, and I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the reception that his new Clause has received today from the Opposition benches. He seemed to me to go a long way out of his way, much further than he had undertaken during our previous debates, to try to give accommodation and to be helpful to Equity, to the seamen and to the presentations of cases which were made to him, both during the time of the consultative document and subsequently. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave a faint nod of recognition of what my right hon. Friend had done, but his hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) gave no response whatever.
  This bundle of Amendments to the new Clause intends to extend it to apply to trade unions which are not registered. I urge my right hon. Friend on this occasion not to be flexible at all. In the
  1046
  context of the special provisions for closed shop agreements, it is essential that those agreements should affect only registered trade unions.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that the whole system of registration was, not disgusting, but some other word.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Odious.
  Mr. Page: Odious. Unfortunately, 1 do not have the rather excellent quotation from the winding-up speech by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) about registration. She accepted, however, the view that registration is quite natural and proper in many of the ways that my right hon. Friend and the Bill suggest. It is in only about a couple of items concerning some of the rules and the position of shop stewards that the right hon. Lady seemed to become anti-registration.
  Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Member must not misrepresent the position of either my right hon. Friend or myself. I attacked the odious and inequitable registration requirements of the Bill and my right hon. Friend, as I recall, attacked them with even more vigour. It was not the principle of registration, but the registration requirements of the Bill, which my right hon. Friend and I attacked.
  Mr. Page: Had I realised that this matter would be brought up now I would have looked up my reference, because we have here a remarkable volte face by some hon. Members opposite. It is unfair for me to flog the point without having the reference, but I shall see that I have it by me on the next occasion.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will not try to meet the Opposition on this Amendment as he tried to meet them on the new Clause—as I believe, most successfully; and that he will make absolutely certain that there is no misunderstanding of the fact that the only unions which can be considered for approved closed shop agreements will be those that are registered.
  Mr. John Golding: We see in the Government's attitude to this Amendment the source of

  1047
  much of their feelings against the entire trade union movement.
  We are here arguing once again about the principle of registration, and in this respect the Government's attitude is consistent. They are saying that unless trade unions register they will be penalised in a number of specific ways. They will not get relief from taxation. The officials, and the unions themselves—because we shall continue to call them unions although we may have to refer to them as independent organisations of workers—will become subject to unlimited financial penalties in the courts, and the officials will, in certain circumstances, be subject to imprisonment. The trade union movement has fairly and squarely faced these prospects in the last few weeks.
  As a further item added to the penalties for trade unions which will not register, it is being said that a trade union cannot have a closed shop agreement unless it is registered. No matter how necessary the closed shop may be for industrial relations, no union, whether it be for seamen, actors, scriptwriters, musicians, journalists, lorry drivers, or anyone else, can have a closed shop without registration.
  What the Government are saying in opposing the Amendment is: "We have listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and we have accepted the force of his arguments. We have listened to spokesmen on behalf of Equity, and we have been persuaded by what they have said. We have listened with interest to what people have had to say about the musicians and the scriptwriters. They have a case—such a good case that we have been prepared to introduce a new Clause—but no matter how strong their case we shall not let them have the closed shop which we think is an essential for good industrial relations unless they register."
  What will happen if the National Union of Seamen declares that it will not take out registration papers, that it will not seek a licence from the State? What will happen if Equity follows? Are the arguments of the Government, that these organisations have a case, to disappear into the background? It seems that the Government are very anxious to place registration above everything else. The
  1048
  coming confrontation between the trade union movement and the Government is about registration, and this, in a sense, reveals the mockery of the argument about this Bill as a Bill to remove industrial conflict.
  The argument is about the internal condition of trade unions. The argument is whether the working people are controlling their unions or whether people from outside control the unions. This is the nub of the argument. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I hear an hon. Member opposite saying "Nonsense ". I observe an hon. Member opposite who has been a member of the union that I represent, the Post Office Engineering Union. In our union, as in every union, there are procedures for determining how our rules are arrived at. In the branches every year, policy is made. Branches are asked to submit propositions to conference. Debates take place. Delegates are sent to conference. In the conference, 600 people, with their votes, determine what shall be the policies and from time to time what the rules are to be.
  The rules differ greatly from one union to another. Much of my time as a trade union official has been devoted to arguing against the closed shop in my union because it does not fit the specific case of my union. Yet on other occasions I have argued the case for the closed shop in other industries. In union life we have workers coming together at various levels—shop floor, district, regional and national levels—discussing their experiences and evolving rules to suit the union and the body of workers represented in the union.
  One can understand rule making and policy-making in a trade union only if one reflects on the House of Commons, because the trade union movement, in its basic approach, has followed two institutions. From the point of view of the closed shop it has followed the professions. I am fond of quoting the preamble to the constitution of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers of 1851, in which it is stated specifically that they are creating a trade union in order to get that control of the job and of standards that professional bodies like the lawyers and the doctors had achieved by 1851.
  But if one looks further, one sees that the trade union movement has not only

  1049
  followed the pattern of the professions. It has also modelled itself, in the way in which it has evolved its procedures, its rules and practices, to a large extent on British parliamentary government. The British trade union movement never has been a revolutionary body. Many of my hon. Friends have criticised us in the trade unions because we have been moderate, because we have been constitutional, because we have been conservative with a small "c ". Most people who have studied the history of the British trade union movement recognise that it is a constitutional movement.
  10.15 p.m.
  What would be the answer if we asked a business efficiency expert what he thought of our Standing Orders, our procedures and what is laid down in Erskine May for the conduct of business in the House of Commons? [Interruption.] We have worked out our own rules and procedures to suit ourselves, but if we asked whether it was reasonable to sit the hours we do, to vote in the way we do and to behave generally as we do in the House. business efficiency experts would say that that was not a satisfactory way to conduct our affairs. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want all this advice from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Golding: You shocked me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I wondered whether it was I who was out of order. I was pointing out that we have evolved our procedures, we understand them, and they suit our purposes. The trade union movement has evolved rules and procedures for its purposes. The Government are now trying to take the decision-making from the trade union movement and to hand it over to people outside who have relatively little knowledge of the way in which rules and policies are formulated in the trade union movement.
  Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: The fallacy in what the whon Gentleman is saying is that there is always an Opposition in the House of Commons. Within the trade union movement there is no Her Majesty's Opposition or anybody else's opposition, and the public interest is not necessarily taken into account. In the House of Commons the public interest is always paramount.
  Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman's interjection illustrates my point. Let me
  1050
  explain how policy is evolved from time to time in the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman says that there is no opposition. I wonder how much experience he has had. I assure him that someone sitting on the platform at a national conference facing the assembled delegates does not feel like a Russian commissar facing an audience which does not express itself forcibly or vote. Of course there are oppositions in trade unions. That is what trade unionism is about. There will be strong opposition to any trade union leader who tells a union conference that he has settled for a wage increase of 3⅛ per cent. after claiming an increase of 25 per cent.
  Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Member has moved from the question of the decision on rules to bargaining in the market place. They are two different matters.
  Mr. Golding: What is of prime importance in union rule-book making is that most modern medium-sized and large trade unions consist of a variety of occupational groups the interests of which are often somewhat in conflict. There are headmasters and assistant masters, long-serving teachers and short-service teachers. In my union there are highly skilled men who work in telephone exchanges and who are called the internal men. There are also the men who work outside—the linesmen—and who are called external men. Nevertheless, there is a history of conflict between these sections.
  In most of the unions which were once craft unions and which have become general unions there is an element of conflict between cratsmen, semi-skilled and others. In other unions there is a conflict between the London interest and the provincial interest. This is true of a remarkable number of unions, whether in connection with the London and provincial busmen, the London and provincial printers, the London and provincial civil servants, or any other category. In other unions there are different groups which the union has brought together.
  Often there are stresses and strains within the union. The rule books often contain executive reservations for one group. To secure an amalgamation it might have been necessary for a relatively small group to be offered a seat on the executive; and that is written into the rules. To keep groups in membership

  1051
  certain seats on the executive must be reserved. The rule books reflect the stresses and strains and the histories of unions.
  To say that there is no opposition within the trade union movement is to show the very ignorance which we are afraid an outside body will show. The implementation must come from outside. The Government are determined that an outside person—the registrar—shall decide whether the rules are satisfactory. Each and every member of a union can decide that the rules should say so-and-so but the registrar, with no experience of the conditions in the industry, can say nay to the union.
  Mr. Proudfoot: What the hon. Gentleman has explained is exactly what would happen in an employers' association. The tensions would be there. He says that an outside person—the registrar—would decide. There is company law. There is the monopolies legislation. All this applies to business. He is describing a situation which exists in private enterprise.
  Mr. Golding: Of course it exists. I no more want employers' associations to be regulated from outside than I want trade unions to be so regulated. The point is that registration is the central fact. We in the trade union movement bitterly resent the control of our unions being taken away from the rank and file and handed over to people outside who probably have no knowledge of the conditions prevailing within a union or within an industry. That is why we shall oppose registration on every occasion we can do so.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) accused us of ignorance. He justified his case solely on that claim. He used the phrase, "We have evolved procedures suitable for ourselves ". That apparently was his complete answer to all problems. He did not consider whether those procedures had resulted in an entirely satisfactory state of affairs in industry in relation to the needs of the country. He merely made that bald assertion. To us, that is much more reprehensible than any
  1052
  degree of ignorance of which he accused us.
  The Government are not opposing the trade union movement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) said, they are merely doing what has been done in so many sectors in our community over the years. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we will penalise unions which do not register. He said that the Government's attitude to new Clause 1 is consistent with their attitude to the whole Bill. It would have been remarkable if it had not been. That surely is a virtue.
  I want to take up a point made by my hon. Friend about what happens if a firm which is supposed to register under the Business Names Act does not do so. It means that, in certain conditions, it will be unable to enforce a judgment in a court of law or may not be able to recover some judgment debt. Similarly, if a limited company refrains or refuses or neglects to register under the companies legislation, it will not only be in danger of losing its limited liability but many other harsh consequences will ensue.
  There are differences of opinion on this side of the House but the majority of us have made it clear that we regard the closed shop as generally undesirable. But in this limited sector the Government have made a notable exception. It is a narrow exception and it is perfectly reasonable that the unions which qualify under it should have to fulfil the registration requirements of the Bill.
  There is no compulsion to register. It is open to a union not to register. It would be remarkable if a union which refrained from registration then enjoyed this important and decisive exempiton from one of the main provisions of the Bill. It would be unreasonable to make these important exemptions open to unregistered bodies. This is just as reasonable as the registration provisions in other mercantile matters with which we have dealt in the past, and the provision should be incorporated to protect those bodies which are to enjoy the important exemptions introduced by new Clause 1.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: One hon. Member opposite said that there was no gratitude in politics and suggested that there was no welcome for the Clause in any sense on the Opposition Benches. That is not correct. The Opposition welcome the extension of the closed shop principle, even in this limited mode. We object to the limitation of the mode of the extension. The objection is well founded, and it is pointed by reference to this series of Amendments which would extend the benefits of the new Clause to independent organisations of workers.
  Throughout the Bill's distinctions between trade unions and other organisations of workers there runs a theologically unnecessary rigidity. The Bill is concerned in many places with structure. For example, registration is essentially a matter of structure, of the anatomy rather than the physiology of the trade unions and industrial relations. One can understand the necessity for registration from that point of view when one is concerned with rules and structure.
  But nobody, least of all the Government Front Bench, would doubt that the purpose of the Bill is not mere structural changes for ideological or theological reasons, but essentially functional. The Bill must stand or fall, be tested and fail or succeed, according to its effect on industrial relations. That is the reason for it and I credit the Government with sincerity in having this purpose for it. They are making this academic or metaphysical distinction between the trade unions and independent organisations. The arguments which led to the concession on the limited closed shop, a valuable concession which, however, does not go far enough, were concerned with function. Compelling arguments were advanced by my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite that the closed shop operated effectively and helpfully for industry. My hon. Friends pressed for the closed shop in those instances where it was seen to be functioning effectively and seen to be necessary for safety or efficiency. It was the functional argument which led to the concession.
  It must, therefore, be tested on a functional basis and one turns to the new Schedule which gives four gates and a fifth condition which applicant bodies
  1054
  have to pass through to get the advantage of the closed shop. One sees that this is functional and not structural, a test of physiology rather than of anatomy.
  The same is true of the agency shop principle. Clause 11 and the subsequent Clauses which deal with the agency shop, as will be clear from the most casual perusal, are concerned with function and not with structure. Registration is clearly a matter of structure, and Clause 61 and the subsequent Clauses which deal with registration put the emphasis on structure. In passing, I cannot help but refer to Clause 63 where a metaphysical distinction is drawn. That Clause refers to the independent organisation of workers, and in a sense it is the starting point. The prime condition of registration for any union is that it should be an independent organisation of workers.
  Even from the structure point of view the first condition of registration is to be an independent organisation of workers. If this Bill becomes law without further amendment in this connection it appears that a federal organisation such as the Trades Union Congress will not, in any sense, be a trade union because all its affiliated bodies will not register. The position seems to be that only a minority is likely to be registered after the Bill has passed into law.
  To show how paradoxical this state of of affairs will be we have only to realise that it could no longer be called the Trades Union Congress. It would have to change its name because a substantial part of its membership would be independent organisations of workers. It would have to call itself the Congress of Independent Organisations of Workers or some other such American-style title.
  This would be irrelevant because it would not be going for the important point, which is function. It does not mater what we call the T.U.C. provided that it operates in its function. What does it matter what we call a trade union provided it functions effectively in its sphere of operations? Are not the Government labouring this matter unduly? Are they not trying to draw a metaphysical distinction based upon structure which gives far too much emphasis to structure and ignores—and the Government do this at their peril—

  1055
  the more essential aspect of the trade unions and the independent organisations of workers; that is to say the function—what they do in industry and whether they do it well?
  The Solicitor-General took some pride in pointing out that the result of new Clause 12 will be to give a trade union the right, at its request, to have its registration cancelled. This means that trade unions can be expected, if the Bill becomes law, to request cancellation of their registration. Suppose we have a union which has obtained a closed shop in terms of new Clause 1, and suppose that this is a successful closed shop, everyone is pleased with it, and it is approved in terms of the Bill. It is important to underline that there are many hurdles to be overcome here. It is by no means an open door. There are seven or eight hurdles to jump.
  Let us suppose that this trade union has overcome these and has the closed shop and everyone thinks that it is doing a good job. No one can doubt that trade unions, like other organisations, can make decisions which seem strange from the point of view of their functions and which are not obvious to the outsider. Suppose that this trade union decided for reasons quite unconnected with function, for structural reasons—some sort of personal reasons—that it wanted to cancel its registration. What will happen then? Will the Government stand on that structure and have the closed shop discarded and destroy the industry because the union is no longer registered? The Government must follow through the logic of this new Clause and the Schedule. If it leads to chaos there is something wrong with the logic.
  I ask hon. Members to look at the new Schedule and particularly at paragraph 5. We see the four gates and the hurdle to be overcome by applicants to achieve the closed shop status. First, by paragraph 5(1)(a) they have to be organised in a closed shop for the purpose of
  "enabling them to be organised, or to continue to be organised, as mentioned in section 1(1)(c) of this Act ".
  That takes us back to the fundamental provision of the Bill, Clause 1:
  "…the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of
  1056
  employers in employers' associations, so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers."
  That is function, not structure; physiology, not anatomy. By paragraph 5(1)(b) workers have to be organised in a closed shop for the purpose of
  "maintaining reasonable terms and conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of between employers and workers ".
  That is a vital function of trade unions; it is not structure. Paragraph 5(1)(c)refers to
  "promoting or maintaining stable arrangements for collective bargaining relating to those workers".
  Both sides of industry want stability. If reasonable and fair arrangements have been made, they should be continued for the benefit of both sides of industry. Again, it is a question of function, not of structure. Paragraph 5(1)(d) refers to
  "preventing collective agreement relating to those workers, which have been or may thereafter be made by the applicants, from being frustrated ".
  That is a question of getting rid of obstacles. It is function, not structure.
  Paragraph 5(2) of the new Schedule provides:
  The Commission shall also consider whether it appears to them that in the circumstances the purposes specified in the preceding subparagraph could not reasonably be expected to be fulfilled by means of an agency shop agreement.
  What is being said is that there should not be a closed shop if an agency shop will do. The emphasis is on function and not on structure.
  Mr. Gower: These requirements will obtain when the Commission is satisfied that the desired result can be achieved only in this way. In many other instances it will be accepted by the Commission that it can be achieved without invoking these special requirements.
  Mr. Murray: I accept that. The points which the hon. Gentleman and I accept as being at the heart of the matter are essentially matters of function. I ask him to follow through the logic of his intervention, which is that if these functional factors are important for trade unions they are equally important for the independent organisation of workers, whether or not they are registered. To insist on

  1057
  registration smacks of dogma and theology which are out of place in a Bill which is meant to be a reforming Bill and to improve functions in industry.
  Mr. Waddington: Like other hon. Members, I did not anticipate that we would finish our proceedings tonight with another debate on registration.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has left the Chamber, because I wanted to take up some of his points. He repeated the threat that the unions would not register. I do not believe that, but we are all entitled to our opinions about what the future holds. The real divide on this issue is between those who believe that the only people who have a legitimate interest in the rules of unions are union members and those who believe that unions are such important bodies that the public interest must be considered.
  10.45 p.m.
  Having said that, I really do not understand what all the bother is about. Again I regret that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has left the Chamber, because he got very excited about the provisions for registration and was suggesting that in some way or another trade unions will be hidebound by the provisions for registration and said they would have taken away from them the right to conduct their affairs in the way they want to conduct them. He did not go on to point to any provisions in the Bill which really would fetter the rights of trade unions. I should like very quickly to go over various provisions in the Bill which deal with registration.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), at the beginning of his speech, to which I listened with the greatest attention, thought that under this Bill the Registrar would be vested with very considerable power. Let us look first of all at Clause 59, which vests powers in the Registrar. When one looks at Clause 59 the very first thing one discovers is that the Registrar is to be as independent as a High Court judge, because he will "hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure ". One really ought not to lose sight of that, because if one is faced with a choice whether one should give more power to the Executive to exercise control over the rules of unions or give
  1058
  power to an individual to supervise those rules, I would have thought that both sides of the House would be in agreement that it is far preferable to vest that sort of power in the hand of an independent official than to vest it in the hands of the Executive.
  Then when one looks at Clause 61, which sets out the guiding principles, I would have thought the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme would have carried a lot more weight if he had been able to point to any of those guiding principles and to say that to call them guiding principles was an abuse of language, they were not guiding principles at all but an attempt to fetter the rights of unions in their legitimate aspirations. But, of course, he could not say that and did not say that.
  One moves on to the Third Schedule. No one has told me, in any analysis of that Schedule, which provisions in it take away from the unions their legitimate aspirations. I hope that at some time before the Bill has completed all its stages in the House somebody will explain to me where there are provisions which take away from trade unions important parts of their rights and which fetter them in the way hon. Members opposite are continually suggesting unions will be fettered, or will point to any provision in the Bill which in fact has that effect.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I intervene at this stage not to take issue with the hon. Gentleman's case but only to ask him if he has completed his catalogue of duties of the Chief Registrar and his rÔle, because he ought not to do so without looking at the provisions of Clause 64(4)(b), which give the Registrar this power, that he has to be satisfied that
  "any other requirements "—
  not specified—
  "imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with ".
  Mr. Waddington: I have been trying to make a short speech, and perhaps I shortened the argument more than I should have done, but what I was pointing out was, first of all, that the Registrar is an independent person and not a creature of the Executive, and, secondly

