Lords Sitting of 21 July 1965

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester

LORD GOODMAN
Arnold Abraham Goodman, Esquire, having been created Baron Goodman, of the City of Westminster, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Barnard—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE HOSPITAL PLAN AND UNIVERSITIES
2.46 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the shortage of medical graduates, they have given consideration to the hospital development plan in those areas where new universities are located, particularly as those universities which now have a school of biology could be of great assistance in producing medical graduates if the new hospitals in those university areas were wisely sited.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, the siting of new hospitals is determined principally in the light of the medical needs of the areas they are intended to serve, and decisions on the establishment of new medical schools can be expected to take into account the hospital facilities which are or can be made available for clinical teaching. The Hospital Plan, however, is not inflexible and can be adapted as may be necessary if it should be decided to establish new medical schools at the new universities or elsewhere, whether as a result of the Govern
718
ment's current consideration of methods of increasing medical student places or of recommendations which may be made by the recently announced Royal Commission on medical education.
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a further question? As the findings of the Royal Commission and the legislation arising therefrom may be long delayed, and as in the meantime plans are being prepared which in many towns, including the town of Brighton, ignore a new university, will Her Majesty's Government reconsider any such proposals so that they may conform to the desire implicit in both the Answer to the Question and the Question itself?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I have already explained that the Government are not necessarily bound to wait for the recommendations of the Royal Commission before making decisions. The Hospital Plan is being reviewed and this is a factor which could be taken into account in the review, but I do not think it would be a decisive factor in the choice. The more usual practice is for existing hospitals to be redeveloped systematically on their present sites.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government say whether the facilities for training medical students in this country are adequate to serve this country and also the under-developed countries of the world for which we have some responsibility?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the answer is that they are not adequate but they are becoming more adequate fairly quickly.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the new universities is being built on the same site as an existing large hospital, that the hospital committee have approached the university with the idea of building together a medical school, but that official approval to further discussions has so far been refused?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I was not aware of this particular event, but I should be glad to have the information if my noble friend would give it to me.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, will my noble friend take additional steps to

719
retain the services of medical graduates who are already experienced in medical practice, rather than to let loose on the public new graduates who have yet to acquire that experience?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am not quite clear what my noble friend has in mind.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, will my noble friend take active steps to prevent the existing emigration of doctors who are already in the public service?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, that is really another question, outside the scope of the one I have been asked.

WARNINGS ON CIGARETTE PACKETS
2.50 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take note that the United States Congress has passed legislation requiring that cigarette packets shall display the warning, "Caution. Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health"; and whether they plan to introduce similar legislation.]
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the action of the United States Congress, but I cannot at present add to the Answer given to the noble Lord on May 4. The health education campaign in this country is continuing, and the Government are pursuing their consideration of further steps that may be needed to strengthen it.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his Answer, but would not this practice, which now has the blessing of Congress, form a useful corollary to the Government's anti-smoking poster campaign, which does not seem to reach everybody who sees cigarette advertising? May I ask the Minister when he last saw a cigarette advertisement, and when he last saw one of the Government's anti-smoking posters?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I cannot remember when I last saw either. But, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, Her Majesty's Government are watching the effect of American experience of this particular experiment. They are also conducting social surveys on the subject of cigarette smoking and the attitude of adults and school children towards it, to find out what are the most effective ways of influencing them.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether he thinks we should deter people from enjoying life by stopping them from smoking or putting on their pipe, by saying that it is deleterious to health? I have smoked during fifty years, and I feel all right.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, there are obvious advantages in smoking a pipe rather than cigarettes.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why, if the Government are indeed supporting the anti-smoking campaign, they did not support the Private Member's Bill which was introduced in another place recently, bearing in mind that it was designed to include on cigarette packets precisely the same caution that is now being introduced on cigarette packets in the United States?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that the word "recently", which I used to her and which she has now used to me, in fact relates to January, 1964, when another Government was in power; it was that Government which did not support it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Then could I, as a supplementary, ask my noble friend whether, if a Private Member in this Parliament introduced a similar Bill, the present Government would support it?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I have said that this matter is under active consideration, together with all other possible methods of diminishing smoking. I do not think I should commit Her Majesty's Government to a Bill before that consideration is complete.