  1059
  that the Registrar, in exercising his obligations under the Bill, has to have regard to the guiding principles. I would have thought that if one looked at these two things together it would be quite impossible to sustain the argument that he will take away from the unions any of their legitimate rights and aspirations.
  I said earlier that the great divide between the two sides of the House is that we believe that people other than those in the unions' membership do have an interest in the way in which the unions conduct their affairs; but, perhaps, again, I was over-simplifying the divide, because there is another great difference of opinion between hon. Members opposite and ourselves in that we really do believe that many of the rules of many of the unions do not satisfactorily safeguard the rights of individual members of those trade unions.
  I am not going to weary the House by going through a whole catalogue of union rules which, to our way of thinking, do not adequately safeguard the rights of individuals. But I would refer to a case which was brought to my attention this weekend and which illustrates how fallacious was the argument of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that unions are responsible to their membership and the rules are evolved by the decision of that membership.
  An angry man came to see me last Saturday morning. He was a member of D.A.T.A., and he had seen a notice in his works telling him that he had to go on strike this coming Thursday. He asked how this had come about, because under the D.A.T.A. rules there could not be a national strike without a ballot resulting in a two-thirds majority in favour of strike action. I said I did not know the answer. He said that he did not either, but he had taken the matter up with the former D.A.T.A. secretary, who had told him that as a result of D.A.T.A. becoming part of the A.E.U.W. on 1st January this year what were the original A.E.F. rules took precedence over the D.A.T.A. rules and the A.E.F. did not give that protection to its membership.
  Mr. Golding: Were the articles of amalgamation circulated to the members
  1060
  of D.A.T.A. and discussed in the D.A.T.A. branches? Did the hon. Gentleman's constituent attend his branch meeting to discuss the rules and use his democratic right to vote on the amalgamation?
  Mr. Hamish GrayThat is the trouble.
  Mr. Golding: Those who say "That is the trouble" are the very people who are claiming a mandate for the Bill on a vote which was less than 50 per cent.
  Mr. Waddington: We have to look at the reality of the situation. The former D.A.T.A. secretary assured my constituent that in October a circular had been sent to the various factories telling them that the rules might be altered as a result of the amalgamation. Beyond that, no guidance could be given to my constituent on how the draughtsmen had lost the right they had up to 1st January this year.
  Mr. James A. Dunn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amalgamation terms stated specifically that the rules of the A.E.F. would precede any rule hitherto accepted by D.A.T.A. I have had a similar complaint, and I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. When I explained this to my constituent, he realised that he had allowed this to happen by default. This is a responsibility shared by us all. Many times we allow things to happen by default.
  Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for the intervention. The hon. Gentleman corroborates what I have said. My constituent carried out a straw ballot in his part of the works and found that everyone else was in the same state of bewilderment. None of the other draughtsment could understand how they had lost their right to a ballot before a national strike could be called. The hon. Gentleman is right. Members of trade unions should exercise their rights and go to their branch meetings. We all must help to get them to exercise their rights. But things do not happen like that in the real world outside. The example I have given demonstrates the fallacy of imagining that trade union rules are evolved by the rank and file. It simply does not work out that way.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: The rules of the A.E.F. also lay down that there

  1061
  must be a ballot before a national strike is called. But there is an addendum which says:
  " unless the Executive Committee consider there is insufficient time."
  Surely there was sufficient time in this case.
  Mr. Waddington: I take the point. Unfortunately, there is that addendum which allows the Executive to get round the rule and call a national strike without a ballot, whereas the rules of D.A.T.A. did not allow the D.A.T.A. Executive to call a strike without a ballot.
  I emphasise again how aggrieved this gentleman felt and how right he was to be aggrieved. He said to me, "Why should I, having voted for an Industrial Relations Bill in June last year, now be compelled to go on strike against the Bill? What sort of democracy is that? "I could not answer that question, and I do not believe that any hon. Member opposite can.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had not intended to intervene until I heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). He surprised me, because this mythical gentlemen he quoted did not know last June what the Industrial Relations Bill was going to be. None of us did. The Bill we have now is not the one promised. This mythical gentleman who is alleged to have said that he knew what the Bill was to be must have known better than any hon. Member of this House.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Last June 13 million electors are presumed by the Conservative Party to have voted for the Bill. But on the Government's own standard in the Bill, 26 million people can be presumed to have voted against it.
  Mr. Lewis: When elections are held, ideas and principles are put into manifestoes but, from my intimate knowledge after 26 years in this House, I have learnt what happens, irrespective of party. The Government returned to power conveniently find reasons and excuses why they cannot fully implement exactly what they had promised or find that what they had promised is not what they can bring into being. We have it again with the present Government. The Prime Minister promised to cut prices at a stroke but has
  1062
  not done so; nor has he attempted to do so. Every day he finds various excuses and reasons for not doing it. This mythical gentleman who claims—
  Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misinterpret or misconstrue what I said or suggest that this man does not exist. I would not have used this example if the man had not been to see me, had not been a member of D.A.T.A. and had not told me what he did.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should not have said "mythical gentleman"; "unnamed gentleman" would have been the better term. But the unnamed gentleman claimed that he did not know what was happening, had not taken the trouble to find out and was surprised after the event. It reminds me of a true story about a Member of Parliament. The Member was elected to the House, and he had not been here very long when he received a letter from a constituent, a dear old lady, who said, "I have just received my dividend warrant from a company in which I have shares, and inside it was a note asking me to write to my Member of Parliament asking him to vote against something connected with some Bill. I don't know what it was about or what Bill it was, but will you please vote against it."
  This is the same sort of thing. We have this all the time. Companies take over other companies. They send out the notices, and the directors—who invariably do very well in take-over—recommend to the shareholders of an existing company that it is very good for the shareholders that they should vote for it and, indeed, that they should vote for it because the directors will be going on to the new company—at probably double fees and double directorship incomes, but that is not disclosed to the shareholders. They tell the shareholders the need for it. Invariably the shareholders do not trouble to vote, even though they are given a reply-paid printed post-card, all made out, so that all they have to do is to put a cross against whether they are for or against the motion. Nine out of 10 ordinary shareholders do not trouble to return

  1063
  those documents. Surely the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would not then say that when eventually the take-over is completed those persons concerned who never troubled to vote have a reason to complain of what has happened.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned nine out of 10 shareholders. Can he confirm to us that in the much publicised election in the Engineering Union 8 per cent. of members bothered to vote in the ballot? The only thing one can say about that is that it is a higher percentage than that of hon. Gentlemen opposite bothering to attend the debate.
  Mr. Lewis: If we are to argue about ballots and democracy, I can answer the hon. Gentleman by asking how many voted for the House of Lords. Who would have a chance of voting on that issue? Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the Members of the House of Lords were democratically elected? We do not have to go to the House of Lords. How long has it been since the Leader of the Tory Party was elected? It was not until we on this side clamoured—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was here, and I know of the mysterious channels used when voting until recently. Who knows, we might not have had the present Prime Minister were it not for this side of the House demanding that the Tory Party should have democracy. We know that there is a lack of democratic procedures in many organisations.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is possible for an outside body democratically to change somebody else's rules? That is his argument.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was pointing out that in an organisation there appears to be some anti-democratic procedure. I was pointing out that there was nothing anti-democratic at all, that it was completely, 100 per cent. democratic procedure, because every individual member of the organisation had the opportunity to vote. The fact that a member did not vote surely could not be held against the executive of the union, which could not drag him to vote.
  1064
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) rightly said, the Government were not elected with an overwhelming majority. Even if we tally the two votes together, there were hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of persons who never troubled to vote at all; they abstained. Are we, therefore, to say that because they did not vote, they should say, when the Chancellor introduces his budget and taxes rise, "We will not agree to accept that because we never voted for it or for the Government "? My right hon. and hon. Friends and I might say that we did not vote for them. The democratic decision is there. The opportunity is given. In the same way, these trade unionists had the opportunity of voting—
  Mr. James Hill: Does it make any difference to the hon. Gentleman's argument if I remind him that not all trade unionists have the right to vote? There is a section of members of the Transport and General Workers Union which has no right to vote—
  Mr. Lewis indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman questions this, perhaps we can discuss it later. But I assure him that that is so.
  Mr. Lewis: I know the rules of most unions. The Transport and General Workers Union has democratic voting for membership of the union from the branch level to the district level, and from the district level to the executive and the general council. The union has complete freedom of voting on all matters pertaining to the rules by which its members are governed. It has a biennial conference. It has a rules revision conference. Every member has a chance to vote and, moreover, the opportunity to put forward revisions of rules, individually or collectively. I do not know the individuals about whom the hon. Gentleman speaks. To my knowledge, every union affiliated to the T.U.C. affords similar opportunities to its members to vote and revise its rules.
  Mr. R. Carr: When I hear the nature and content of the arguments of many hon. Gentlemen opposite, I find it difficult to take seriously the Opposition's claim that they are desperately short of time to debate this Bill in detail and in a serious manner. When one notices how

  1065
  hard they have found it to keep the debate on this Clause running at a serious level, it is difficult to understand why they wanted to spend the whole of one day on the Clause. Clearly, we should have got on a lot better if we had concentrated our thoughts a little more seriously.
  I must ask the House to reject this Amendment and those which we are discussing with it. Before I come to my main argument on that, I will answer two questions specifically put to me by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). He asked me first what was the position of an organisation that was on the provisional register: would being on the provisional register qualify a union for application under the Clause. The answer is "No.". As with the case of the agency shop rights, so with the rights that we propose in the Clause. They are confined to unions which are permanently and fully registered.
  The hon. Gentleman then asked what would the position about existing closed shop agreements pending permanent registration. He wanted to know what would be the position, on the day that the Act comes into force, of the several million people who work under such agreements at the moment. The answer is that when the Bill receives the Royal Assent it will be for the Secretary of State to determine at what date various parts of the Act come into effect. It will be possible for the Secretary of State to consider, for example, delaying the implementation of what I may loosely call the closed shop provisions so as to allow time for the achievement of permanent registration.
  If I may assume for a moment that I am still in that position when the Bill becomes an Act, I shall give most careful consideration to these questions of timing to take account of matters of this kind. I shall want to give thought to it and to listen to views about it. Those are the answers to the two questions of important detail which the hon. Member for Doncaster put to me in moving his Amendment.
  I come now to the basic principle why I must ask the House to reject the Amendments. All along, not only since we published the Consultative Document and the Bill, but while we on this side were still in opposition, we have made it clear that registration was one of the
  1066
  proposals at the very heart of our policy. I have explained this before, but I should like briefly to do so again.
  We believe that when organisations such as trade unions claim—and, as we believe, rightly—to exercise much power in our society and in our economy, they can no longer be treated wholly as private organisations. They are claiming to exercise much power in our community, and rightly so. We make no complaint about that. We say, however, that when a voluntary organisation, which remains voluntary, claims to exercise great power in our society and in our economy, it is not unreasonable—in fact, in our view it is essential—that such organisations should be prepared to submit themselves to that minimum degree of supervision by an independent body or authority that will assure the public that the rules of such organisations are in the public interest and are fair to the members of the organisation. That is the basis on which we put forward registration. We believe this to be an absolutely essential point to the whole concept of the Bill.
  If we believe that, it follows naturally, inevitably, from that concept that there must be privileges attaching to registered bodies and lack of privileges to bodies which do not register. The more limited right to any agency shop which we are talking about in the new Clause—in exceptional circumstances, to post-entry closed shop—is an important privilege. It confers important powers. It puts important obligations on individual union members and individual employees as well as on their employers, and it affects in an important way the interest of the community at large. That is why we believe that these privileges, these rights, must be confined to registered bodies and should not be given to unregistered bodies.
  I do not want to get into medical analogies with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), but I believe that the sort of things I have been talking about are much more important than structure. It is an absolutely basic concept of freedom under the law, of freedom with responsibility, that when, as individuals or as organisations, we seek to act in a way which vitally affects the rest of the community, we must be subject to some supervision and

  1067
  control. However paradoxical it may seem, some limitation of our freedom is the very condition of freedom itself.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, whose view is, I know, shared by other hon. Members—I suppose, apparently, by all hon. Members—opposite, described the requirement of registration as being inequitable and iniquitous. I find this impossible to accept. I should have thought that the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) were conclusive.
  11.15 p.m.
  What is involved in registration? First of all, there is involved the fact that a union or organisation of workers should be able to satisfy the Registrar that it meets the guiding principles. I believe that anyone looking with any impartial, objective mind at the guiding principles laid down in Clause 61 could not possibly say that there was any unfairness or iniquity or inequity about saying that an organisation of workers expecting and claiming the right to exercise great powers not only over its members but in the community should be able easily to satisfy those basic principles but that, if it cannot do so, it should not possess those powers.
  Secondly, we say about registration that having satisfied those basic principles the union must have rules on certain subjects. Hon. Members opposite, and many trade union leaders outside, keep on talking as though the Registrar was to write the unions' rules for them, but that is not true. All we are saying in Schedule 3 is that the union must satisfy the registrar that it has rules on certain subjects. True, we say that there must be clear rules on certain important subjects, but it is entirely up to the unions what rules they have on those subjects. We are not saying what they shall be, but just that the unions must have them.
  Again, it is not unreasonable, and I cannot believe that anyone in the country thinks it unreasonable, to say that a body which believes and claims to exercise the influence over its members and the community that the unions do claim, should have rules about things like the election of the governing body, the election and appointment of officers, the shops stewards and their powers and duties; rules about, how industrial action by the union
  1068
  can be authorised, and at what level it can be or cannot be authorised; rules about the way in which it can discipline its members. Surely it is essential that a union should have rules about these matters and most unions do. I hear an hon. Member say that they all do.
  If that is so, what have the unions to fear about registration? If they are to have these powers in the community, and influence over their members—very largely for good—it is essential that they should have these rules on these subjects. What these rules say can vary from union to union according to their particular needs and purposes, but we believe that in the public interest and in the interest of their members they must have rules covering the important subjects laid down in Schedule 3. If they want to have rules on other subjects as well, they are free to do so, but they must at least have rules on these.
  Mr. Tom King: In view of the great interest, can my right hon. Friend clarify this point? Has he had a single representation from any union that there is anything unreasonable in Schedule 3?
  Mr. Carr: To the best of my knowledge, the answer is "no."
  Mr. Harold Walker: Is it not true that the T.U.C. has set out its objections to registration as the forefront of its opposition to the whole Bill? Is it not equally true that while the rules must cover certain subjects, they must be rules framed m such a way as to satisfy the Registrar, this legally qualified person? Would the right hon. Gentleman also, at the same time, explain the provision in Clause 64 which refers to
  "…any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration …"
  that are not specified in Schedule 3 or elsewhere in the Bill?
  Mr. Carr: The basic requirements of registration, I know, are opposed by the trade union movement. But I was answering my hon. Friend and saying that I have not had any specific representations about that. Of course, the trade union movement not only opposed the last Government on this same point when they published "In Place of Strife ", but also presumably was opposed to the unanimous recommendation of the Donovan

  1069
  Commission on the same point as well. So at least we are not alone in this. For many years we have made absolutely no secret—nor would I wish to do so—of the fact that we regard this question of registration as being central, providing it does not involve the use of arbitrary power.
  On this question of Clause 64(4)(b), which the hon. Member for Doncaster mentioned earlier, this is a case of the hon. Member's right hand not knowing what his left hand is doing. If he looks at page 2416 of the Amendment Paper he will see an Amendment with my name at the top of it, and the names of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and of himself, which seeks to leave out the very words of which he is complaining. When I heard this point made in Committee, I noted it and I inquired why those words were in the Bill. They were certainly never intended to have the sinister implications which were put upon them by hon. Members opposite. When nobody managed to satisfy me that they served any necessary purpose, I decided to move to leave them out. That is why that Amendment is on the Paper and I am very glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is supporting me. We all do these things at times. The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that he had done so. I certainly make no complaint of it.
  I do not believe that the Registrar's power is arbitrary, not only in the sense in which I have just dealt with the point; but in later Clauses—I believe in the 90's—the House will see that the Registrar has no real power of his own to enforce his own decisions. When matters are referred to him, or when he initiates inquiry, if he cannot get voluntary agreement he can only operate by going through either the National Industrial Relations Court or the Industrial Tribunals, according to the nature of the case, and putting his case before the Court or the Tribunal where anybody who objects can argue his case against what the Registrar is seeking to do. Equally, any party has the right of appeal against the Registrar to the National Industrial Relations Court or the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be.
  Therefore, I do not believe that this talk about arbitrary power can be seriously sustained. It is because we
  1070
  believe that registration of the kind that I have been talking about is central to the purpose of our Bill, is reasonable, is non-arbitrary, and is something the requirements of which any union in our society can and should easily meet without any trouble at all, that we believe that in order to protect members of unions and to protect the public interest, the particular rights and privileges, including the one which we are talking about in this proposed new Clause, should be confined to registered unions and should not be given to unregistered organisations.
  Mr. Dunn: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which was put to him about the independent organisations of workers, if they were to combine in registration procedures—namely, three or four organisations or a federation or a confederation? What would be the situation then? It is not covered in this Bill.
  Mr. Carr: The privileges that I am talking about are dependent on full registration. If a union or organisation either elects not to register or to deregister, I am afraid—and I must make no secret of this—that it must do so, realising the advantages which it is giving up for its members, both individually and corporately. I believe that that is a matter which organisations of workers—unions—will when the Bill is law think seriously about and decide upon responsibly.
  Mr. Dunn: That does not deal with the question I asked. Perhaps I did not express myself as well as I might have done. If several independent trade unions register as a combination—say, as a federation—what situation would they be placed in? This is not covered in the Bill. Could they register an agency or closed shop agreement on a confederated or federated basis?
  Mr. Carr: I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman, now that I have understood his question, and say that I should like to consider that. It does not arise on this Amendment, which is about registered versus unregistered organisations. It is a question whether a federation of which all the members are registered can go forward. I would expect that to be the case, but I will confirm that for the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the

  1071
  hon. Gentleman will excuse me from answering now, because it does not arise directly on the Amendment.
  I ask the House to reject the Amendments, for the reasons I have given.
  Mr. Robert Edwards: The Secretary of State always speaks with a great deal of sweet reasonable, but has he remembered that this Thursday 9 million trade unionists, through their representatives, will be meeting at Croydon and the General Council of the T.U.C. will recommend to the unions that they do not register? The House must ask itself why such a reasonable body of men should make such a recommendation.
  It has been said that the rules of debate in the House based on Erskine May were built up over the years arising from trial and error and have become the accepted laws of the House. This is how the laws of trade unions have been built up. For example, my union, which is a medium-sized union of which I am proud to be General Secretary, was founded in 1912 by a modest group of drug workers. Every year since then the rules of the union have been amended arising from experience and trial and error, until the rule book has become the basic constitution of the union. The is true of every trade union.
  The same rules cannot be laid down for all trade unions, but this is what registration is leading to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is what the trade union movement suspects. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As to the closed shop, in a factory a system of job evaluation is established after negotiation. To make job evaluation work everybody in the factory must be in a union, because jobs are allocated based on the work they do. Superannuation benefit is negotiated in an agreement. Everybody must be in the scheme, otherwise it will not work. This is part of the union agreement. A closed shop is needed for that. Registration will abolish the closed shop. Half the members of my union are operating within closed shops. To protect themselves against this legislation, medium-sized unions like mine will amalgamate with bigger unions.
  11.30 p.m.
  It has been suggested that these rules must be registered because the trade
  1072
  union movement does not have a proper relationship with society. Indeed, I am amazed that this should have been said so frequently by hon. Gentlemen opposite in this debate. But the members of this trade union movement are the people who dig the coal, make the iron and steel, sail our ships, run our hotels and railways and who, if they decided not to act responsibly, could, acting in unity, bring down the Government tomorrow and make industry grind to a halt. This is why my hon. Friends point out that we have the most responsible trade union movement in the world. But the Government are forcing the movement into taking actions which would not have been contemplated a few years ago. For this very reason they will refuse to register.
  The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) spoke of somebody who had come to see him. He was probably a member of the Tory Party—[Interruption]—and he claimed not to have known about an amalgamation of his union. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the steps which a union must take before an amalgamation can take place? It must produce three documents. They must clearly state what the amalgamation involves, the rules of the union concerned and the details of the organisation with which it is proposed to amalgamate. If the union normally has a postal ballot, those documents must be forwarded to the members in that way. If it is normal for the shop stewards to hand the documents round, then that procedure must be adopted. We cannot accept the sort of propaganda the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and his hon. Friends put out on this issue.
  I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the Secretary of State, to accept that 9 million organised trade unionists cannot all be wrong, and they are virtually united in opposing these provisions. They detest this legislation because they know that it is designed to undermine the power of the British people and prevent their real incomes keeping pace with rising prices, and giving them a fair share of the national income.
  I said that I would speak for about five minutes. I hope I have said enough to make the right hon. Gentleman aware