IMPORT OF ASIATIC CHIPMUNK
2.54 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have about the increasing import into this country of the Asiatic striped chipmunk (Tamias Sibirious); how many cases have been reported of these animals escaping from captivity; and whether they are satisfied that there is no risk of these animals establishing themselves in this country in a wild state, in view of the risk of damage to farm and forest crops.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, no records are kept of the number of Asiatic striped chipmunks entering the country. No reports have been received of these animals escaping from captivity. It is impossible to be certain whether any which might escape would establish themselves in a wild state, or, if they did, whether they would become a pest. If there were any such risk, my right honourable friend's field staff would soon become aware of it; but we have no information suggesting that chipmunks are regarded as serious pests in their own countries.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there is danger in complacency in these matters, and that from the evidence obtained from foreign countries, and not least from Russia, it appears that these animals can easily become a pest? Has he not heard of one recent consignment imported into this country numbering 5,000? And will he not also agree that in this country we generally leave these things until it is too late; that we then have to spend large sums of public money in unsuccessful attempts to exterminate animals like the grey squirrel, the coypu and the mink; and that it is better to be wise before the event?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, arising out of the experience of the animals which the noble Lord has mentioned, the Minister of Agriculture's staff are very much aware of the problem and, indeed
722
are looking everywhere for these animals. Very careful inquiries have been made of the field staff, but there is nothing to suggest that there is existing in this country any colony of the size mentioned by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can say that there is no fear of rabies being brought into this country through these particular animals from Siberia, or wherever they may come from?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the only thing I can say on this matter is that if there were any such risk my right honourable friend's officers would be alert to it. I recognise the importance of the Question which the noble Lord has asked.

COACHES AND LONDON TRAFFIC CONGESTION
2.56 p.m.
LORD HURD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of worsening traffic delays, consideration is being given to restricting the number of coaches making sight-seeing tours in the centre of London and requiring such coaches to be parked off the public highway at St. Paul's and other centres of attraction.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the Greater London Council is the responsible traffic authority, and it is for them, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, to consider the regulation of sight-seeing coaches as traffic, parked or moving. But, as things are, coaches in London are not permitted to park on the public highway in parking meter zones except where the police are satisfied that they will not interfere with moving traffic. Most of the centres of attraction they visit in Central London are, or shortly will be, within parking meter zones. Restriction of the number of such coaches could be considered only in the context of the general subject of traffic restraint, which the Government are already studying.
LORD HURD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer? May I take it, too, that the Government will keep a particularly close eye on this matter of patrolling coaches (because, perhaps, there is nowhere for them to park at the time), which are often empty and which do seem to clutter up London traffic unnecessarily? Will the Government keep a particularly close eye on this matter, with the relevant local authorities?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords; but a parked coach which is accompanied by its driver is much is much easier to control than a parked car with no driver.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that these coaches which toured London last year carried nearly 2 million overseas passengers who brought £10 million worth of currency to this country? And will he be careful not to make any regulations, or agree to any regulations, which might prejudice that form of trade?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords, that aspect will be taken into account. There are already discussions between the Ministry—that is, the Board of Trade—the British Travel Association and the Guild of Guide Lecturers (which, apparently, is the trade union for the people who take the coaches around) with a view to seeing that they co-operate fully with the police. We will do everything we can to facilitate these activities, so long as they do not impede moving traffic, which, as I have said, is the responsibility of the Greater London Council.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, while the Government are considering this question of the parking of coaches, they will also bear in mind the fact that in future they may not be allowed to park in meter areas and also that it seems to be a practice for them to park in such areas in South Kensington as Cromwell Road, Exhibition Road and Queen's Gate? Could they not go further afield, or have special facilities provided for them?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords; but, even then, a coach accompanied by its driver, who is normally a disciplined person, and carrying 30 people, is much
724
more easily controlled from the point of view of the police than fifteen cars with no drivers in them.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, at the daily ceremony of the Changing of the Guard, it is almost impossible now to get up Constitution Hill as there is a solid line of coaches? Is there any restriction on these coaches in force at present; and, if not, ought there not to be more control?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there are two sorts of coaches. One has the normal road service licence, and in that instance the traffic commissioner determines the conditions under which the coach operates, where it can park, the routes it can take, and the rest. The other kind is the contract coach, which takes organised parties and is not restricted in the same way. So far as Constitution Hill is concerned, that is a matter for the Ministry of Public Building and Works; but that Ministry and the Metropolitan Police co-operate in providing parking places. Constitution Hill is one such place. Hyde Park and the Royal Parks generally are others. The Embankment is yet another place used by coaches for parties going on river trips. It is largely a matter of cooperation; and I must say that, so far as the Ministry are concerned, the disciplined driver of the coach is a pretty co-operative sort of person.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, at a suitable time after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on the progress of Service rationalisation and my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a Statement on the Continental Shelf.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION (MERSEY TUNNEL APPROACHES) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAS (BORROWING POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
GAS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
3.3 p.m.
LORD THOMSON OF FLEET LORD THOMSON OF FLEET rose to call attention to the grave national consequences of industrial disputes resulting in work stoppages; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said; My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. Those who give serious consideration to the chaotic state of our national economy must be as concerned as I am for the future of this nation. When we express confidence in our progress, we are, I believe, just whistling to keep up our courage. Unless we can completely change the national attitude to work, unless we can impress on our people just how grave is our national situation, and thereby bring about a great change in the way we conduct our lives, it is my conviction that in a world always progressing, where people are enjoying an ever-increasing standard of living, we shall find it increasingly difficult even to maintain our present position.
As your Lordships know, I have spent most of my life in Canada and the United States of America. I know from many years' practical experience how life is carried on there and in other progressive nations, and I say to you with all the sincerity at my command that in those countries there is a national purpose in life which is lacking here. Generally speaking, how business is conducted completely governs the standard of living and the general economic situation of the nation. Business in this country is not efficient by the standards of other advanced nations—I should say "most business", because there are efficient British companies. But they are the exception and not the rule. In business and commerce, we are a nation of amateurs.
In other advanced countries, business is highly professional; management is com
726
pletely dedicated to success. It completely dominates the lives of the executives, who are open-minded and always seeking better ways, improved methods, better production, lower costs. Labour, while it bargains militantly, almost without exception lives up to its contracts. When agreement is reached the people work diligently and do their utmost to justify their wages.
Here, management is too often not professional, not efficient, and reluctant to be stirred out of a peaceful quiet existence. It is not anxious to change; because change means new problems, new risks and new worries. In this country things do not change quickly and it is not difficult for slothful management, in an entrenched position, pretty well to maintain profits without all the problems which arise from the necessity of changing to more efficient production, selling in new markets, promoting the business by new marketing techniques and the multitude of other activities necessary to make a business increasingly more efficient and more profitable.
Then what about labour? What about our production? Figures are available from anyone who has given the matter any particular analysis. In industry after industry it can be proven that it takes two or three men to equal the output of one man in the United States and Canada. Often work is inefficiently organised and directed. But the British workman himself must take the blame for much of this inefficiency—late arrival at work, tea breaks, too often any excuse to stop work, and, above all, industrial disputes and resulting work stoppages.