  1073
  of the strength of feeling that exists among trade unionists over this matter.
  Mr. Heffer: I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) kept to his promise to speak for only five minutes because I thoroughly enjoyed his excellent contribution to the debate. Being the general secretary of a trade union, he brings a fund of experience to our discussion.
  In referring to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), the Minister asked us to explain why the trade union movement was opposed to registration under this legislation. My hon. Friends and I have explained why time and again, but no harm is done explaining yet again.
  The guiding principles are contained in Clause 61. These will not be accepted because, basically, they mean accepting a State licence to operate as a trade union. This applies not only to trade unions but to organisations of workers. To what do the trade unions object? Let me give one or two examples.
  Clause 61(3) reads:
  "Every member of the organisation shall have the right, on giving reasonable notice and complying with any reasonable conditions, to terminate his membership of the organisation at any time."
  That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition until we realise that he could terminate his membership either before or in the middle of a dispute. At that moment he could decide to leave the trade union organisation and to operate against his fellow trade unionists. What would happen if he did that?
  Clause 61(7) reads:
  "No member of the organisation shall be subjected by or on behalf of the organisation to any unfair or unreasonable disciplinary action."
  He can leave in the middle of a strike and act as a strike breaker. If he then wishes to rejoin the organisation and the trade union does not accept him, it is acting against the provisions of Clause 61(7).
  If the strike or irregular action were an unfair industrial practice, the trade union, under Clause 62, could be caught in this way:
  "It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any organisation of workers, or any official of or person acting on behalf of such an organisation. to take or threaten to take any
  1074
  action against any member of the organisation or other person in contravention of the principles set out in section 61 of this Act."
  I have been asked—to what are the trade unions objecting? They are objecting to the fact that they have to accept these guilding rules which are a direct interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and which will determine which membership they shall have under certain special conditions. That is why, I say to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) and his right hon. Friend, the trade unions object to registration under the Act.
  Mr. Tom King: In the subsection which he quoted the hon. Member deliberately omitted the words "with any reasonable conditions ". Why did he deliberately ignore those words—or does he think that the example which he quoted would not be a reasonable condition?
  Mr. Heffer: I left nothing out. I read the whole of Clause 61(3). But what are "reasonable conditions" and who is to determine them? We have had debates about what are reasonable conditions.
  In most trade unions in this country—in all trade unions of which I have knowledge—there is a system of the continual revision of rules. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) said that in the rules of the A.E.U. there was provision for the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. That may well be so, but how long has it been in the rules? It has been in the rules, perhaps, since 1910, but almost every year, with various amalgamations and in any case through regular rules revision conferences, the rules are changed. The revisions are put up through the branches to the revision conference. The membership have the revisions returned for them to vote, stating whether they accept the revisions. Certainly they have that opportunity in my union. This is a continuing process. Such a revision occurs every year, every two years, every three years, or every five years, according to the union concerned. The membership determines the rules of a union, and the membership will not be prepared to be told who must be members of a union.
  Mr. R. Carr: Is the hon. Member seriously saying that the trade union movement is telling the country that a

  1075
  man shall not be allowed to resign from a union on reasonable conditions for a reasonable purpose? Is that what he is saying? Is that a reasonable attitude, or a reasonable society?
  Mr. Heffer: Do not let the right hon. Gentleman ever accuse me of irresponsibility, because one of the most irresponsible men in the country is the right hon. Gentleman [HON MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] He is allowing the country to move into a position in which industrial relations will be deliberately broken down, and that is totally irresponsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering in my own way; I do not need hon. Members opposite to make my speech for me.
  Of course a trade unionist has the right reasonably to decide that he will leave a trade union, but I gave the example of how it would be an interference with the trade union if a man were able to leave in the middle of a strike and, if the union decided to take certain action in relation to readmitting him, again which was regarded as an unfair industrial practice, it would be in trouble. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman holding his headin his hands. He clearly does not undestand what he is doing. He does not understand the real situation with the trade unions.
  We do not accept the principles of the new Clause, but if there has to be this
  new Clause, an unregistered trade union should have the equal rights with a registered trade union to participation in its so-called benefits. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) accused the Government of using the Clause to put pressure on the unions to register. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was not true and that that was not the objective. If so, he can accept the Amendment in its entirety, but I have a feeling that he will not accept it. Several of his hon. Friends have constantly said that it would be unreasonable for the unregistered trade union to have the rights of a registered trade union.
  11.45 p.m.
  Clause 63(1)(a) says that we should have "independent organisations of workers ". For me the key word is "independent". "Independence" means three basic things to me. First it means freedom from the State, secondly it means freedom for trade unions to draw up their own rules without the so-called guiding principles embodied in Clause 61. Thirdly it means the right of the trade union movement to exist without outside interference from government agencies or quasi-government agencies. On that basis I hope that my hon. Friends will have mustered in sufficient numbers to carry this Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 289.

  Division No. 238.]

  AYES

  [11.46 p.m.

  Abse, Lee

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Driberg, Tom

  Atbu, Austen

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Allaun, Frank (Salton, E.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dunn, James A.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Ashley, Jack

  Coneannon, J. D.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ellis, Tom

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  English, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Evans, Fred

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Effenkineop, Arthur

  Dalyeli, Tam

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Foot, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Forrester, John

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Davies, G. Effed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bradley, Tom

  Davies, for (Gower)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Brown, Bob (N'e'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Deakins, Eric

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Ginsburg, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dell,Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Gourley, Harry

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dempsey James

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Doig, Peter

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McGuire, Michael

  Roper, John

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hamling, William

  Mackie, John

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Harper, Joseph

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Short, Mrs. Renèe (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Sillars, James

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Marquand, David

  Silverman, Julius

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marsh, Ht. Hn. Richard

  Skinner, Dennis

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Small, William

  Houghton,Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Millan, Bruce

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Molloy, William

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hon

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Swain, Thomas

  Jeger,Mrs.Lerta(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Taverne, Dick

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Thomas, Rtn Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

  Jenkins,Rt. Hn. Roy (Strecford)

  Murray, R. K.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  John, Brynsnor

  Ogden, Eric

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tomney, Frank

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Oram, Bert

  Torney, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Orme, Stanley

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W Ham,S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Judd, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ali Saints)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Kerr, Russell

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wallace, George

  Kinnock, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Watkins, David

  Lambie, David

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Weitzman, David

  Latham, Arthur

  Pendry, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lawson, George

  Pentland, Norman

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Perry, Ernest G.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Leonard, Dick

  Prescott, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whitlock, William

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rees, Marlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Rt. H. Harold (Huyton)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Richard, Ivor

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Robert Albert (Normanton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  McBride, Neil

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  McElhone, Frank

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Mr. John Golding.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brewis, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brinton), Sir Tatton

  Crouch, David

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Crowder, F. P.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Curran, Charles

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bryan, Paul

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Astor, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Buck, Antony

  d'Avigdor-Galdsmid, Sir Henry

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dean, Paul

  Balniel, Lord

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Batsford, Brian

  Campbell,RtHn.G.(Moray& Nairn)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Carlisle, Mark

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Bell, Ronald

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Channon, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Chataway, Rt. Ho. Christopher

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Biffen John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Elliott, R. W. (N'e'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Emery, Peter

  Blacker, Peter

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Farr, John

  Body, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fell, Anthony

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cooke, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Boseom, Sir Clive

  Coombs, Derek

  Fidler, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cooper, A. E.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Maine, Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bray, Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  1078

  1079

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Foster, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fowler, Norman

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fox, Marcus

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)

  Loveridge, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsby)

  Gardner, Edward

  Mccrindie, R. A.

  Rost, Peter

  Gibson-Watt, David

  mcLaren, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sharples, Richard

  Goodhew, Victor

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gray, Hamish

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Grieve, Percy

  Maude, Angus

  Soref, Harold

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Moudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Speed, Keith

  Grylls, Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sproat, Iain

  Gurden, Harold

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell,Lt.Col.G.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stokes, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monte, Roger

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Molyneaux, James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Money, Ernie

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hay, John

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Heseltine, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple, John M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Holland, Philip

  Neave, Alrey

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tilney, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Normanton, Tom

  Trew, Peter

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Darne Patricia

  Nott, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Waddington, David

  lremonger, T. L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  James, David

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Peel, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Jessel, Toby

  Percival, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Jopling, Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pounder, Rafton

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Wilkinson, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Younger Hn. George

  Knox, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Lane, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Legge-Bourlee, Sir Harry

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  Mr. Orme: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 22, after ' charity ' insert:
  'or other fund approved by the trade union or independent organisation of workers '.
  This is a difficult time, just before the guillotine falls, to move an Amendment, but we feel that this new Clause pro-
  1080
  viding that a worker may contribute to charity instead of to a union, this "conscience Clause ", involves a great deal of difficulty for trade unions. By this Amendment we seek to provide that the worker should pay to a charity
  " or other fund approved by the trade union or independent organisation of workers".

  1081
  What happens at present in industry is that agreements are made, where conscience clauses arise, so that workers may contribute to funds or organisations -[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think this is very funny, but we do not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always on about conscience and the rights of workers. This is what we are, by this Amendment, trying to deal with. Conscience has always been accepted by the trade union movement-[HoN. MEMEBERS: "Oh."] Absolutely. Arrangements can be made by trade unions—I say this to the Minister—so that, when people have conscientious objection contributions can be made to funds agreed by the union. When charities are brought into this issue, one has
  to ask who collects the money, who decides on the charity and how it will be arranged. All this will fall on the shop steward, and we believe —
  It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and this day], to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the proceedings on new Clause (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement).
  Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 242.

  Division No. 238.]

  AYES

  [11.46 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Alison, Michael (Bankston Ash)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Curran, Charles

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julion

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Astor, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dean, Paul

  Heseltine, Michael

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hicks, Robert

  Balniel, Lord

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Botsford, Brian

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Haley, Joseph

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Eden, Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Holland, Philip

  Benyon, W.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hooson, Emilyn

  Berry, Hn, Anthony

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hordern, Peter

  Bitten, John

  Emery, Peter

  Hornby, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Blaker, Peter

  Farr, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fell Anthony

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Body,Richard

  Fenner. Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Hunt, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  lremonger, T. L.

  Braine, Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  James, David

  Bray, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Brawis, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Brinton, Sir Talton

  Foster, Sir John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Jopling, Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fox, Marcus

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bryan, Paul.

  Fraser,Rt. Hn.Hugh(St'word & Stone)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Buchanan-Smith, Atick(Angus,N&M)

  Fry, Peter

  Kellett, Mrs, Elaine

  Buck, Antony,

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  Kilfedder, James

  Burden, F. A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kimball, Marcus

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)

  Gilmour,Sir John (Fife, E.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Carr, Rt..Hn. Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kitson, Timothy

  Channon, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knox, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorst, John

  Lane, David

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gower, Raymond

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gray, Hamish

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Green, Alan

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grieve, Percy

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cockeram, Eric

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Loveridge, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Coombs, Derek

  Gummer, Selwyn

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gurden, Harold

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Half, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McLaren, Martin

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Costain, A. P.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. P.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Critchley, Julian

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stokes, John

  McNair-Wilson Patrick (NewForest)

  pink, R. Bonner

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Maddan, Martin

  Pounder, Rafton

  Sutcliffe, John

  Model, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Tapsell, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Marten, Neil

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maude, Angus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mawby, Ray

  Raison, Timothy

  Temple, John M.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rees-Davies, W. B.

  Tilney, John

  Mitchell,Lt. -Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Trew, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Molyneaux, James

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Money, Ernle

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Monro, Hector

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, David

  More, Jasper

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wall, Patrick

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Walters, Dennis

  Mudd, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Murton, Oscar

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Sharples, Richard

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Neave, Airey

  Straw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Wells John (Maidstone)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Simeon, Charles

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Normanton, Tom

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nott, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Soref, Harold

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Speed, Keith

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Osborn, John

  Spence, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sproat, lain

  Worsley, Marcus

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stainton, Keith

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Younger, Hn. George

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Peel, John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Percival, lan

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Forrester, John

  Albu, Austen

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Altaun, Frank (Safford, E.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gaipern, Sir Myer

  Allen, Scholefield

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Garrett, W. E.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grossman,Rt. Hn. Richard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Ashley, Jack

  Dallyell, Tam

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Gourley, Harry

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Davies, Mor (Gower)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bishop, E. S.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hamling, William

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Booth, Albert

  Dempsey, James

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Doig, Peter

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bradley, Tom

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Driberg, Tom

  Horam, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dunnett, Jack

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Cant, R. B.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  English, Michael

  Hunter, Adam

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Evans, Fred

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Clark, David (Colne valley)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Janner, Greville

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'hamiLadywood)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Coleman, Donald.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  John, Brynmor

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foot, Michael

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  1084

  1085

  Johnson, James (K'ston.on.Hull, W.)

  Molloy, William

  Sillars, James

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silverman, Jullus

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Small, William

  Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Moyle, Roland

  Spearing, Nigel

  Judd, Frank

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Murray, R. K.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Kerr, Russell

  Ogden, Eric

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Kinnock, Neil

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lamble, David

  O'Malley, Brian

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Latham, Arthur

  Oram, Bert

  Strang, Gavin

  Lawson, George

  Orbach, Maurice

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Orme, Stanley

  Swain, Thomas

  Leonard, Dick

  Oswald, Thomas

  Taverne, Dick

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tinn, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tommy, Frank

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Torney, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Pendry, Tom

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mabon Dr J. Dickson

  Prescott, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  McBride, Neil

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McElhone, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Wallace, George

  McGuire, Michael

  Rankin, John

  Watkins, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Weitzman, David

  Mackie, John

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Richard, Ivor

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Roberts, Albert (Nonrnanton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mallalieu, Simon (Bootle)

  Roberts,Rt. Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon

  Whitlock, William

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Robertson, John (Pailey)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Marquand, David

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Roper, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Meacher, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mendelson, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Woof, Robert

  Millan, Bruce

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Short, Mrs. Renèe (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Mr. John Ghlding.

  Clause added to the Bill.
  It being after Twelve o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT

    SCOTLAND (RATE SUPPORT GRANT)
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell), it has been represented to me that it would be convenient for the House to have a debate for these two Orders together, which I am quite prepared to allow, on the understanding that one and a half hours would be sufficient for both. If that is the wish of the House, we should proceed along those lines.
    Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were taking them separately, it
    1086
    would be one and a half hours each, making three hours.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House decided to take them separately, that would be one and a half hours each. It has been represented to me that on the whole that is not the wish of the House. But we shall have to see whether it is the wish of the House or not. If that is so, then that is how it would be, and I would then call Mr. Secretary Campbell.
    Mr. Frank McElhone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is contained in the Orders is so important to Scotland today that it does not do justice to all the facts in the documents to take just one and a

    1087
    half hours. I hope that representations will be made to have the full three hours.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, that is what it must be. But the House must understand that there will have to be two entirely separate debates on reasonably narrow issues. I would advise hon. Members to carry out what has been suggested to them, but if hon. Members do not want that, that is their business. I advise them to take my advice and do what I say.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take it that you are suggesting that the House has two courses of action, either to take your initial advice, one and a half hour on both Orders taken together, or to take the two Orders separately with one and a half hours on each, that being the time limit, totalling three hours? Is there not a third course of action: namely, to take both Orders and to see how we get on? There can be no excess of three hours, but it may be less than three hours but more than one and a half hours. Is that course of action not possible?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not really, because the House, or at any rate one side of the House, would be seeking to have all possible advantages. I should have thought that the fairer way of dealing with the matter would be to take the line I suggest. After all, the scope of these Orders together is not great. I think that the House would manage very well on one and a half hours if it saw fit to do that.
    Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were to take both Orders together, would that mean that we could have a Division on both Orders after one and a half hours?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, definitely. May I take it that my original suggestion is the wish of the House? Mr. Secretary Campbell.
    Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but it is obvious that we cannot accept that. It will disrupt both Front Benches greatly to take the Orders separately, but I think that we had better do so.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House wishes to take them separately, so be it.
    12.15 a.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move,
    That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1971, dated 4th February, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
    I had made inquiries earlier to find out what appeared to be for the convenience of the House. The message which I received earlier, which I understood came from the Opposition Front Bench, was that it would be convenient to take the two Orders together. But I prepared myself to take them separately, because I realised that that might be what the House wished.
    I am sorry that we should be starting this debate at this late hour. We are beginning a period of two weeks in which six days will be taken by the Report stage of the Industrial Relations Bill, which means that the only days on which we are not discussing that Measure until midnight are Thursdays, and the Opposition decided that it was more convenient to take these Orders at this hour after midnight on a Monday than at 9 or 10 p.m. on a Thursday. We have been glad to meet the convenience of the Opposition in that.
    This Order, which I shall refer to as "the main Order ", is the third of its kind to be made under Section 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966. Hon. Members are aware that rate support grant is in aid of local authority current expenditure which would otherwise fall to be met out of rates; that is, current expenditure, including repayment of capital debt on virtually all the local services except the housing revenue account and the trading services, which are expected to be self-supporting.
    The main Order is to fix the amount of the Exchequer contribution to this expenditure in each of the financial years 1971–72 and 1972–3. It is based on estimates of the reckonable expenditure of local authorities which have been reached after consultation with the local authority associations and are based on prices ruling at the end of 1970. To arrive at the amount of grant for each year, the percentage to be adopted for that year is applied to the estimate of expenditure to

    1089
    give the aggregate of Government assistance. From this grand total of Exchequer grant, the specific revenue grants are deducted, and the balance is the total of the rate support grants. For the two years covered by the Order, the total is a little under £520 million, or equal to roughly two-thirds of the reckonable expenditure of the local authorities.
    As the House will recall, there are three elements of rate support grant, each distributed on a different basis. The first is the domestic element, which is an amount sufficient to make good to rating authorities prescribed reductions in householders' rate poundages for each year. It is distributed in proportion to the amount of domestic rateable value in each rating authority's area. The second is the needs element. Three-quarters of the balance of grant after deduction of the domestic element is distributed on the basis of population as weighted for a number of specific factors such as the number of pupils at different stages of education, the proportion of elderly persons, road mileage relative to population, rate of population change, and relative urban or rural distribution of population. These are factors which give a broad indication of the need of individual authorities. Thirdly, the remainder of the grant, the resources element, is distributed to local authorities with below average rateable resources, in relation to their short-fall of resources and to the amounts of their "relevant local expenditure". The main Order prescribes the method of distribution of the resources element and the needs element. This time there are no changes, and the formulae remain as prescribed last year in the 1970 Increase Order.
    One of the first tasks which the 1966 Act requires of me in preparing a Rate Support Grant Order is to consider, with the local authority associations concerned, the latest information available as to the rate of reckonable expenditure.
    This year, with the agreement of the associations, the first stage was tackled in a new way. Provisional figures of expenditure on the main services in 1969–70 were supplied by the associations before the middle of the year. On the basis of those figures, officials and representatives of the associations were able to reach a wide measure of agreement in discussions
    1090
    extending over several months on the existing level of expenditure and the trends in such matters as manpower and pupil numbers. Complete returns for the past year and the current year were obtained in October in the usual way and prices were updated to November to provide the best possible price base for the Order.
    Next, the provision for growth has to be considered against the general economic background. The Leader of the Opposition put the connection between the two very clearly in his statement three years ago, when he said in the House that
    "a substantial area of public expenditure lies within the control of local authorities… it is vital that local authorities, no less than central Government, make their full contribution to restraint".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, cc. 1590–91.]
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to interpret that as a limit of 3 per cent. growth in real terms over their expenditure in 1968–69.
    Like the right hon. Gentleman, I too, am asking local authorities to restrain their expenditure in some directions, but within the more reasonable limit of slightly over 5 per cent. I have no doubt that, in this way, we have been able to base the forecasts embodied in the Order more firmly than those in either of the two previous Orders. This belief is shared by the associations.
    Estimates of reckonable expenditure—
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell: No. I think that I had better continue. I have no doubt that we have been able—
    Mr. Douglas: On this point—
    Mr. Campbell: I have not yet finished the point. Estimates of reckonable expenditure have, therefore, been put together after consideration and discussion of the amount of growth in real terms which is necessary and desirable. We have also considered the savings of expenditure which could be expected from a critical review by the authorities of their activities and administration on the lines of that which is being undertaken now by central Government.

    1091
    I have, therefore, asked the authorities to look for ways of saving expenditure through improvement of efficiency and through elimination or reduction of tasks which do not require to be undertaken by public authorities. It is particularly important that the authorities in Scotland should not take advantage of the impending increases in rateable value resulting from the 1971 quinquennial revaluation in order to undertake development and improvement at a cost beyond what the country and the ratepayers can afford.
    The estimates of reckonable expenditure for individual services are shown at Appendix A of the Report on the main Order.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Campbell: No. I ask the hon. Member—
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time.
    Mr. Campbell: No. The hon. Member himself said that we did not have enough time, and he has on several recent occasions not given way to me when he has challenged me to reply to questions.
    Mr. Lawson: I have always given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Campbell: No. I recall the hon. Member having done that, and I ask him to listen to this opening speech because he will have his opportunity later to put his questions.
    The estimates of reckonable expenditure for individual services are shown at Appendix A of the Report on the main Order. Collectively, they include £68 million in the first year and £76 million in the second year for the servicing of local authority debt, amounts based on an increase of from £481 million in the capital debt of local authorities at May, 1969, to an estimated total of £766 millon at May, 1973.
    I come now to the forecasts for some of the individual services, starting with the largest, education. In the 1969 Order, the last Government called for stringent economies from the education service and, on the whole, these were achieved, but at a cost. Authorities cut mainten-
    1092
    ance expenditure or reduced expenditure on supplies. Our forecasts try to face up to the needs of the education service and to the consequences for current expenditure of our polices as a whole.
    The teachers being produced by our colleges are urgently needed in our schools and must be paid for, but we have also given special consideration to non-teaching costs in schools where most of the economy measures of the last two or three years have taken effect. We are assuming that average non-teaching costs per pupil will grow by 3½ per cent. a year between 1969–70 and 1971–72, and by a further 3 per cent. in 1972–73.
    The last Government were in the embarrassing position of having to launch the new social work service on something of a shoestring. In the event, the Scottish local authorities are developing the service rather faster than the cautious pace envisaged in the 1969 Order, and I am glad to be able to provide for a more rapid rate of growth over the next two years. This will cover our share of the new measures in this field which I announced last November, with increased expenditure on services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly. It will also generally cover the cost of operating the new buildings which are going up under our social work building programme, the steady increase we expect in the number of trained staff, and the introduction of the children's panel system.
    For police expenditure, the estimates provide for continued development in manpower and equipment, and, consistent with recent improved recruitment trends, allow for average annual increases of some 200 in police strengths, as well as additional traffic wardens and civilian staff. The fire service forecasts assume an average annual increase of 80 men, allowing for increasing emphasis on fire prevention work and for likely developments arising from the recommendations of the Holroyd Committee.
    As we foreshadowed in our White Paper of October last, the forecasts allow for an increased rate of development for local health services and, in particular, for further improvement in home nursing and health visiting services, and for development of family planning facilities, in the light of local authorities' additional discretionary powers under the provisions

    1093
    of the Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968, which were brought into effect last autumn.
    For roads and roads lighting expenditure I have assumed that increases of about 4 per cent. annually should be made available for the improvement of maintenance standards on local authority roads, over and above the standards achieved in 1969–70. For the miscellaneous local environmental services, which include cleansing, sewerage and public health, I have assumed a steady growth in expenditure on maintenance and servicing of existing facilities, and have provided for increased loan charges from a rising rate of capital investment, especially in new sewage disposal schemes and schemes for urban development and redevelopment.
    These are the estimates: they amount to £415 million for the first and £437 million for the second year. Having reached these totals, I had to take some account of the review of expenditure and efficiency to which I have already referred, and I decided that it should be possible for the local authorities collectively to achieve savings amounting to at least one-half per cent, of the totals to be made available for continuation and improvement of their different services, making a saving of some £2½ million in the second year and at least £1 million in the first year.
    Since the scope for savings will not be the same in each authority for each service, I decided that this is a matter for the judgment of individual authorities; and that I should not allocate against particular services. This leaves it to each authority to scrutinise diligently the expenditure of all departments, including apportionable administrative expenditure, to avoid cost increases and to secure actual reductions. This process may not be entirely painless, but I am sure that it will bring results. Essentially, it is a matter of value for money. Many authorities have already made efforts to secure greater efficiency, but considerable scope remains, and it is in the greater interest both of the authorities and of their ratepayers that savings should be found. In particular, I hope that authorities will look carefully at the use they make of their labour resources, at whether their purchasing arrangements
    1094
    are sufficiently competitive, and more generally at the efficiency of management and the use of management services. Even with these reductions, the settlement represents an average annual increase in expenditure at constant prices of just over 5 per cent. on what the local authorities spent in 1969–70.
    The aggregate sums of Exchequer grant prescribed in the Order are £273 million and £289 million—that is 66 per cent. of the estimated 1971–72 expenditure and 66½ of the estimated 1972–73 expenditure, increases of ½ per cent. in each year over the percentage rates adopted for the final year of the second grant period.
    These increases compare with annual increases of 1 per cent. in the first four years. Reaching, as we have, the point at which two-thirds of local expenditure is met by the central Government, I think this slowing down is inevitable, and in the local authorities' own interest. As the Royal Commission on Local Government, the Wheatley Commission, put it:
    "If local government is to be stronger, more of its expenditure must be ingathered locally and less from the Exchequer. This principle should apply not merely to the sum total…but service by service."
    This was in paragraph 134
    The additional money made available by the annual 1 per cent. increase in grant percentage has up to now been mainly devoted to the domestic element and has enabled the domestic rate reduction to be increased from an initial 10d. in the £ in 1967–68 to 3s. 4d. in 1970–71. The yearly steps of ½ per cent. which I propose for the third grant period would, other things being equal, allow the domestic element to be raised by 5d. instead of 10d. in the £ for each year of the Order to 3s. 9d. and 4s. 2d. But we have to allow for the 1971 revaluation, as a result of which I estimate that rate reductions of 2s. 1d. and 2s. 4d. in the £ would give the same amount of relief, and cost the same, as reductions of 3s. 9d. and 4s. 2d. on the current valuations.
    In terms of the new currency, reductions of 2s. 1d. and 2s. 4d. are approximately 10½ and 11½ new pence. In order to avoid the administrative inconvenience to local authorities of dealing in ½p and to give the benefit of slightly greater relief to the domestic ratepayer, I have decided, with the agreement of the Associations,

    1095
    to make the domestic element 11p in the £ for 1971–72 and 12p for 1972–73.
    The 1971 revaluation also has a bearing on the notional rent provisions in paragraph 6 of the Order. The purpose of these provisions is to fix minimum amounts of rent income to be taken into account for calculation of the expenditure on which resources element of grant is payable to the authorities who qualify for it. Since the total of resources element is itself fixed by the Order, the notional rent provisions do not affect the overall Exchequer contribution; they affect only the distribution amongst authorities and act to prevent low-rent authorities being subsidised at the expense of other authorities.
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is reading.
    Mr. Campbell: For the two years of the second grant period, notional rent income—[Interruption.] I know there are hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might we not occasionally have the right hon. Gentleman looking up from his brief and a few words that come from thought instead of the right hon. Gentleman simply reading from a brief prepared by some civil servant? Cannot we get something from the right hon. Gentleman himself, since he is talking about himself all the time?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point for me.
    Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know, as the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) does, that I have been an expert in this subject for the last 10 years and have been following it when I was in opposition as well as when I have been in government. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who I regret is not here this evening, has on previous occasions in the last few years, when he was in office, also given us a very careful account of this complicated subject, which we on these benches have followed and have not interrupted in a thoroughly rude and irresponsible manner as the hon. Gentleman has.
    1096
    For the two years of the second grant period notional rent income was prescribed—this is a matter about which many hon. Members are much concerned, because it is complicated—as 110 per cent. and 120 per cent. of the gross annual value of the houses concerned. In order to avoid uncertainties for local authorities pending the issue by assessors of notices intimating their proposed valuations, the period for which extends to 30th June next, the Order prescribes the 1971–72 notional rent income in the old valuation terms—that is, at 140 per cent. of the 1970–71 gross annual values. For 1972–73 the notional rent incomes will be 85 per cent. of council house gross annual values for that year. These figures correspond roughly to average rents of £74 and £85, compared with actual averages of £63 in 1969 and £72 in 1970, after deduction of rebates.
    These, then, are the estimates and the figures. The hon. Member for Mothewell (Mr. Lawson) will note that I have carefully given the figures which are important. I have given as much information as I can in the time available.
    12.36 a.m.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: This Order, which is the most significant piece of parliamentary business affecting local government in Scotland for this Session, suffers from a tremendous handicap in not being debated during the day. It is a matter of deep regret to all of us, including the Government presumably, that we have to have this debate at this time of night. I am grateful for the fact that we are having the debate on Tuesday morning rather than on Friday morning. I pay tribute to those—the Lord President of the Council, the Opposition Whips and the Government Whips—who intervened so that we could have the debate tonight.
    However, that does not alter the fact that it is wrong that a major debate of this kind, voting £250 million in the second year and dealing with a budget of over £400 million for a small country like Scotland, should be debated now. The English and the Welsh had the good fortune—we do not begrudge them this—on 10th December to have a whole day devoted to this subject, as was our practice when we were the Government.
    I cannot accept from the Secretary of State that he has been boxed into a

    1097
    corner by the Opposition and is unable to secure time from those responsible on his own side so that we can be accorded the same courtesy as the English and the Welsh were accorded. Admittedly their budget is greater, but proportionately ours is as great and as important.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I tried to explain this briefly at the beginning of my speech. As our financial year for the local authorities starts two months after the English one, we are confined to a certain period, in which business has been greatly taken up by the Committee and Report stages of the Industrial Relations Bill, which meant that we did not have time earlier today.
    Dr. Mabon: I will not go into merits or demerits of that Bill which we have been discussing for so long and under such arduous and very unparliamentary conditions. That does not detract from the fact that this is the principal debate in the Scottish local government calendar of events and it should have been held during the day. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, as the leader on his side of the Scottish Members, must accept responsibility for not securing a whole day for us. There are whole days going begging. After all, there are days on which we have had debates which could have been taken for this debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could have made his representations more strenuously.
    Just as we feel inconvenienced, so local government officials and councillors in Scotland naturally feel distressed about this debate taking place at such a late hour. Not all hon. Members are at their best in the middle of the night, though this varies according to temperament. I register this protest so that it is on the record, and also so that the Secretary of State will, we hope, use his influence with his colleagues in Government to ensure that we debate these major Instruments at a more opportune time.
    I will not digress and refer to the next increase Instrument which will be before us next year. I trust that the Secretary of State will ensure that that comes before Parliament at an early hour, because that will be even more important than this Order. Without going into a list of statistics, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the times when we
    1098
    brought forward similar Instruments when we were in power, compare favourably with the hour at which we are considering this Order tonight.
    I must, unfortunately, register another complaint of a procedural nature. One would imagine from reading this Instrument and the one which will follow it later that they were rushed through at the last minute, perhaps because of the great discussion that has been going on with the authorities concerned. In fact, however, they were published on 12th February. Despite that, these Instruments contain a number of items that must be corrected. Indeed, there are more corrections in them that I can recall seeing in any similar Instrument.
    The Order which will follow still contains one major error. I give notice to the right hon. Gentleman that we will raise this matter later. It is wrong that the House of Commons should be treated in this way, with lists of corrections. That Instrument contains five correcting Amendments, with a corrigendum of four points relating to page 7. It is intolerable that hon. Members and people outside who must deal with these matters should be treated in this way.
    There must be an explanation for these shreds and patches. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) were here he could make a great deal of the Amendment which proposes to substitute 1972 for 1872. How could such an error arise? Is it a typographical error? I will not blame the civil servants, who would, in turn, probably blame the printers. But there are errors here which must clearly be the responsibility of Ministers, probably because they did not correctly read the drafts. I register this complaint and trust that it will be noted.
    The Secretary of State's speech to some extent entertained us—with the exception, of course, of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson)—and he covered a number of points which I had intended to raise but will not now raise. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could introduce an Instrument of this kind without saying much about the quinquennial review which will take place on 16th May. I agree, however, that he referred to the accumulation of the domestic element in relation to the rate poundage, but he did not explain the

    1099
    general expectation of rate increases in this revaluation year. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education used to be hot stuff on this issue only four years ago when similar changes were introduced. Are we to be told the expectation of the increase in the rate burden?
    Without going into the exact figures, I recall that it was a substantial figure for 1961. It was to be 20 per cent., but the out-turn was something over 19 per cent. The rate burden increase for 1966, despite appeals to Ministers, exceeded 15 per cent., though I think the out-turn was 16 per cent. It is not for me to recite the figures. That is the Minister's job, and I hope he will perform it when he replies to the debate.
    What is the rate burden the Government are estimating for this year? No alibis are required. We are not asking for targets. Can the Minister justify the increase this year, based on an 85 per cent. increase in domestic valuations, and then make an estimate of the domestic element, apart from the decimalisation problem? We appreciate the need to make an adjustment because of decimalisation. He must be able to give a figure. I realise that the Conservative Party are embarrassed by targets, but I want estimates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the Government reach targets as well as we did, I shall congratulate them. We set ourselves targets—and did well. They are setting no targets and will do badly.
    I am asking not for targets but for estimates before the rate poundages are fixed and before the revaluation is published. I should have liked them at the beginning of the debate and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not see the value of such figures. It is the belief in Scotland that because of inflation, rising costs and the pressure of events, largely caused by the Government, there will be a substantial rise in rates this year. In a revaluation year, such increases are usually very substantial. How substantial will they be?
    I turn to the so-called savings. Under paragraph 25, the right hon. Gentleman says that because of adjustments in the domestic element he can save £2 million in 1971–72 and £4½ million in 1972–73. From whom is he saving that money? Obviously the domestic ratepayers. There
    1100
    is, of course, a confusion—not of the Government's making—between new pence and old pence, and there is also the calculation which one must make about revaluation, but the Government are saving money if we base our calculations on the progression from 1966 when we first instituted this form of finance. The Secretary of State gave some figures for the increasing Exchequer share of the total bill. In fact, in 1967–68 the figure was 62.5 per cent. and in the succeeding years to 1970–71 it rose by 1 per cent. a year to 65.5 per cent. According to this Order the share will be 66 per cent., not 66.5 per cent., in 1972–73 and then 66.5 per cent., not 67.5 per cent. That is where the Government make the savings. Are we to expect the domestic ratepayer to carry a higher rate burden, and what will that rate burden be?
    In paragraph 20 there is reference to other savings—efficiency savings they are to be called. A sum of £1 million is to be saved in 1971–72 and £2.5 million in 1972–73. I believe that if he had had his way the Secretary of State could have saved a little more, but I cannot debate that; I can debate only what is in the Order. In any event, the figures are substantial. But these are not true savings because the expenditure will take place—except that they will take place at the cost of the ratepayers.
    In view of all his speeches—for which he gave himself credit tonight in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell—I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had given comparable figures over the last ten years. We might have seen the reason why local government finance has been changed since 1966 and why we may see a further change. It is a pity, a few months before we are to have a Green Paper on the subject, that we have been given no indication of what local authorities will have to bear, not just in the two years but in projected years. The right hon. Gentleman cannot complain if I refer to Orders yet to come, since every speech lie made in the past on these Orders was in fact about Orders yet to come.
    I wish he had said more in that passage of his speech which referred to other sources of local finance. Will he give some idea, in future projections, of other possible sources of revenue? We have

    1101
    heard various stories but we cannot be sure what the right hon. Gentleman intends.
    More particularly within the context of present legislation and of these Orders, why is it not possible for the Government to encourage profit-making local authority services? For example, one of the Under-Secretaries is to help the Secretary of State to pilot through a Bill to denationalise the State-managed liquor trade which operates in parts of Scotland. Why cannot that trade be sold to municipalities and counties to help their profit-making activities? It would help considerably to furnish the treasuries of many areas. The organisation is well run and I am sure that it would be welcome in the Highlands and elsewhere. But one sees prejudice rearing its ugly head as hon. Members opposite mutter their opposition to a fair suggestion which would help to alleviate the immense burden placed on ratepayers.
    Mr. John Brewis: What about fee-paying schools?
    Dr. Mabon: I will come to fee-paying schools in a moment. Hon. Members must know that there is a manoeuvre within the order which may not be to the liking of Wigtownshire or even the whole of Galloway. However, I do not want to interpolate into a private discussion about Scottish education from which some of us were lamentably excluded.
    The order runs parallel with what we have come to expect from the Government—a hostility to public expenditure as such. One can see this from the White Paper itself. The right hon. Gentleman is not very good at inventing phrases, particularly when the phrases have been used in an English Order, but I will quote one. Hon. Members can read for themselves the comparable words in the English companion memorandum:
    "The Government takes the view that the continuing growth of public expenditure accompanied as it must be by ever increasing taxation and discouragement of personal effort is damaging to the economy and must therefore be restrained."
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said in the English debate, an examination of modern industrialised countries in Europe and elsewhere shows that countries with a high rate of growth are those countries with a high rate of public
    1102
    expenditure, and a growing proportion of their public expenditure vis-à-vis the g.n.p. runs with that high rate of growth. This runs contrary to the ideological beliefs of the Tories.
    For as long as you have been in politics, Mr. Speaker, certainly longer than you have been in your present nonpolitical capacity, rates have been a regressive form of taxation. Therefore, the more there is a shift from taxation to rates, the more there is an unjust shifting of the burden from the better-off to the less well-off, and that is identified again in the Order.
    We see it in the excuse about efficiency, so called, and cutting down the domestic rate element, as though that were some inevitable process of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. I am by no means against seeking higher standards of efficiency in local government—we all welcome them, irrespective of party—but we are anxious that they should be genuine increases in standards of efficiency and not disguised forms of cutting services.
    We are all disappointed that the order does not deal with concessionary bus fares. There is a clear anomaly between those counties which run concessionary bus fares and get grants to do so under the Transport Act, 1968, and those burgh authorities which do not. It is clear from the Transport Act and from the Minister's circular in March, 1970, that it was intended that bus companies should be advised by the Minister of some form of assistance.
    It would not be obligatory but it would be considered by the Minister, and, as I understand it, the Minister is denying all responsibility for this. We gathered that from our Adjournment debate the other night.
    Mr. Brewis: Is this not a perfect example of transferring expenditure from central government, which the hon. Gentleman is recommending, to local authorities, and, therefore, completely contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has been arguing up to now?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has not listened. I said there ought to be grants given to those authorities who opt to do this. The hon. Gentleman represents a rural area and I will not accuse him of self-interest, but what is happen-