I say from personal observation, and with sincere conviction, that the attitude of many British workers is that of almost complete indifference to their work, to their rate of production, and often to the quality as well. Work seems to be something that a man has to do to get his pay packet. He has little regard for—indeed, I think he does not even realise—the responsibility he has for the national interest which is vitally affected by the rate and quality of his production. I realise what a Herculean task it is to change this amateur attitude to business of management and labour. But it must be done.
Too often I am told that this has built up through years of habit and

727
custom; that it will take a long time to change, and that successive steps will require many years. In my opinion, we do not have a long time. Real progress must be made quickly. The time has come when there must be no more work stoppages, official or unofficial. I believe that this must be the decision of the Government of the day in the national interest—and with, I hope, the concurrence, and not the opposition, of both labour and management. This hope may seem far-fetched, but surely it is evident that in a labour dispute not resolved, resulting in a strike or lock-out, neither side wins: both lose—one worse than the other—but it is the nation that loses heavily and the innocent public who suffer. Labour/management disputes are the only part of our lives that are not governed by the rule of law. No one could claim that justice triumphs in a labour dispute: such disputes are not settled on a basis of right and wrong, but only that the strongest wins. Surely this is the law of the jungle. What would our society be like if all our disputes, now settled by the rule of law, were decided by a similar trial of strength?
But the problem extends far beyond that. These work stoppages gravely affect and restrict our exports and endanger our national solvency. That concerns all of us—not just those who are parties to the dispute. There is the further fact that no work stoppage can take place without serious injury and inconvenience to large sections of the public. The lives of innocent people are disrupted; collectively, they suffer great financial losses. Illness, and even death, may result; and these people, the public, have no voice in the matter at all. They are just innocent bystanders. Is this right? I say, No. Labour/management disputes must be settled in some manner that will protect the rights of the public and also the national interest. Other countries, Sweden and Australia certainly, have devised methods of dealing with labour matters in ways short of strikes and lock-outs. Surely it is not beyond the power of Government in this country to do the same.
What is so sacred about labour matters that they should not be subject to the
728
rule of law such as applies to every other aspect of our lives? I am told that labour will not accept any restrictions on its present ways of conducting its affairs. This is nonsence. Laws exist to protect all people as well as the national interest. If such are needed regarding labour—management relations then they should be enacted. It is a cardinal principle of our democratic society that every person is entitled to be protected from the action of others who threaten or disturb his peace or cause him loss.
There is no place in this or any other civilised country for unofficial strikes, go-slows, sit-down strikes, or any other action by groups of wilful men acting against the orders of their official leaders in repudiation of an existing contract. Witness the irresponsible anarchy that prevails on sections of our railways. Hundreds of thousands of innocent members of the public are put to grave inconvenience, and worse. Both they and their employers suffer great financial loss. There is loss of hours of work, and of leisure time at home with their families, and all this through action beyond their control. Make no mistake about it, my Lords, this seriously affects production and gravely damages our exports, not only from loss of production but from the damage to our national image. How can we expect other nations to come to our financial rescue in times of stress? How seriously will prospective foreign buyers accept our promises of delivery on their export orders when we demonstrate that we are so inefficient as a nation and our labour has so little regard for the national interest?
I will not waste your time naming other similar unofficial stoppages over the years. Figures may well be quoted to the effect that in some other countries the number of days lost through strikes is more serious than in ours, but this tells only part of the story. Deliberate slow-downs, go-slows, restrictive production, all have the effect of reducing output, and it is all very largely to no purpose. It is possible to have ways of settling labour disputes short of work stoppages, but I do not think that this will happen through voluntary arrangement; it requires the force of law. I believe, and I strongly advocate, that legislation should be enacted prohibiting unofficial strikes, go-slows, work-to-rule and all other various

729
and devious devices which have the effect of interrupting and limiting production. When a contract is entered into by management on behalf of its company, and a union on behalf of its members, it must be scrupulously observed. Unions must be responsible for the conduct of their members. To this effect I believe that legislation should provide penalties which the union must impose on members who act contrary to their contract obligations.
Workmen choose their own union; they elect their own officers; they approve a new labour contract. They should not be permitted to repudiate a contract entered into on their behalf so properly and democratically. I believe that legislation controlling these irresponsible actions against their own unions and their agreed contracts would be approved by every sector of the public—labour, possibly, excepted. But I believe that if a secret vote could be taken a very large proportion of workers would agree that it is right and proper and in the interests of the great majority of work-people.
Let me read a despatch we received recently from Bonn, West Germany:
"Wildcat strikes like other kinds of labour disputes are virtually unknown in West Germany though not specifically outlawed. In practice, union/employer agreements give employers the right to dismiss without notice a worker who strikes without the permission of the union, which excludes the re-employment of 'trouble-makers'. In the only recent case of this kind a South German stove manufacturer sacked his 700 employees who had taken part in a wildcat strike and re-employed fewer than 600 after long negotiations with the unions. West German trade unions have become more careful in calling strikes since the Metal Workers' Union—the largest in West Germany—was sentenced by the High Court to pay the employers nearly £15 million damages for a strike which paralysed the industry some years ago. The money was never paid as the employers waived payment in consideration of concessions in other respects by the union."
My Lords, I have already said that in my view ways and means must be found to settle all labour/management disputes without strikes or lock-outs. I am, of course, aware that the Government have named a Royal Commission on trade unions and employers. I am sure that its Report will be productive of many changes for the better, but this report is two or three years away and
730
much can be done before that. There is no area of our national life to-day where the public interest is more neglected, almost ignored, than in the matter of industrial disputes. Work stoppages resulting from industrial disputes come about almost entirely without any consideration for those vitally affected—the public.
Is it reasonable that two sectors of our society, labour and management, should arrange matters between them, when the decisions arrived at gravely affect millions of people, without those people being represented? Surely this is wrong, completely wrong. I believe that there is one major innovation which could be originated immediately and which should have the support of both management and labour. I suggest that legislation should be enacted similar to the Taft-Hartley Law in the United States. This, I think, calls for a forty-day cooling-off period before a strike can take place. I suggest that when this delaying period starts the Minister of Labour should appoint and brief a competent person, preferably a lawyer or a judge, to attend all further meetings of the two interested parties. His brief should simply be to defend the public interest. He would have no power of decision, and he could only affect the outcome of the negotiations from the negotiators knowing that he was acting for the public. He would continually remind the negotiators of what was the public interest and what would be the consequences to the public if a settlement could not be reached. In effect, he would be an Ombudsman.
I believe that the presence of such a man, representing and acting entirely for the general public, would have a very restraining influence. I believe that both sides in a negotiation would at all times be very conscious of his presence. They would always have in mind that if the negotiations failed, he would be required to make a complete report, placing the blame for an unreasonable stand. This report would be made to the Minister of Labour, who, in turn, would be obliged to make it public. I believe that both sides of industry should accept this proposal. It is fair to them both.
My Lords, this whole matter of labour—management relations is so complex and far-reaching that it would be quite

731
impossible to deal with it on a comprehensive basis in the limited time available. I believe that the old concept of letting labour and management settle their own problems without interference is no longer tenable. I believe that definite steps must be taken, through legislation, to bring this whole situation more into line with present-day conditions. I hope that the Government will have the necessary courage to take these measures, distasteful to some as they may be. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I know that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, both for introducing this topic to us this afternoon and for the refreshing way in which he has done so. In his very impressive maiden speech last November the noble Lord said that he would always be short, clear and concise. This afternoon he has certainly attained that admirable trinity of virtues. Even more important, what he had to say has been not only penetrating and, if I may say so, at times provocative, but also authoritative.
For my part I shall at least try to be short. This is partly because I find myself this afternoon trespassing on rather unfamiliar territory. It is also because, as is no great secret, the Party to which I belong—Mr. Heath's dynamic one hundred-minus policy groups—is at present engaged on a deep and thorough reappraisal of its policies, not least on this vital front of industrial relations.