    1103
    ing is that rural areas can get grants if they make such attempts to help their people but burghs will be denied this because of the Government's failure to rectify the position and to act within the context of the 1968 Transport Act.
    I put it quite strongly that we feel something ought to be done about this. There are three burghs, quite apart from a number, including my own and the burghs of Port Glasgow and Gourock, trying in their own ways to put forward concessionary bus fare schemes for the elderly and handicapped. It is a matter of sincere regret that the Government have failed to apply the provision by which they can help, through central funds, any scheme for concessionary bus fares that individual burghs may wish to take up themselves.
    I turn now to roads. When we look at the reserves here about roads and compare it with the paltry winter works programme, we are very disappointed, to put it mildly, that the Secretary of State has not thought fit to go further. Roads are an essential part of the infrastructure of Scotland, and despite the Under-Secretary of State for Development eulogising the previous Government for having established, virtually 100 per cent. I think he said, the infrastructure of Scotland—he was selling Scotland so we can forgive him, but he was overheard—the fact is that not all our infrastructure is completed and a great deal of the money is essential for the better development of many parts of Scotland trying to welcome industry.
    I deal now with sewers, and, naturally, in doing so I think of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), who is a very earnest sewer man, from time to time. I refreshed my memory of the contribution that he made in his usual fluent way on 20th February, 1969, when he said:
    "Another recent Act, the Sewerage (Scotland) Act, has not yet been put into operation. On the other hand, there are places which are waiting for the Act to become operative. In Kirkcudbright, for example, there is a desirable development of private housing construction which is waiting for the Bill to become operative so that connections with the drains can be made. This comes under the specific grant. I notice, under the specific grant, that the amount to be spent on this service is going down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 812.]
    1104
    Naturally, he and I looked forward to this debate and the publication of these Orders and the memorandum with great interest.
    The Sewerage Act does not seem to be being implemented by the Orders. I may be mistaken, I may have misread it. Will the Minister tell me: Is the Sewerage Act now in operation and is this enough money for the beginning of the Act? It was passed a long time ago and the hon. Gentelman was complaining less than one year after it was passed that it was not being implemented. Obviously tonight I will receive embarrassing support from him, demanding that this should be put into operation quickly.
    We might have an adjustment, with an Increase Order next year but I do not know how it will be done. There are many private developers and municipal developments too for that matter, which need sewerage. In this context and the context of that Act we would like to see money provided for developments. It has always been our contention that, matched with a rising public sector programme of house building, there should be the fullest possible development of owner-occupation and housing association activity. I would hate to see the Conservative Government standing in their own light on this matter. I hope that I will have the support of the hon. Member for Galloway and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), who smiles in agreement.
    Mr. Brewis: Why did the Labour Government produce the Act if they had no intention of implementing it?
    Dr. Mabon: I was deeply interested in the Act, and I know full well the intentions of the Labour Government. It was proper that it should take its parliamentary place in 1968. It did not follow that, because we were the Government, it had to be implemented then. I am still waiting to see the trigger mechanism which the Government will propose to put into operation an Act which they, when in opposition, demanded, should put into operation at once. Our Act would have been put into operation, and I hope that it will be put into operation now. Hon. Members opposite who helped us with the Bill made speeches demanding that we should act promptly. I will

    1105
    look up Questions to see how many times we were asked to act promptly.
    We are very disappointed with the Order. It is not sufficient in amount. I will not quote the figures which the associations demanded of the Government. I have always regarded them as not being relevant because they were naturally excessive and were put forward in the knowledge that they would not be met. I will not repeat the shortfall between their figures and these figures because these are not real. However, the Government's cuts are real and they amount to millions of pounds and add up to a a very heavy additional rate burden on people who can least afford it.
    We do not have an Allen Committee to analyse the rate burden of the different social classes in Scotland, but it must be worse in Scotland in view of the structure of our society. The Allen Committee said that those at the bottom of the scale, those in class 5, paid a far bigger share of their real income towards servicing local municipalities and counties than those at the top. This unjust way of financing must be dealt with in more imaginative ways even than those we proposed, but not by an Order like this which is regressive in its effect, inequitable in its distributon and inadequate in its total.
    1.2 a.m.
    Mr. John Brewis: I welcome the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order and—
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order. I understand that we are not discussing the Rate Support Grant (Increase) Order.
    Mr. Brewis: I welcome the Order we are discussing.
    I wish, not to pursue the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) about the Act which we had about three Sessions ago, but to raise a subject which arises from the actions of the Labour Government, particularly under the Transport Act, 1968. I refer to the need for rural buses.
    Under the Transport Act it became possible for the first time for local authorities to offer a subsidy to rural bus services. I think that a specific grant
    1106
    of 50 per cent. is paid towards any subsidy given to rural bus services under the Transport Act, but, in addition, any subsidy given by local authorities to bus services comes under the rate support grant. This has created very great difficulty in the rural areas in Scotland. I am glad to see present my hon. Friends the Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), because many local authorities are very worried about the bus services in their areas. In my area the local bus service—S.M.T.—has not only said it is going to withdraw all services, but, what is more, that it will withdraw also the school bus services, which puts the local authorities in very great difficulty indeed.
    I wish to know what sort of percentage will be payable under this Order to local authorities if they decide to subsidise bus services? There are two sides to this. Most buses run through the landward area of a county, but the small burghs are usually at crossroads and, normally, the bus services go through them. When a small burgh council decides whether to contribute on a population basis its proportion towards the bus services it has this to consider, that the service will go through the burgh. I find many small burghs in my area saying, "Why bother to subsidise the bus service because it has to come our way anyway? Let the county council subsidise it, and we shall get the benefit of it." This does not seem to me at all a just solution, and I am not at all sure that Section 34 of the Transport Act is the right way of dealing with rural services, and here I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Member was saying, that certain services should come from the Government and not from local authorities.
    I shall be very interested if my hon. Friend will give me some idea of how he sees local services being run in future, and whether the burden will fall on those living in the landward areas, and whether there will be some contribution from the small burghs and the large burghs through which the services pass.
    Earl of Dalkeith: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I was wanting to ask him if he is aware that this very same problem with which he is dealing as

    1107
    affecting his part of the world applies also in the eastern part of the Borders of Scotland, in Roxburgh, Peebles, Selkirk, and whether he does not think it rather strange that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), the sole representative of the Liberal Party for that part of the country, is not here, although he is complaining all the time in his local newspapers about the rural bus services. Now he has an opportunity to make his contribution here in debate about that, and yet does not come.
    Mr. Brewis: I agree with my noble Friend. It is most remarkable that from the large area of the eastern Borders we should have here no Member representative of it.
    Mr. Hamish Gray: None.
    Mr. Brewis: None at all, as my hon. Friend says.
    When railway services were closed—and the one I am thinking of in particular was closed by the Labour Government, the Stranraer to Dumfries service—we were given a very generous amount of express buses, but we were not informed at that time that those buses would be taken off after two years. We were not informed of this at all. Now we are faced with a position where we shall have to lose express buses and where, if the local authorities do not subsidise the ordinary stage fares, we shall have no buses at all.
    My particular point is, what percentage will the local authorities have to bear if they subsidise these services, as has been requested under the relative Section of the Transport Act? I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will be able to deal with this point which, though a small point, is very important for rural areas.
    1.9 a.m.
    Mr. George Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, when he comes to that Box, always assumes such an air of righteousness, and if I sometimes appear a little bit annoyed it can perhaps be understood. He put on the air of much regretting the fact that we are having this debate at this hour of the night. What he was seeking to sug-
    1108
    gest—more than suggest: to infer in every possible way—was that the onus lies on us on this side of the House. He knows that the business that had been put down for Thursday consisted of a debate on the steel industry, which would take 3 hours, interrupted at 7 o'clock for Private Business, which would take 3 hours, with a good chance of the pressure to take it far beyond the 3 hours succeeding. The debate on the Order would therefore have come on at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock, and I did what I could to have it brought forward to any other night than Thursday.
    I object to this pious air of shock, of being wounded, that is so regularly assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. He lectures local authorities for not taking advantage of the revaluation. They will not escape from having to charge more rates, but the onus is being thrust on them. Local authorities are well aware that, whether the rate poundage is 20s., 13s. or 15s., it is the total amount of money which people have to pay with which they are concerned. There is no question of local authorities trying to take advantage of revaluation, yet the right hon. Gentleman talks as if there is a possibility of local authorities engaging in some deceitful practice.
    This is especially annoying when one recalls that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are pushing through in Committee a rating reform measure which will take away from the local authorities a large amount of money by virtue of the derating of intensive fanning buildings. This will be paid for out of the pockets of the ordinary taxpayer, but the right hon. Gentleman says nothing about this. I am annoyed at the double-talk and deceit. The Government are filching money from the taxpayers by this agricultural buildings 100 per cent. derating measure, whereas my hon. Friend treated agricultural buildings as factory buildings with 50 per cent. derating.
    The Order speaks of notional rent income—that is another falsity. Notional rent arose from the fact that in many cases valuation was very different from rent. The Government insisted—rightly so in many cases—that where a local authority pursued a low rent policy the notional rent should be regarded as the rent they should be charging. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is being ended, that in a series of steep steps the

    1109
    Government intend to take away the rate and Exchequer subsidies on houses. These things have been put to the local authorities.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell indicated dissent.
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We have tried to get this information out of him. Another thing which annoys me is that he does not say frankly what he has in mind. He tells us in devious ways that the subsidy will be taken from the bricks and mortar and placed on people—those who are supposed to be most in need of it. In other words, there will be a universal means test for all local authority tenants. But it cannot be done, and the right hon. Gentleman should admit it, unless the rate subsidy and the Exchequer contribution are removed from houses and we have a rental system which is no longer notional rent but first of all perhaps on the basis of historic cost and then virtually becomes a rent which hon. Members opposite might call a "fair rent".
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is he not going a little wide of the Order?
    Mr. Lawson: I am discussing the part of the Order which deals with notional rent income. Mr. Speaker. Page 2 refers to it, while Schedule 4 deals with notional rent and places a certain percentage on which the rental is to be calculated.
    All that is worked out here is the position in which we no longer have notional rent but actual rent, which might mean in some areas an increase of £200. I see that the Under-Secretary of State is screwing up his eyes, but that is not a fantastic statement because such an increase can be involved.
    Let us have more honesty and less of this smug air of righteousness so characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman. Let him tell us what he has in store for the people. While we might not like it, we might have a little more respect for what he has to say.
    1.18 a.m.
    Earl of Dalkeith: No one likes to pay out money, whether in rates or taxes. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis upon
    1110
    value for money. Although we are all loth to part with our money, at least it is slightly better if we feel that we are getting our money's worth and that it is being well spent. One of the reasons why so many people have been unhappy in the last few years is that they have been seeing so many examples of money not being well spent.
    My right hon. Friend brought in the subject of family planning. I was extremely glad to hear him again placing some emphasis on this, because it is a subject where the English have got ahead of us. I am glad that he has implemented the wherewithal for local authorities to go ahead as from last autumn. But because he has introduced this air of urgency into ensuring better value for money, I most warmly applaud my right hon. Friend and support him in this Order.
    1.20 a.m.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Like my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate, I have felt it rather a pity that the matter should be debated in such a short time and at such an hour. For those of us who have spent most of our active political life working in the local authorities, this seems the most important part of the year. I was much more often as a councillor on the receiving end than on the handing-out side. It is important that we examine with great care and at much greater length the implications of the Order.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was rather disturbed during the course of the Secretary of State's speech because he thought that the Secretary of State was reading it and was perhaps spelling it out in rather greater detail. I took the opportunity of looking at the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the last occasion on which we debated this matter, and, without being patronising, he made a very much better speech tonight than he did when he was sitting on this side of the House.
    I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell what the now Secretary of State was then implying. He took the point, very properly, that local authorities are always looking to greater growth and greater growth within the national economy, and he promised us that if he were in power, by implication,

    1111
    industry would be booming in Scotland, that we would not have selective employment tax, and, during the course of a Rate Support Grant Order, he promised us, above all, that there would be a splendid future for the Argyl and Sutherland Highlanders. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) is not present to support him. That was a rather more wide ranging debate than we have had tonight.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman said that all these things were to be saved "at a stroke".
    Mr. Mackenzie: Not "at a stroke". The right hon. Gentleman said that had he been in power for four years there would be a brighter future for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, but now that his party is in power it does not seem that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member for Rutherglen tell me how the right hon. Gentleman got in order in making that reference?
    Mr. Mackenzie: The right hon. Gentleman got it in very well. I thought it fair because it caused great concern on the opposite side of the House. At that time the Secretary of State pointed out the need for steady growth of the economy. I can only point out now that, with 118,000 unemployed and the skills and talents of those people not being used, and the future being rather bleak in the eyes of many of us, we have a lot of cause for concern. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read his 1969 speech with great care and that when next he brings forward one of these Orders he will give a brighter picture than he has given tonight.
    There are two comments on the subject of revaluation contained in the Report on this Order. The first is that the new revaluation should not be used to extend extra services. The second is the determination of the domestic element in the Rate Support Grant. Arising from these two points my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell very properly made a "guestimate" of what the rents might be in local authorities, and this is a
    1112
    question we are all anxious to hear about because it has a great bearing on rateable value, and on the figure which the Secretary of State, in the Rate Support Grant, allows for rate rebate schemes.
    The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State will know that I have been very concerned about houses owned by the Western Heritable Trust in Glasgow, and this is a fair way of projecting what the rents picture may look like in a few years' time. At the moment, the rents of these houses are somewhere in the region of £38 to £42. Now that they have come out of the old category into the new category, the rents being fixed for these houses in my constituency, in Craigton and in King's Park have gone up from £40 to £260. Reading the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the speeches of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, this would seem to be the sort of figure that the Government have in mind for local authority houses. When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he must come clean on this matter, since it also affects the rates that these people will have to pay.
    If a council house in my constituency is to cost over £200 to rent, one wonders what the rateable value will be. We have heard some very odd figures put on the estimate that the Secretary of State has made about the increases in rates in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on that.
    I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will have a little to say about another important matter raised in the Order. I see that provision is made of £1·6 million for rate rebate schemes in 1971–72, with the same provision being made for 1972–73. If there is to be a general increase in rents and rates in Scotland as envisaged in the legislation likely to be brought forward by the Government, that provision seems to imply that no increase in rate rebates is to be given to the people affected. The Government argue that they want to subsidise not houses but the people in them. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with this point when he replies.
    1.27 a.m.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I want to make special reference to article 13, on social work. In many

    1113
    ways, its inadequacies are typical of the objectional nature of the Order.
    The article makes reference to the growth in services caused by the introduction of the children's panel system, a substantial growth in the number of professional staff, the new accommodation being provided by the social work building programme, and the increase in the development of domiciliary services, all of which I welcome. However, it makes no mention of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I hope that its omission is an oversight on the part of the Government.
    In local authority welfare sevices, this is probably the part which is in greatest need of growth. We know that current knowledge of the responsibilities of local authorities is such that we see only the tip of the iceberg. We do not know how much work is necessary. However, we know that if the local authorities begin to take their responsibilities in this connection seriously, there will have to be a very substantial increase in the funds made available.
    I am particularly concerned about the number of disabled or chronicaly sick young people who, left without parents or relatives to look after them, find that the only place to which they can go is a hospital geriatric ward. Some disquieting evidence is coming to the attention of the public which shows that young people placed in the company of the elderly for all their waking hours begin to exhibit signs of premature senility.
    We take strong exception to this sort of situation, and I hope that the Government are prepared to take some action to improve it. One way of doing so would be to develop housing units similar to those provided for elderly people. I am thinking of welfare homes where there is not necessarily the full residential provision but certainly a great deal of residential provision and a great deal of help is available at various hours of the day or night to people who are chronically sick or disabled. It is a misconception to think that only elderly people require help in the middle of the night. A young sick person may well need the whole range of services which, we say, should be provided for the elderly. That is why we should look at this service in particular.
    1114
    I accept that the provision of the building is capital expenditure and, therefore, it might be argued that local authorities will borrow capital to provide the services. Again, among the burdens to be met by local authorities, however, is the increased burden of loan charges. It is fashionable today—I am probably as guilty of this as anyone—to complain about loan charges in local authority housing. What we are, perhaps, beginning to see more and more is the effect of loan charges on education provision and the provision of welfare services.
    Therefore, it is disquieting to see in the Order that the constant increase in loan charges is recognised as a reason for having an Increase Order. In these circumstances, I hope that the Government, if they have not already taken care of this expanding service, which needs even greater expansion, will do something in future years to cater for it.
    In his introduction, the Secretary of State mentioned in passing that there was a reduction in the domestic element of rate subsidy. This shows an all too familier pattern of the transfer of responsibility from one section to another. This was touched on to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who said that this was a question of rewarding one's friends.
    I calculate that in Aberdeen the local authority will be out of pocket to the tune of £150,000 this year because of the reduction in the domestic element. This means that the householder must find the extra money and the people who will benefit thereby are the commercial and industrial interests, which are already derated.
    I regard this as being specifically against the election pledge given by the Tory Party to protect householders and ratepayers from increased costs. In these circumstances, I hope they will appreciate that they have broken that pledge and that this transfer of responsibility from one section to another within a local authority is quite against the whole trend which we are trying to put forward. This is especially so as the Allen Committee on local government finance pointed out the regressive nature of rate taxation. I hoped that with the promise of a Green Paper on local authority finance, the least that the Government might have

    1115
    done was to maintain the same rate of increase as the last Administration, at least until such time as we looked at the whole question of the reform of local government taxation.
    To finalise my comments, if one looks through all the objectionable features of the Order, which we have not had a chance to debate properly, one can only say that it demonstrates clearly the Government's failure to understand the needs of local authorities and, perhaps more specifically, the needs of individual ratepayers. It is a philosophy which is more in keeping with 1871 than 1971, and the original mistake in the first Order may well have been simply a Freudian slip.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Younger.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gather there was some confusion as to whom you intended to call on the last occasion. Is there any reason why the debate on this Order must finish at a certain time?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it has to finish at a quarter to two, and the Minister has asked for ten minutes in which to reply. I was merely seeking to convey a message to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) that I hoped that he would finish by twenty-five minutes to two. We then deal with another Order.
    Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order. Can I take it, without presuming too much, that you will be generous as to what we can cover then, because it is this Order which is important, too.
    Mr. Speaker: I will deal with questions of order on the next Order when we come to them. Mr. Younger.
    1.35 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): It is quite right that the House should look carefully and critically at these Rate Support Grant Orders, and I am glad that we should have a serious debate on the subject. I am only sorry that it is necessary to debate them at so late an hour. It is not the time we would choose, but, as hon. Members know, the timetable is such that it was not
    1116
    possible to have the debate at any other time. We must just make the best of it.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) raised a number of points which I would like to answer. First of all, he mentioned the corrections, and I repeat the apologies already made by my right hon. Friend. There is nothing significant about the need for these corrections. They were the result of an error in the printing, and as the corrections themselves show they have been put right in good time, and the House had plenty of advance notice of them.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of a revaluation year on rates generally. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman himself said, and it is really too much to pretend that this is purely coincidence, that in every year in which there has been a revaluation there has been a fairly considerable increase in the rates levied, but it is not at all possible—and the hon. Gentleman said this, too, when he was on this side—nor would it be fruitful, to try to estimate in advance what the effect will be on local authorities generally or on particular local authorities in the years to come.
    So it is necessary now to say that the Government naturally will do all they can to encourage local authorities during the first year after revaluation to levy only the rates which are absolutely needed for their normal needs and not in any way to increase the rates levied during that year, because of the fact that the revaluation makes it a little more difficult for people to appreciate, that I hope that this can be done, and it is the wish of most people to whom I have spoken to recognise this problem.
    The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the Sewerage (Scotland) Act. The present Government have decided that at the present time we will continue the process started by the former Government of leaving the Act to be implemented at some future date. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was something of a surprise to us, having worked through the Scottish Standing Committee some years ago to put the Measure through, to find at the very last minute that it would not be possible to implement it because there was apparently not enough money to do so. We hope to put that matter right, but not this year.

    1117
    Various hon. Members have mentioned the Allen Committee's comments on the burden of rates. This is a perfectly valid point, but it will be known that the Committee reported before the introduction of the rate rebates by the previous Government, and these have to some extent, but only to some extent, moderated the regressiveness of rates. I do not say that this invalidates the points made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it should be recorded and made clear.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me to refer to the efficiency element, and several hon. Members have asked how the £3½ million efficiency savings are to be attained by the local authorities. We should get this matter in perspective. We are asking for savings amounting to about a quarter of one per cent. of reckonable expenditure in the first year of the grant period and to a little over half of one per cent. in the second year of the grant period. I am confident, and I think that everyone will be confident, that treasurers and finance committees can find various ways of obtaining savings of this order out of the £850 or so of total expenditure with which they are dealing.
    I certainly want every authority to undertake a thorough review of its costs and activities. Incidentally, I had a useful meeting with the local authority associations on this matter of improved efficiency in local government, and I found them most receptive and anxious to do all they could to help in every way.
    Mr. Douglas: Surely the hon. Gentleman would not expect the authorities to tell him that they were inefficient, would he?
    Mr. Younger: No, but they might have taken a somewhat sceptical view of the matter, rather like the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing. But I can assure him that this is not so. They took an enthusiastic interest in ways of improving their own efficiency, and I think they will find ways of doing so without too much difficulty. They will certainly be asked to look carefully at all estimates of expenditure, of management operational costs, the services which they offer, and the fees that they charge for these services.
    I am sure that savings can be found from increased efficiency rather than by
    1118
    cutting down on standards or on desirable improvements. They must take the widest possible look at the problem and have complete local independence and judgment in deciding how best this efficiency can be forwarded in their own areas.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Green Paper on local government finance. This is due to be published later this year, but I cannot at this stage forecast what may or may not be in it. At this stage we have to work, without doubt, on the present system, and I do not see any advantage in trying to make different arrangements at this stage before we know precisely what the new ones will be.
    I was asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), as well as by other hon. Members, about the Question of rural bus services. I should like to make it clear that the rural bus services which may be threatened with withdrawal by the bus companies are able to be helped by local authorities through the Transport Act. It is a fact which I do not think is fully appreciated by them, that they not only get the standard 50 per cent. grant for such services as they may wish to help—that is 50 per cent. of the cost but also that the remaining 50 per cent. is eligible for rate support grant. In the case of many authorities this is a very substantial amount indeed.
    Therefore, if a local authority does, as I hope some of them will, decide that it is in its interest to support local bus services which may be withdrawn, it is getting a substantial amount of Government help amounting to a higher percentage in many cases.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Why are we not having these concessions in the burghs?
    Mr. Younger: I am coming to that. This applies to rural bus services at the moment. I have been asked what happens when a bus service goes through a burgh. All I can say is that the burghs also have much to gain from these buses being supported if they are necessary to the community. It is not enough for a burgh to feel that it is not connected because it is not in a rural area, because naturally rural people come into the burghs to do their shopping and so on, and it is definitely in the interests of the

    1119
    burghs to join together, if they think fit, with the surrounding landward areas to see that such services are supported.
    I emphasise that this is not a question of expecting the local authorities and ratepayers to bear the whole cost. The vast majority of the cost comes from Government money, and, on the whole, it is a very reasonable bargain to strike.
    I was asked about concessionary fares for old people. This is not expenditure which is reckonable for rate support grant. This is expressly barred by Section 138 of the Transport Act, 1968. This does not come into the same category as the rural bus services, which are to do with the services themselves as a whole, and are not related particularly to concessionary fares to certain people using these services.
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of the Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
    Question agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1971, dated 4th February 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
    1.45 a.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move,
    That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1971, dated 29th January 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
    This Order deals with the second grant period, 1969–70 and 1970–71, and follows up the main Order of 1969. The reasons and objects are given in the accompanying report on the Increase Order.
    The House will remember that an Increase Order was made in February, 1970, to restore the original main settlement to the values prevailing at the end of 1969, but during 1970 there were further substantial pay awards to local authority employees and price increases which again affected the value of the grant which the main Order had provided. Among these was a salary award of just under 17 per cent. for teachers in Scotland, effective from the beginning of last April. Manual workers' wages were
    1120
    affected by the general increase from November, 1970. There were increases for most other local authority employees.
    Including consequential increases of national insurance and superannuation, wage and salary awards add nearly £30 million to the 1970–71 cost of operating local authority services. Non-staff costs have also been affected as detailed in Appendix I of the report. The servicing of debt, a large item in current expenditure, especially in the capital-intensive services, has been affected by the continued high level of interest rate at which local authorities have had to borrow and reborrow during 1970. Higher costs are, of course, proportionately reflected in higher levels of charges by local authorities for reimbursable services, a factor which offsets to some extent the general increase in expenditure.
    The extent of the various cost changes has been assessed in consultation with the local authority associations. Assessments of individual prices movements are based on sample information supplied by the local authorities, on movements of established indices and by reference to the terms of wages and salary awards. Effects of these price movements are calculated by reference to detailed analyses of total local authority expenditure on the different services.
    As a result of these calculations I have agreed with the local authority associations that, in order to maintain in real terms the value of the last grant settlement, estimates of expenditure for 1969–70 should be increased by £2·9 million and the estimate for 1970–71 should be increased by £37 million. The consequent and related figures are shown in Appendix IV of the report. I commend the Order to the House.
    1.48 a.m.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I add my protest to those already expressed at the complete mismanagement of Government business affecting Scottish local authorities. It is outrageous. This is not synthetic indignation.
    I do not care who is responsible for getting us into this difficulty because of the Industrial Relations Bill, but the Secretary of State cannot be advancing very convincing arguments in Government circles if this is the best he can

    1121
    do in the interests of securing a fair discussion for an important matter affecting Scottish local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I am not being personal in saying that. This mismanagement is regrettable, particularly at a time when greater interest is being shown in the affairs of local government than at any time in the last 30 or 40 years.
    We have before us the Government who were going to protect the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money. Tonight they have obliged us to approve expenditure of £300 million in less than an hour and a half. Not one hon. Member from a Glasgow constituency has had an opportunity to ask even a few of the many questions that need to be put.
    Despite several speeches from the Government Front Bench, there has been no mention of the promises made by Conservatives at the last election. What about the help that was promised to Glasgow and elsewhere by the Prime Minister. Because something did not appear in the Conservative manifesto—which the Secretary of State no doubt carries with him, ticking off each item as it is fulfilled; or should I say "is not fulfilled"?—but was a verbal promise by the Prime Minister, does it mean that the Secretary of State can forget all about it? As I said, many questions relating to particularly the last Order remain unanswered, but I will not stray out of order by asking them at this stage.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: In view of the hon. Gentleman's references to Glasgow, he might like me to explain that neither this Order nor the previous one applies to housing, as I indicated in my earlier remarks. It does not apply to the housing revenue account. The hon. Gentleman has, I think, been referring to a, subject with which I dealt in a statement to the House on 3rd February.
    Mr. Brown: I may not be an expert on these matters, but I appreciate that these Instruments do not refer to housing subsidies. But there are ways of assisting local authorities other than by giving housing subsidies. The Prime Minister did not specify subsidies of this kind when he promised help. Can we assume that, if any help is to be given, it will be by way of housing subsidies only?
    1.54 a.m.
    Mr. Frank McElhone: I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not voice my disappointment at the way in which this debate is being conducted. I strongly object to the time at which we are having to debate these matters and the duration of the discussion.
    I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's remarks about special aid to people covered by social work legislation. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education in his place because he will recall that last Friday I had the pleasure of debating this matter on television.
    I was told, in answer to a Question which I put down to the Secretary of State, that there would be a 25 per cent. increase in grants for social work—which sounded excellent. But all it means is an increase of £5 million for the whole of Scotland from 1969–70 to 1972–73, which is a totally unrealistic figure, showing a callous indifference by the Government for the disabled in Scotland. What will £5 million do? I asked recently how many local authorities had provided housing which catered specially for the disabled, and I was told, in reply to my Question, that not one local authority in the whole of Scotland had submitted such housing proposals to St. Andrew's House. There was a reason why—there was no money.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith)—he is my pair—who has left the Chamber, complimented the Secretary of State on a family planning project sponsored by him recently. I am not complaining about that. But I complain bitterly that when I asked for the same support—for a Press or television campaign to let the chronically sick and disabled people of Scotland know their rights—my request was turned down. I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile his priorities between family planning and the needs of the chronically sick.
    I also asked about the provision of telephones for house-bound people. I consider it essential that this increased expenditure should allow for such telephones, but I gather that it does not, although I compliment Aberdeen City Council on the fact that it has made some

    1123
    provision in the local authority budget for telephones for house-bound people.
    I asked how much was being spent on research and development in respect of disabled people, because by such research and development we can give mobility and, above all, dignity to the house-bound and chronically sick, enabling them to live as other citizens live. The sum provided for 1970–71 is £55,000, which is shockingly inadequate and certainly pays no regard at all to the large number of people in Scotland deserving of this help.
    Even the simple act of implementing Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, dealing with the provision of badges for the cars of disabled persons so that they may park in no-parking areas, cannot be undertaken under the rate support grant and therefore the disabled people who have to leave their cars in busy city centres and other no-parking areas cannot be helped because of the failure of the Secretary of State to introduce a simple order which would permit local authorities to make this provision for people within their areas.
    My reason for asking about rate support grant assistance was to enlist the support of the Secretary of State for more home helps for disabled people. But I was told, in an answer to my Question, that this £5 million would go a long way to provide for some more home helps. As I pointed out recently, Glasgow needs at least treble the existing number of home helps if it is to tackle the problem—and already it costs Glasgow £1 million to administer to present home helps scheme, which is grossly insufficient. When we consider that not one local authority has a fully staffed social work department and that this £5 million is meant to cater for the staff of social work departments, for the buildings and for home helps, and then bear in mind that Glasgow itself could take the whole £5 million and still not have an adequate social work department, we see the measure of the task and the inadequacy of the provision which the Government are making.
    Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman
    1124
    suggesting that we should devote these resources to home helps and cut out family planning? If so, I entirely agree with him. I think that family planning is a lot of bunk, generally.
    Mr. McElhone: I am conscious of the fact that I must keep in order, and I should incur the displeasure of the Chair if at two o'clock in the morning I discussed the subject of family planning. However, if it came to a choice, I know what my choice for the expenditure would be.
    The Secretary of State and his colleagues have shown a totally unrealistic appraisal of the real needs of certain sections of the community. We treat our disabled shockingly. They are still treated as lepers and they are often incarcerated in their homes for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I compare that with the record of Continental countries, particularly Sweden, where the chronic sick have dish washing machines, washing machines, tape recorders, and so on to help them. The increase in expenditure for which the order provides is totally insufficient for the needs of social work.
    So I say to you, Mr. Minister—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The hon. Member is addressing me, not the Minister.
    Mr. McElhone: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I am fortunate enough to have in my area a team of volunteers knocking at every door to ascertain the number of chronic sick people, for the Government do not know the total with whom we have to deal.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is going a little wide of the Order.
    Mr. McElhone: It is difficult to keep within the bounds of order.
    Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend is arguing that the increase is not enough and is showing why that is so. Surely that is very much in order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is in order so long as the hon. Member keeps to it, but when he starts to enlarge about surrounding subjects, the Chair is put into

    1125
    some difficulty. The debate is narrow. This is difficult for the Chair, and I am sure that hon. Members will wish me to keep within order as much as possible.
    Mr. McElhone: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will appreciate mine. I am trying to explain the difficulties of the chronic sick and disabled in Scotland and saying that the only way in which their position can be relieved is by the provision by the Government of sufficient capital.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) mentioned the promise of special housing aid for Glasgow. I agree with him that the aid mentioned by the Prime Minister could be supplied in ways other than by strictly housing subsidies.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing in the Order about housing.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To some extent the Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House by referring to the needs and resources elements mentioned in paragraph 13 of the report. The provision called special aid is given to Glasgow by virtue of the substantive Order made last year. My hon. Friend is arguing that to some extent that should be repeated by this Order.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: But there is nothing about housing in the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order.
    Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing not special aid for housing but special aid, which is financial aid. My hon. Friend is arguing, not specifically for aid for housing but for aid to deal with the financial problems.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because housing and housing subsidies are not included in the Order, I could not speak about housing, which is the Opposition's complaint.
    Mr. McElhone: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the difficulty of keeping within the terms of the Order, but my hon. Friend the Member for Provan indicated that aid to Glas-
    1126
    gow need not necessarily take the form of housing subsidy aid, and there are other ways of fulfilling the promise given by the Prime Minister. It could be fulfilled by the clearance of slum property. Glasgow has a serious slum clearance problem. There is no reason why special aid for Glasgow should not be given under this Order. I am sure that special aid to assist with slum clearance would he welcomed. As I pointed out on 18th December, the situation is so bad that one hospital in Glasgow receives 1,000 children per year with dysentry and gastro-enteritis because of slum housing conditions. This point should be borne in mind by the Secretary of State.
    We cannot fail to remember the promises made by the Conservative Party when it was in opposition. The Prime Minister said in Glasgow that the people deserved a better life and that the only reason he was in politics was to make sure that they got it. The only way by which the people of Scotland can get it is by giving them the assistance which they need. With rising inflation and increasing costs, it is difficult for local authorities to fulfil their budgets. The shabby treatment of Scotland by the Government will not go unrecognised at the next election. The Secretary of State has failed miserably. He has tried to conceal his gifts in the tinsel of percentages which fool no one. The Government's Scrooge-like attitude towards the chronic sick and disabled people has been exposed.
    2.9 a.m.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: There has been an escalation in costs since the first estimate of about 11 per cent. We must view that within the context of the Government overall attitude to public expenditure. The Secretary of State might find himself in some difficulty here. In view of what has been happening over the past 12 months and what is happening now, will there be some modification in increases in costs to local authorities?
    To put this in the overall general context of public expenditure, the Government are committed to giving some indication of their expectation that local authority expenditure is expected to increase at an annual rate of about 3·5 per cent. between 1970–71 and 1972–73.

    1127
    Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing the case for expanding the underlying prospects of this Order by saying that, by some magic, we will tone down the rate of increases to local authorities over the years? If not, we need to know how he will get local authorities to maintain and increase the services expected of them. I represent the smallest county in Scotland which has the undistinguished claim to fame of being the highest-rated authority in Scotland. There are grave constraints on local authorities trying to meet the need of their electorates.
    The right hon. Gentleman has given us some idea of the reasons for bringing forward the Order. One was the increase in interest charges. This is not a direct responsibility of local authorities, it is something for which the Government have responsibility. Although housing does not come within the ambit of the Order it is symptomatic of the general trend in increased charges to local authorities. On Wednesday, 28th October, 1970, in answer to a Question by me the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "In 1967–68—the latest year for which actual figures are available—the proportion was 63 per cent. The estimated proportion for 1968–69 is 64 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October 1970; Vol. 805, c. 151.]
    High interest charges lie at the Government's door. They are operating a high Bank Rate and a high lending rate through the Public Works Loan Board to local authorities. Local authorities are right to press the right hon. Gentleman for an indication of when these high interest charges will be relieved, because they are inhibiting purposeful development.
    The Under-Secretary had the good grace, earlier, to mention that certain things had been done by the Labour Government to make the rates less regressive, but he did not say that one of the reasons for this was the increase in the domestic element. We introduced this to alleviate the regressive nature, but it does not completely do the job. What we are seeing here, in this perpetual need to bring forward Orders like this to bolster up the system of local authority finance, is a clear indication that local authority finances will not bear the burden of necessary local government expenditure in this last part of the 20th century.
    1128
    While we have had some indications generally that the Secretary of State and his right hon. Friends wish to constrain local authority expenditure within the remit of constraining public expenditure, local authority expenditure must expand. Indeed, all the evidence is indicative that it will expand at a rate greater than even the growth rate of the national income, and this is because the demands on local authorities for their services are increasingly great, because of the fact—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is straying a little too wide of the Order. This Order is not drafted as a matter of policy but simply to take care of increases which have come about.
    Mr. Douglas: Well, with great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept that, but I am trying to indicate, within the bounds of order, that one of the reasons for this Increase Order and for other orders which will come forward is the deficiency in the form of finance now available. I return directly to the Order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must realise that there is in this Order nothing about the form of local government finance. It is very narrow indeed. I do not wish to be unduly difficult for the hon. Member, but it is my duty to keep the debate within the bounds of order. I am sure he understands that.
    Mr. Douglas: Yes, I fully appreciate the need to constrain the debate within the bounds of order. Nevertheless, the underlying elements are related to how the Government see local authority finances at the present time. One of the points I would put, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman is: what elements are the Government intending writing into local authority finance in the interim, when the Royal Commission and White Paper proposals are going through? The interim nature of this Order will mean stresses and strains upon local authorities and will, perhaps, mean holding up expenditure. The provisions of this Order and of future Orders necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to carry forward his own plans in the interim will produce stresses and strains for local authorities, and he has to take some account of them.

    1129
    The debate on this Order shows quite clearly that no palliative, no bolstering up of the present system, will meet the demands which will be placed on local authorities. Therefore I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when we get the Green Paper we will have a long, lingering look at it, and he will have responsibility—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to reply to those points because it has already been ruled by the Chair that the system of local government finance cannot be discussed on this Order.
    Mr. Douglas: Well, when the right hon. Gentleman brings forward his proposals perhaps he will give us some indication how this Order will carry the strains which he will place on local authorities in administrative terms, in employment terms, to meet the coming needs.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I must make it plain that this Order deals only with the past two years. It cannot touch on the future.
    Mr. Douglas: Yes, I fully accept the point the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I was indicating to him that he might give us some indication of his present thinking in terms of the future so that we might anticipate it.
    2.19 a.m.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: Since I have been a Member of this House, and that is a long time now, this is the first occasion I have ever ventured to take part in a debate on local government or, above all, on local government finance. Indeed, this is probably the only point I have in common with the party opposite—a colossal fund of ignorance of aspects of local government finance.
    Therefore, it is only because of a strange combination of factors that I rise to participate in this debate tonight. One is the gross mismanagement of having this debate after midnight. The Under-Secretary of State on the earlier Order stressed that the efficiency squeeze would be only a small percentage of the vast budget, but £800 million is still £800 million, and this is what we are debating
    1130
    after midnight at the fag end of a long debate on other matters.
    It is not enough to say that the Government were squeezed for time. They chose to take the Industrial Relations Bill on the Floor of the House. Either the Government are responsible or they are not responsible. If they want to give up government we will take over. As long as the Government claim responsibility they must accept it, with the whips and scorpions that go with it—even the Whip on the Front Bench now. To have this debate on the £800 million budget for the people of Scotland at this time is a disgrace and a shocking piece of mismanagement. The electorate in May will—
    Earl of Dalkeith: The longer the hon. Gentleman goes on complaining the later will he be in saying what he is going to say, which is perhaps related to the Order.
    Mr. Buchan: The importance of a subject is often in inverse ratio to the smallness of the hour. We are concerned to discuss this subject at any time, day or night. The lateness of the hour, the shoddiness of the Order and the smallness of the increase being suggested show the low priority which the Government place on these important services.
    I said that only a curious combination had brought me to my feet. Hon. Members will remember the curious incident of the dog in the night. When Inspector Gregson asked what the curious incident was as the dog had done nothing, Sherlock Holmes said "That was the curious incident". There is in the Order the curious incident of the dog that barked in Glasgow. Fee-paying in local authority schools in Scotland has been abolished for the past year. Nevertheless, income from fees came in because Glasgow charged fees in a different way so as to perpetuate fee-paying schools in Glasgow. What have the Government done to condemn that and to adjust the rate support grant accordingly? If that income is coming in and has not gone into the normal amount while we have these fees, where has it gone? What is Glasgow's share of the rate support grant going to be? What are the deductions and additions going to be? Is this to be an abnormal amount, because it must be an abnormal amount for charging for

    1131
    recreational and physical activities? This is the first curious incident missing here.
    But it gets curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said, because there is another dog failing to bark here. Where is the fulfilment of the pledge to assist Glasgow? We were not told what that assistance would be. When my hon. Friend asked about it, the right hon. Gentleman said that we were not allowed to discuss housing. It is not under housing as far as we know. Yet, he has discarded it in this Order, and, therefore, it must surely come directly under housing. It is money, cash, that we are talking about. It is not going to be any phoney business of the improvement of one or two old houses. If the dog does not bark here, we are waiting for it to bark the next time the right hon. Gentleman mentions housing. If it is omitted here, what is to be done about it?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has devoted much of his activity to trying to develop this kind of work in his constituency, repairing the omissions of the Government. He has taken the social work legislation and is beginning to do the job the Government should be pressing on the local authority. I see that you are looking at the Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The relationship of what I am saying with the Order is that the Government should have been pressing local authorities to get on with this social work and find out the full needs of the disabled. If they had been so pressing, there would have been an increased cost. I understand that I am in order because I am asking why the amount is not more. There should have been a greater increase for expenditure on social services.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) has returned to his bed at 2 a.m., having said that he does not believe in family planning. If his views are to be carried out, then under the provisions dealing with dental officers, nurses, midwives and auxiliaries there should have been an increase.
    I began by accusing the Government of mismanagement. These two Orders are a dog's breakfast. It is almost like a game of "Spot the deliberate mistake". The first Order had a series of correc-
    1132
    tions, and this one has at least one and there may be more. It is not good enough to throw this kind of mess at us after midnight and expect us to deal with it seriously. I congratulate those of my hon. Friends who have spoken on managing to make some sense of the Orders and on showing up the inadequacy of the Government in general and the inadequacy of these Orders in particular.
    2.30 a.m.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I rise not to detain the House long with any particular discussion on the Order but to ask a point of information with reference to Appendix I on page 6, where are specified changes in prices, costs and remuneration taken into account when this increase Order was laid. Most of them are clear. The section headed "Pay Awards", for the various people who have obtained pay awards, is clear, as are other increased costs in the second section, where one appreciates the need for increased expenditure for loan charges, National Insurance contributions, pensions and superannuation, and so on. But what puzzles me is why it should be necessary for an increase to be made available—I am not objecting to any increase being made available to local authorities—on the fifth item, "Property costs", where for 1969–70 the figure is £0·526 million and for 1970–71 it is increased to £4·309 million, which is by far the most substantial individual amount of the other increases in costs.
    I shall not ask the Under-Secretary to specify the final line, which is "Other increases in costs", which surprisingly have risen from £0·171 million in 1969–70 to £1·464 million for 1970–71. On a perfectly genuine point of information, I ask exactly what the property costs are which necessitate this increase of over £4 million.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell Mr. Gordon Campbell rose—
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I to take it that the Secretary of State intends to ask permission to speak twice and later on third time? There are still some questions that we have to ask.
    Mr. Campbell: I understand that there is a right to reply without asking permission in the debate on the Order.
    Dr. Mabon: We are not finished by any means.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: No one got up. They may have been going to get up later, but they did not get up then. The Secretary of State got up, so I called him.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am certain that you would not deliberately overlook an hon. Member, but I distinctly saw my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) rising to his feet almost simultaneously with the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind that one cannot see both sides of the House simultaneously, with respect, I think that you inadvertently overlooked him.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I certainly did not see the hon. and learned Member rise. I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman as to what he wishes to do.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Further to that point of order. I hope to speak at the end of the debate, but as no one was getting up and I was waiting for the hon. Gentleman to get up I presumed that he was not going to speak. I was very surprised when no one else was getting up.
    2.34 a.m.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: I was a little tardy at getting to my feet. Looking at Appendix II of the Order, on sewers and drains there appears to be a very modest increase in the two-year period covered. How much, if any, of this increase is going to the City of Edinburgh, for example, which has a tremendous problem in trying to modernise its sewage system so as to cope with the requirements of the Lothians River Purification Board? An abrasive dialogue has been taking place for some time and, I contemplate, will continue up to 1975, 1977 or 1978, which is the last date for starting that the River Purification Board have been persuaded to accept. But this is a large problem confronting the City of Edinburgh, because over the years it has neglected the need to have a modern sewage system instead of discharging crude sewage into the Forth. This is a problem of great dimensions going beyond the capacity of the ratepayers of the City.
    It is obvious that public funds from the Exchequer will have to be provided
    1134
    to the city to enable it to carry out these necessary works. This is right, because the modernisation of the city's sewerage will be to the advantage of all local authorities whose areas about the estuary of the Forth. This is obviously a public health matter, too. Everyone wishes to see the Forth clear of discharges of crude sewage, and a major contributor is the City of Edinburgh. It is a matter of great regret that this Order gives no indication of what action is contemplated by the Government to speed up this modernisation. It is one of great urgency, because the discharges will increase as the population increases. It is time that the matter was tackled, and I hope that the Government have more to say on the subject than the Order seems to suggest.
    2.37 a.m.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: It must be admitted at the outset that we are dealing with two historic years, the second of which, 1970–71, is about to finish. Is not it remarkable, however, when looking at Appendix II, the apportionment between services of extra costs and income, that the increase in costs on sewers and drains comes to £620,000, whereas, if one looks at the Order which we have just passed, the amount which is put aside for the whole increase in the next two years is of the order of £200,000? It is very strange that an Increase Order should carry such a large sum compared with the Order which we have just passed.
    The Secretary of State may argue that this reflects increases in salaries. Perhaps that is the reason. Certainly when one looks at the Explanatory Memorandum on the Increase Order, one sees on page 4:
    "Pay awards the other increases in costs are estimated to increase expenditure by £3·61 million in 1969–70 and £742·00 million in 1970–71."
    I admit that wage increases in this current year have been substantial, but that is an obvious error. Exactly what the figure should be, I do not know. Perhaps it should be £7·42 million. I should not like to guess. Is not this a case of another inaccuracy, and is not it a dreadful example of the Ministerial mismanagement of these Orders and explanations?
    These papers are supposed to help hon. Members. Instead, they confuse us in

    1135
    some cases. This is not good enough, and I come back to the incredible situation where the amount given for sewers and drains exceeds the amount that we have just voted for the two years to come, beginning in May, 1971.
    When one looks at the next item in Appendix II, Parks, it is difficult to recognise that in Scotland there are three regional parks, and I assume that they must in some way come within this heading. I refer to the Muirshiel, Strathclyde and Culzean parks. I remember the Strathclyde park intimately, because I was involved in the negotiations with the principal authorities, the two large burghs and the county. From recollection, the estimate was of the order of £1½ million. Since this was inaugurated in 1969–70, I can hardly believe that the sum of £870,000 for 1970–71 in column 7 can really be for the purpose of these three parks and that that is the end of three parks and that that is the end of State would like to look at that.
    It is interesting that if comparison is made between the actual increase for parks over our two years—at least, a year and a half were ours—and what we have just voted in the other Order for the increase for parks, it is incredible what very small progress the Secretary of State proposes to achieve in the Order on which we have just voted.
    Another item in column 1 of Appendix II is "Education, including school meals and milk", but in the Order which we have just passed it is called "Education". Why is there this continuance of the inclusion of school meals and milk but their absence in the principal Order, where the item is simply "Education"? Does this mean that school meals and milk are no longer a heading and are on the way out completely?
    I would accept the explanation that this is another error and that the item should be struck out of this Order because it is to be a new fashion not to itemise school meals and milk. I am sure that my hon. Friends would also generously accept that as an explanation. If it is not an error, however, why are not school meals and milk mentioned under the heading "Education" in the principal Order? In other words, we are not seeking to argue textual errors, although there
    1136
    have been plenty of them. We are asking what the Government mean by the form of the principal Order when we reflect on the Increase Order which we are now debating.
    With my hon. Friends, I regret very much the circumstances in which we are debating this matter. We had a tortuous explanation from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), concerning assistance to burghs which wish to advance concessionary fares. The Secretary of State was concerned in the deliberations on the Transport Bill—now the Transport Act, 1968—as I remember to my everlasting cost. He often interrupted us and advocated various courses of action.
    The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware—I hope that he is—that in one of these years, 1970–71, a circular was issued from St. Christopher House dated 19th March which described how the Minister had permissive powers under Section 138(7) of the Transport Act for calculating the cost of travel concessions made between operators and local authorities. We have had a number of references to this.
    The explanation given by the Under-Secretary was one of the most tortuous I have ever heard in Parliament—and that is saying something—because he advanced the proposition that while there were concessions for rural authorities and rural bus services, there might be some for burghs provided that the bus services went through rural areas. What is a rural area? If we are to take the sewerage Acts as—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into the question of what is a rural area on this Order.
    Dr. Mabon: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the grants to which I have referred for rural water supplies and sewerage are within the definition of what is a rural area. I always understood a rural area to be, for example, a burgh, which may be in a rural area, with over 300,000 population. That is the Scottish administrative judgment. It may have changed, but when I was a Minister, that was the judgment.
    I understand what the Minister argued previously and I am asking where, if anywhere, this money appears in the

    1137
    Order. To my surprise, the Minister—I have never heard the argument before—said that, somehow, burghs in rural areas could qualify for these grants. Where is the money shown?
    In discussing these Orders with the Secretary of State, the big complaint of the local authorities is that there is a disparity of treatment between rural areas and burghs. It is the Convention of Royal Burghs which is pressing the Secretary of State to bring in amending legislation to entitle the royal burghs to the benefit of what they think is happening in the counties. I appeal to the Government that, in fairness, if there is something being given to the counties it should be given to these burghs, either through this Order or by means of amendment of the local government finance Acts or the Transport Act. There should be some means of adjustment.
    The circular indicated that there was to be some sort of agreement between the bus companies and the local authorities. I have a letter here from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, which states:
    "I would like to stress, however, that the absence of an Order"—
    that is to say, an Order under the circular which was sent out in March 1970:
    "need not prevent any local authority or bus operator from discussing or implementing any scheme in the meantime. There would be no retrospective effect if an Order were made.…"
    Is that the policy of the Secretary of State? Are we to take it from this Order—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is nothing about policy in the Order. The Order simply takes account of the increase in prices and seeks to cover that fact. To raise the question of policy, of whether or not something should be done is not quite fair.
    Dr. Mabon: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the increase Order is fathered by the substantive Order which I had the privilege to propose to the House in 1969. There are within it references to other services. I have demonstrated that in the financial year 1970–71 there was a circular from the Government about possible expenditures involving bus services specifically in burghs, not rural areas. It might have been the intention of the Government of which I had the
    1138
    honour to be a member, or of this Government, to bring in money in that way. I simply ask the Secretary of State to confirm that it is not within the Order; that he has no intention of bringing it within either this increase Order or one that may follow the substantive Order we passed earlier today. What I cannot do is to leave unacknowledged the Under-Secretary's reply in the last debate, in which he tried to infer that somehow or other small burghs could benefit by existing legislation outwith the Order, because that is not quite true. We shall read his words with great interest tomorrow to get quite clear just what he meant, and to pursue it.
    My hon. Friends have already discussed the consequences, and have dealt with the needs element and the resources element of the grant. It was in these two elements that, after a great deal of argument, we were able to persuade the local authorities, very reluctantly, to agree to a reshaping of the formula that gave Glasgow initially £1½ million extra in redistribution of moneys available. The local authorities in Scotland, and many people in Scotland did not like that. Many local authorities postively objected to it, but we did it.
    That was the way in which we sought to assist the city of Glasgow in all its social problems. I believe that within this increase Order, and with the way in which the need element and the resources element have risen—and I readily concede that they have risen quite considerably—the amount of money going to the assistance of Glasgow in the last full year when we were responsible and in this present year which is just ending must be getting close to £¾ million or even £1 million.
    But that is not the point. Where is the new increase? Is the Secretary of State telling us that this is what was meant all along when the special aid was announced by the Prime Minister on 9th June, 1970? Is this the fulfilment of the promise? Is this Order, which gives an increase in the need element and in the resources element distributed more favourable to Glasgow than was the previous series of Orders? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is the end of the matter? Or is he to tell us that this, plus the announcement in relation to Larkhall and Stonehouse—which was

    1139
    the mountain compared with the mouse the Secretary of State said we had conceived—is the answer to the question, or is he to tell us that neither of these matters is relevant? That may be his answer, that it means that we are expecting some new announcement of special aid to the city. I hope the Secretary of State is able to refer to this, without going out of order. Is there something beyond it, and, if so, what is it?
    2.50 a.m.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will try to deal with all the points that have been raised. First, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), like me, deplored the fact that the discussion of these Orders was taking place so late at night. I should point out to him and to later speakers that it was the Opposition who asked that the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill be taken on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I think that the real objection which we on this side of the House have to taking these Orders at this time of the night is not so much the time of night itself as the fact that by taking them at this time there has been such a restriction of the time available. The Prime Minister has chided us for trooping through the Lobbies on what he called a fruitless exercise. We would much rather be here till 5 or 6 a.m. so that we could be allowed to make all our points. As I say, our real objection to taking the Orders at this hour is that the amount of time available has been restricted.
    Mr. Campbell: I understand that, but the change which led to the Orders being given only 1½ hours was introduced by the late Government, by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), who recently announced that he will not continue to sit in the House.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is that really fair? The English and Welsh Orders were debated by our English and Welsh colleagues for seven hours the other day. Surely we should have had seven hours, too.
    Mr. Campbell: That is exactly what I tried to say at the beginning of our debate on the first Order, and I am again trying to say something about it. I am
    1140
    just coming to the English Order. The English and Welsh Orders were debated, I think, on 10th December, before the Industrial Relations Bill appeared in Committee on the Floor of the House and before the campaign, demonstration, singing of "The Red Flag" and all the other things started. They started after the Christmas Recess, in January.
    The English local government financial year runs from early April to early April, whereas the Scottish financial year runs from mid-May to mid-May. Therefore, when our Orders were published in February, which is the normal time—these were laid this year on 12th February—we found ourselves in the middle of the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill and other important Orders whose dates were running out and which had to be taken by a certain time.
    The difficulties of this week and next week are that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in response to requests from the other side of the House, gave an extra two days for the Report stage of the Industrial Relations Bill, as well as having agreed to the Opposition request that the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House.
    It was the accident of the way in which the Scottish local authority financial year falls that forced these Orders to be taken during this busy period. This is why I have been doing my best to get the Orders taken earlier than midnight. I was hoping that the Orders might come on at about nine o'clock on Thursday, but when I discovered that a Thursday evening was worse for Scottish Members we had no alternative but to take them on another night.
    I deplore this as much as anybody else. However, there has been very little co-operation on various other Orders which have been taken in recent weeks. They have not been as important as these Orders, yet they have been filibustered through the night and it has been difficult to get them through, because it has been apparently part of a demonstration. I can understand it if hon. Members want to make a demonstration and make it difficult for Orders to go through.
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly the Secretary

    1141
    of State's suggestion is that we are engaged in a filibuster. Do you accept this?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not think that was the case. I think that the Secretary of State would be wiser to leave this argument and deal with the Order more precisely. I am anxious not to exacerbate feelings at this time of night if we can avoid it.
    Mr. Campbell: I shall be glad to pass on, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was why I dealt with this very succinctly in the debate on the first Order. A number of hon. Members have expressed their feelings about this and I therefore wanted to spell out why it had happened and why I, like them, am sorry that the Orders are being taken so late at night.
    The hon. Member for Provan and other hon. Members have raised the question of special help to Glasgow. That special help was from the beginning related to such problems as housing, redevelopment, density of population, and overcrowding. I recognise that it is possible to make available some special help for Glasgow under a rate support grant Order. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said that the Labour Government had made a special allocation of £1½ million, but he also pointed out that it was unpopular with the other local authorities. Therefore, it would have been rather surprising if we had used this Order to do that kind of thing.
    The rate support grant Orders operate on the basis of distribution by very carefully worked out formulae. Factors such as population and road mileage figure in the formulae. Local authorities have for a long time worked in working parties making recommendations as to how these factors should be brought together and the formulae put into action. This is not a very likely way of giving special help to an individual city.
    On 3rd February I made an outright statement of what we were proposing to do. More will be announced before long and I hope that hon. Members will be pleased with what they hear when it comes. It is not within this Increase Order, so I cannot expand on it tonight.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) raised the question
    1142
    of social help and home helps. In an Answer to the hon. Gentleman on 24th February my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office said that Section 14 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, would come into operation on 1st April and that this would make it obligatory on local authories to provide home helps.
    The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the disabled. He has been in the House for a year or so, but his Friends will know that in opposition I was one of those who took up the whole question of the disabled and the chronic sick about five years ago. I recall the occasion when the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), having come first in the Ballot, came to me and asked my advice about whether to launch a Measure on behalf of disabled persons and the chronic sick. I had been interested in that subject for a couple of years—indeed, I had been specialising in it some time previously—a fact which that hon. Gentleman was good enough to mention when he spoke on the Third Reading of what became his Bill, which is now the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Gorbals, in this subject, and although my interests must now be much wider, I have been delighted to note the interest which hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown in this subject, which, as I say, occupied much of my time a few years ago.
    As for having a register to help identify the disabled, this was a subject about which I was plugging away for years. Indeed, it was in reply to a Parliamentary Question from me that the Minister responsible said that the then Government would conduct an inquiry. That was three or four years ago. It was as a result of that study that Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act arose. As the sponsor of that Measure said, I had been originally very much concerned with the whole issue. However, Sections 1 and 2 of that Act do not apply to Scotland. That was the decision of the Labour Government, who recognised that similar provisions existed in other legislation, particularly in the Social Work (Scotland) Act. This

    1143
    is, as I have pointed out, a subject which is close to my heart.
    Mr. McElhone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have a letter, signed by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, addressed to one of my hon. Friends indicating that Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act does all that is implied in Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act? I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in this matter and I appreciate his continuing interest in the chronically sick. Is he aware that this makes more appalling the fact that he has allowed for the spending of only £5 million in this sector over the next two years for the whole of Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman uses the word "only" in relation to this sum of £5 million, but it is the fastest growing part of the services. As I mentioned earlier, the social work increase in the coming three years will amount to 25 per cent. I pointed out that this would cover our share of the new measures which I announced last November in terms of expenditure on services for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly.
    The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said that public expenditure was bound to increase. He is right. I said that we were expecting it to grow by 5 per cent., though we recognised that it was important to contain and restrain it. I also pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, attempted to limit local authority growth to 3 per cent. Both parties when in Government have recognised that in the economic circumstances of Britain in the last few years, it has been essential to try to restrain public expenditure in the local authority sphere.
    Inquiries were made about possible future increase Orders. We are discussing this Order, which is related to the last two years, and, as the Secretary of State, I am restricted by the 1966 Act. Under Section 2 of that Act the Secretary of State is required
    "to make grants…to local authorities in Scotland. In order to arrive at the aggregate amount of the rate support grants the Secretary of State is to determine the aggregate of
    1144
    Exchequer grants to local authorities on a percentage to be specified of their reckonable expenditure for each year."
    It is not a question of extra expenditure in future or even that authorities have embarked on expenditure additional to their estimates. The Order is related to increases in costs and prices which were unforeseen and which have actually occurred. That is what limits the debate and also limits what can be done in the Order.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) asked about property costs and referred to a figure in the table. I can tell him that of the £4·3 million for increased property costs, £2·2 million was for increased rates, £1·1 million for repairs and maintenance, £0·8 million for heating, lighting and cleaning and £0·2 million for furniture and fittings.
    The hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Murray) gave an interesting discourse on a subject which has been topical—Edinburgh's sewerage arrangements. He did not consider the rival project—the Opera House. What he said was important, but nothing can be done about it in this Order. However, he had an opportunity to give his views on a subject which is of concern in that area. Two-thirds of the cost of sewerage is in loan charges, which have not increased much in the period covered by the Order, and none of it has anything to do with Edinburgh's plans for the future. But I congratulate him on managing to make his points on an important matter.
    The hon. Member for Greenock raised various points. He began by referring to the Transport Bill on which both he and I spent very long sittings. It was a marathon. He said rather quickly that it has become an Act, but he did not mention that no fewer than 23 pages of it were dropped by the Government while the Bill was going through the House as a result of pressure by my hon. Friends and myself during Committee stage and that a further chunk was postponed so effectively that when we returned to office after the election we were able to make sure that it never took effect at all. We removed parts of the Bill which we did not like and supported those parts which we did like.
    In replying on this Order I am afraid that I cannot assist him in what must be

    1145
    his misunderstanding about rural areas and burghs. He said that he would look closely at what was said by my hon. Friend in winding up the debate on the earlier Order, and I will look into the matter. But it does not arise under this Order and he has misunderstood what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Can this question of concessionary fares and bus services be dealt with under the Social Work (Scotland) Act? Can burghs and county councils which have not been able to operate concessionary fares for the elderly and disabled in fact do so under part of that Act?
    Mr. Campbell: Even if it were not out of order to reply to that question, I could not do so without notice, but I will undertake to look into the question of the inter-relationship of the various Acts in assisting the disabled, because I am particularly concerned about that.
    The hon. Member for Greenock pointed to a misprint in the Explanatory Memorandum. The £742 million should be simply £42 million.
    The hon. Member for Greenock asked whether there was any significance in school meals and milk being mentioned at one point and not at another. The item for education has sometimes included school meals and milk and sometimes not. It sometimes did under the Labour Government and sometimes did not, and there is no significance in whether it is in or out.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am glad to have that assurance. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough in the few minutes left to him to help us about the figure of £742 million? He said that it ought to be £42 million, but surely that cannot be right.
    Mr. Campbell: I understand that there has been a misprint, but I will certainly look into this. I cannot do so now, but I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman. It may help him to see the point if I say that £42 million is the gross figure.
    I should like quickly to refer to the important issue raised by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan); fee paying and Glasgow's practice of charging fees to pupils at the former fee-paying schools for the provision of social, cul-
    1146
    tural and recreational facilities. He asked how we had dealt with this in the Increase Order.
    Fees for school education were still charged in 1969–70, the first year covered by the 1969 order. When this order was made, it was assumed that as a result of the enactment of the 1969 Education (Scotland) Bill, which had not even entered Committee by the time the negotiations with the local authorities were concluded, there would be no income at all from fees for school education in 1970–71. It was not foreseen what use Glasgow education authority would make of the power to make charges under Section 3(b) of the 1962 Act as set out in Section 1(1) of the 1969 Act.
    As a rate support grant order can be varied only by an Increase Order when the rates of charges have changed and not when new or altered sources of income had been opened up, we have not been able to achieve an explicit power to take account of this factor in the present Increase Order. In other words, the 1969 Act did not leave us a suitable power which we can use to take explicit account of what Glasgow has done.
    As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education announced in Committee on 2nd February, we propose to add a new Clause to the Education (Scotland) Bill on Report which will enable us to take account in an Increase Order of any extra income or reductions in expenditure which authorities will enjoy as a result of the passage of the Bill. We shall be discussing the amount of the adjustment with the local authority associations in the usual way in due course.
    Mr. Buchan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking up this matter. As he has now said that Glasgow's use of this power was entirely unforeseen, would he now condemn what Glasgow has done?
    Mr. Campbell: Certainly not. Glasgow Corporation considers that it has been making legal use of the power in the 1969 Act and I certainly would not condemn it. However, if there is any apparent anomaly, it will be resolved when the current Bill becomes law. The problem was created by the Labour Government's decision to deprive local

    1147
    authorities of their freedom to charge fees if they wished to do so.
    The debate has raised a number of issues. I point out again, however, that an Increase Order looks to the past and we are limited to seeing what increases in prices and costs there have been. It is that to which we have to address our minds and although interesting subjects have been raised—
    It being one and half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).
    Question agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1971, dated 29th January, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

    SCOTLAND (RATE SUPPORT GRANT)

      EMPLOYMENT (EDINBURGH)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Humphrey Atkins.]
      3.15 a.m.
      Mr. Gavin Strang: The high level of unemployment in the Edinburgh area at present is largely a reflection of the high level of unemployment in the United Kingdom as a whole. That is not the main reason. During the last three or four years there has been a sharp deterioration in Edinburgh's employment position, not only in absolute terms but relative to the rest of Scotland and to the United Kingdom.
      In the course of this speech I want to make three points. First, I want to bring home to the Government how serious is the adult male unemployment position in the Edinburgh area. Secondly, I intend to ask the Minister if he will agree to reconsider the Government's decision not to grant full development area status to Edinburgh, and, thirdly, I would like to put forward a constructive proposal which I think will help to promote industrial development in the Edinburgh area. Female unemployment in Edinburgh has never been a problem. It has very rarely risen above 1 per cent. One of the reasons why the seriousness of Edinburgh unemployment has been
      1148
      underestimated is that often the female and male figures are lumped together.
      The Minister will be aware that four months ago I submitted a memorandum arguing the case for granting Edinburgh full development area status. In that memorandum I predicted that within the next two years the rate of adult male unemployment in the Edinburgh area would exceed the Scottish average. That was an under-statement. The evidence that has come out in the last six months shows that the deterioration is, if anything, accelerating.
      My memorandum dealt only with the three employment exchange areas in Edinburgh—Portobello, Leith and Edinburgh. What I did not say was that if we look at the employment exchanges just outside Edinburgh, the other four in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area there is an equally sharp deterioration in the employment position there. I am particularly concerned about Musselburgh because it is in my constituency, and as the Minister knows, there was recently a serious redundancy position there due to the closure of the Inveresk Paper Mill. In Musselburgh we are very concerned about the difficulty of getting alternative employment for these men.
      If we look at the Edinburgh travel-to-work area and compare the position now with the last time we had high unemployment in Scotland, in 1963, we find that in January, 1963, the adult male unemployment level in Scotland was 7·1 per cent. and the adult male unemployment rate in Edinburgh was 4·6 per cent. When we come to January, 1971, the adult male unemployment level in Scotland was 7 per cent. and the male unemployment rate in Edinburgh was 6·5 per cent. That is a crucial statistic that brings out the sharp deterioration that has been taking place in Edinburgh's position relative to the rest of Scotland. If we go back about four years it will be found that 7 per cent. of all unemployed males in Scotland were in the Edinburgh area. That figure is now over 10 per cent.
      It is inevitable that I should say something about the history of Edinburgh in relation to regional policy. In 1966 the Labour Government made the whole of Scotland, with the exception of the Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello employment exchange areas, a development area. In

      1149
      1967 the R.E.P. became payable in the development areas. In September, 1967, the Hunt Committee was set up to look at some of the effects of development area policy. It is important to realise that Hunt said that R.E.P. and investment incentives had been operating for too short a time for it to reach any conclusion whether Edinburgh was suffering as a result of this discrimination.
      Nevertheless the Government, following the Hunt Committee recommendations, decided to give Leith intermediate area status. I looked at the figures after Hunt and I made the point that we had this serious deterioration to which I have referred. I stated, "There may have been a case for giving Edinburgh less favourable treatment in 1966. There is certainly not one in 1970."
      I come to the Government's announcement of last month. It was a bitter disappointment to the people of Edinburgh. We had hoped that the Government would give Edinburgh full development area status. It is reasonable to point out that with half of the population of Scotland in a special development area, Edinburgh is now worse off in relation to the rest of Scotland. The serious unemployment trend in Edinburgh is indisputable. There is absolutely no case for continuing to discriminate against Edinburgh. There is only one thing I want to ask the Minister tonight: will he undertake to reconsider his decision not to grant Edinburgh full development area status?
      It would be quite wrong to give the impression that the deterioration in Edinburgh's position is solely due to a lack of Government assistance. On the contrary, the chronic shortage of space for industrial expansion in Edinburgh is at least as important a reason. We do not have one attractive industrial estate in Edinburgh available for incoming industry. Edinburgh Corporation has still not come to terms with the fact that Edinburgh is no longer a prosperous and expanding city. It has still to formulate a policy for industrial development. It could learn a great deal from the vigorous and imaginative efforts of the neighbouring local authority, Midlothian.
      I want to stress that Edinburgh cannot promote industrial development in the Edinburgh area without the co-operation of the other local authorities. It is hardly
      1150
      a new point. It was made by Hunt and Nichols in their report on Edinburgh's economy in 1968, in paragraph 87. We cannot wait on the reform of local government until we get a proper policy for industrial development in the Greater Edinburgh area. It is for these reasons that I would like to propose that a Lothian Development Council be set up. The council would be a joint venture between the local authorities, local industry and the trade unions. Most of the finance would come from Edinburgh Corporation and the three Lothian county councils. I am sure it would have some Government support if it could get off the ground. I would be interested to hear how this assistance might be forthcoming because there are other bodies like this which get Government assistance.
      Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me how the finance would be raised?
      Mr. Strang: Take, for example, the North-East Development Council in England. That is financed by one-seventh of a penny rate. Obviously, the bulk of the money would come from rates by Edinburgh Corporation and the Midlothian, West Lothian and East Lothian County Councils.
      Mr. Clark Hutchison: Thank you very much.
      Mr. Strang: The function of that council would be to formulate an industrial strategy for the region. It would make sure there were attractive industrial sites available in suitable districts. It would launch a publicity campaign to attract new industry and to handle inquiries from potential incoming industrialists. The idea would be to sell the region. We would not have the position of the sort we know has sometimes arisen of industrialists seeking to get in touch with Edinburgh but having difficulty in finding someone to talk to about getting satisfactory industrial sites. This body would handle all that.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that since Leith was given intermediate development status there has been very little sign that Edinburgh Corporation is prepared to assist opportunities which Leith might

      1151
      offer to industrialists coming in? Having spoken very eloquently of Edinburgh and district getting full development status, does he not agree that Leith has at least as strong a case as Edinburgh as a whole, if not a stronger case, in that, first, Leith has a greater proportionate number of unemployed industrial workers in the whole district, secondly, in that Leith is the only major port in Scotland which is not in a development area, and, thirdly, in that Robb Caledon is the only shipbuilder in all Britain—I think I am right in saying—which is not in a development area? Does my hon. Friend agree?
      Mr. Strang: I was thinking of the development area status for Edinburgh as a whole, but I agree that that is particularly important for Leith because it is a port and because we have the Leith plan about to be embarked on which will almost inevitably allocate a certain part of Leith for industrial development.
      I do not want to spell out in detail the Lothians council, but just to give an indication of the sort of thing I have in mind. Anyone interested in promoting industrial development in the Leith area would be eligible to attend it, and one would hope all such would attend full meetings of the council which would, perhaps, be quarterly, but the key group would be an executive committee which would be composed of local councillors and would include representatives of industry and the trade unions. The executive committee would require one or two full-time people to work for it. There would be a director and perhaps a couple of industrial development officers and a couple of public relations people. That is the type of thing we have in mind. It would be inevitable—absolutely crucial, I would say—that the council would work closely with the planning authorities in the area. Of course, when we do get reform of local government in 1975 the position of the council would be reviewed.
      I have deliberately spelled this out in relation to Edinburgh and Midlothian and East and West Lothian because they would agree with this, and we could not at this stage take the proposed boundary for the south-east region, but I would suggest that it would be available for
      1152
      those areas and others likely to come into the south-east region, and that they would be anxious to come in.
      I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply, so I conclude by stressing that Britain as a whole—I do not criticise the Government for this—does not realise just how serious the unemployment trends are in Edinburgh. People still tend to look at Edinburgh as a great, prosperous, thriving city. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision not to grant full development area status, and I hope he will be able to announce that he is prepared to do this. I know that a large number of bodies in Edinburgh, including Edinburgh Corporation, intend to make representations to him.
      Edinburgh is not being parochial and is not unaware of the serious problems in the West of Scotland and Dundee. But Edinburgh can make a great contribution to the Scottish economy. Industrial development has been frustrated for artificial reasons, by Government discrimination, lack of planning and the failure of Edinburgh Corporation to have a proper industrial development policy. This is understandable, and is a reflection of the fact that Edinburgh has never had to bother about unemployment.
      I have avoided making party capital out of this issue. I could remind the hon. Gentleman of the statements made in the General Election campaign and he could say that it was my Government which originally discriminated against Edinburgh. Edinburgh is not asking for special treatment; it is asking for parity with the rest of Scotland.
      3.31 a.m.
      Earl of Dalkeith: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said. His thinking has been running on parallel lines to my own thoughts on this matter. I hope my hon. Friend will also take into account some of my arguments in a recent debate about Edinburgh being promoted to development area status before the announcement was made. Since Leith has been promoted to intermediate status, the unemployment rate has risen faster there than in other parts of Edinburgh which were not so promoted. I am, therefore, dubious whether intermediate area status will produce the right answer.

      1153
      I know it may sound rather grudging not to say "Thank you" to my hon. Friend for having taken a step in the right direction, but I still urge him to think seriously about rounding off the whole of Scotland and doing away with this anomaly which causes a great deal of annoyance and frustration. This would do a lot to rectify the very worrying situation of the high level of unemployment.
      3.32 a.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I commiserate with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on the uncivilised hour at which he has had to raise the extremely important matter which he has chosen for his Adjournment debate. The Government welcome any attempt by local authorities and areas to help themselves. We believe very much in self-help, and I listened with great interest to the hon. Member's ideas in outline for the Lothian development council. We shall watch with great interest how this develops to see whether it can be a useful vehicle. Anything which assists locally will have the keen interest of the Government. I recognise the concern felt by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) about the level of unemployment in the Edinburgh area, and the way in which it has been rising over the past two years. But I cannot accept that on the evidence available it can be said that the outlook to Edinburgh would justify making the whole of this area a development area.
      I ought to remind the hon. Member—I think he is well aware of it—that to a very considerable extent the current problems being experienced in this area date back to 1966 when it was decided to exclude the Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello employment exchange area from the newly created Scottish development area. Surrounded by the Scottish and northern development areas, with the nearest non-assisted area some 150 miles distant, this small enclave was left without any assistance for industrial development.
      Indeed, assistance was available for firms to move out of the area and set up or expand in development areas. The Hunt Committee, which examined the situation in 1968, recognised that the
      1154
      area was undergoing a transition in role and thus the stresses created by this had been intensified by the pull of the nearby development area. But although the Hunt Committee recommended that the position in the area as a whole should be kept under review in case there was a sharp deterioration, the decision—which I regard as absurd—was taken to designate Leith alone as an intermediate area.
      This resulted in a situation in which, of the seven employment exchange areas in the Edinburgh travel-to-work group, four were in a development area, one in an intermediate area and two totally excluded from assisted areas status—left between the devil and the deep blue sea. That is why we pledged ourselves to examine immediately the anomalous position of Edinburgh used by this decision. On taking office, this pledge was immediately honoured and we set in hand a searching examination of Edinburgh's problems.
      The review of the position of Leith and Edinburgh was carried out in the context of our thorough-going review of regional policy. It was clearly quite imposible to consider their status in isolation from the cases of other applicants for assisted area status and more importantly the need to adjust the coverage of the assisted areas to take account both of the limited supply of mobile industry and of the very considerable changes that had taken place in the pattern of employment in recent years. After a comprehensive and detailed consideration of areas throughout the country, we concluded that the employment situation in the Edinburgh area justified some assistance for industrial development.
      In deciding on the scale of assistance that would be appropriate to the area however, we had not only to consider the nature and magnitude of current unemployment problems, but also the prospects of the area, in comparison with those of other areas of employment need. Looking at comparative unemployment levels, the first consideration to be borne in mind is that the unemployment figures for the Edinburgh area cover the whole of the travel-to-work area, which, as I have already pointed out, impinges considerably on the surrounding development area. Thus, of the 10,910 unemployed in February, who give rise to

      1155
      the rate of 4·4 per cent.—that is, over all—nearly a quarter are registered in the development area.
      Even taking the figures for the area as a whole, the recent levels of unemployment for the area, though certainly giving reason for some concern, have been significantly below those of the Scottish development area or of any of the other development areas, where the overall average in January was 5·2 per cent. overall. They are also less serious than those of a number of the intermediate areas; the Yorkshire coalfield, in February had 19,274 unemployed, a rate of 4·6 per cent., and North Humberside, 8,960, a rate of 4·8 per cent. And they are, of course, very substantially less pressing than in the new special development areas.
      Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend realise that no fewer than 42 firms have shut down in Edinburgh? Is that a satisfactory situation? I do not think his arguments are entirely valid.
      Mr. Grant: I accept that the situation is serious. I was merely trying to contrast the position. We have to look at the whole country, and the situation is very much worse in the special development areas. The disturbingly high and persistent rates of unemployment in the older industrial conurbations in the development areas constitute the most pressing and immediate of our regional problems.
      As I have pointed out, however, we have not only considered the unemployment situation in arriving at our decision; we have had regard to both the industrial structure and the prospects of the area. The Edinburgh area does not suffer from the problems of decline of traditional industries, decayed and out of date infrastructure and dereliction which beset the older industrial conurbations in the development areas, nor from the remoteness and decline in agricultural employment which has affected rural areas such as Mid-Wales or the Highlands and Islands. In point of fact Edinburgh has very considerable locational attractions for industry and as the political, administrative and cultural centre of Scotland has considerable prospects for growth of
      1156
      employment particularly in the service sector, which already accounts for over 72 per cent. of employment in Edinburgh compared with less than 60 per cent. in Scotland as a whole.
      As hon. Members will realise, Edinburgh is a magnet for tourists.
      Mr. Strang: My argument is about male unemployment. We have plenty of female employment in the service industries. That is what service industries mean. But we are talking about male employment in manufacturing industry.
      Mr. Grant: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I take note of his argument in that respect. Nevertheless, Edinburgh is a tourist attraction, and this will help the overall unemployment figures to some extent. As I have said, Edinburgh has these new incentives as a result of the decisions which we have taken. What will these incentives do for Edinburgh? First, under the Local Employment Act, 1970, there is the building grant for the expansion of existing industry and the encouragement of new projects, the grant is available at 25 per cent. or 35 per cent. in certain cases. Taken together with the 40 per cent. initial allowance for tax purposes on new industrial building this provides a substantial contribution towards building costs and is a valuable incentive. Also we shall have powers under the Local Employment Act to provide Department of Trade and Industry factories, if the need arises, both custom-built and advance factories; and financial assistance, where it is considered expedient, will be available for the improvement of basic services, and to help towards the cost of acquiring and improving derelict land for which the rate of grant is 75 per cent.
      As in the assisted areas generally, the problems of Edinburgh depend heavily for their resolution on a buoyant national economy. I am confident that once our measures to put the economy on a sound basis take effect—once firms can feel the economic climate is right for expansion and development without the perpetual worry that rising costs will nullify all their plans and forecasts—these incentives will be a very potent force in stimulating the provision of employment in the area.

      1157
      It will not please the hon. Gentleman that I cannot immediately grant development area status. I repeat what the Secretary of State has said, that we intend to keep the position constantly under review. This is no holy writ about this position and we shall take note very carefully of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
      Mr. Murray: I wonder if the Minister would deal with the development area, which is rather like a peppermint with a hole in the middle. The area entirely surrounds the Edinburgh and Leith district. Is there anything comparable in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Grant: Off the cuff, it is a unique area in more ways than one. We understand the problems, which is why the best that I can say on this occasion is that we shall keep the problem under review. But there must be some degree of certainty for industry to develop and to make its plans on our present proposals for the time being. I cannot hold out immediate hopes that we can do any more than we are doing at present.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Four o'clock a.m.