One thing is only too clear—it is quite clear from what the noble Lord said—that there is something rotten in the state of our national industrial relations. We have been led to believe that everything in this particular garden would be rosy under a Labour Administration. Was is not the noble and learned Lord, the present Lord Chancellor, who told us, a couple of days before the General Election, that we could truly say (I think his words were these): "If you want more strikes, vote Conservative". I think I can truly say that those who took the advice of the noble and learned Lord in this matter have been deceived, as I feel some passengers at London Airport over the Whitsun holidays, and some commuters on the Southern Region of British Rail, may appreciate only too well.
732
In the first five months of 1963, the industrial records show that 490,000 working days were lost through industrial disputes. Last year the position for the same period was worse—1,211,000 working days lost; and this year it is still worse—1,627,000 lost days.
I am sure that all of us appreciate what we as a country lose by these strikes in lost national assets and, indeed, in frayed national nerves. On March 11 of this year a strike of 300 maintenance men at the B.M.C. works was ended. It was that increasing rarity, an official strike. But I wonder whether, in a rational society, that justified the consequent laying-off of some 34,000 workers and the loss of some £10 million in production. Of course, it is arguable. But I do not think it is arguable that it was sensible that the great port of Liverpool should have been paralysed a month or so ago and 117 ships rendered idle because of an unofficial strike, caused by a dispute over extra pay for one gang loading clay. I would imagine that when we read of these things, of the misery caused to air travellers and to train commuters by i what has happened recently at London Airport and by what is happening now on Southern Region, we must feel some sense of responsibility, because we have not as yet been able to order things more sensibly in our industrial society in 1965.
Do I blame the Government for this sorry picture? On one count, yes. I recognise that strikes, especially unofficial strikes, stem from a whole variety of causes. I think that most of the recent disputes have had wages at the centre, and there is no doubt that the strike leaders, mostly acting, of course, without the authority of the unions, have had their cases enormously assisted by the upsurge in the cost of living under the present Government. Between October and May the index of industrial prices rose by 4·2 per cent., which would produce an annual rate of 7·2 per cent. if that rise continued. That compares with an average of about 2½ per cent. per year under the last six years of Conservative administration.
That is one count. More generally, I, for my part, am perfectly prepared to suspend judgment until we see, one way or the other, whether the Government are really determined to tackle the

733
problem of putting our industrial relations on a modern basis and whether they have the will, and the guts, to take the necessary action. I hope, above all, that they will not attempt to play down the seriousness of the position. We may be told this afternoon—we have been told this recently—that so far as industrial disputes are concerned we do not stand too badly in the international league table. I hope we shall not be told that. An article by Professor Roberts of the London School of Economics in to-day's Daily Telegraph puts a very necessary gloss on any such claim, and, if they have not already read it, I commend it to noble Lords opposite who may not read that liberal and progressive paper.
But with regard to the whole of this matter we must remember two things. In the first place, it is only too obvious that as a nation we are now operating on an only too narrow margin of solvency. The Americans can afford to have more strikes than we have. We cannot afford the strikes we do have. Secondly, if our criteria in these matters of industrial relations are national efficiency and international competitiveness, I think that the most important yardstick must be, not perhaps our place in the league table of strikes, but our place in the league table of restrictive practices. Here, although it is obviously extremely difficult to quantify the actual position, I suspect that we stand only too high in the league table. Perhaps the worst symptom of this disease of restrictive practices is that of over-manning, which spreads through so much of our economy. This, as much as anything else, accounts for the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, reminded us in his maiden speech, that our productivity compares with America's in the ratio of one to three.
To turn back to strikes, which are themselves only too often a by-product of restrictive practices, I would straight away acknowledge that the cure lies just as much with management as it does with labour. My eyes were caught some years ago by a statement by the late Sir Frederic Hooper, in which he said:
"During my forty years in business, I can recall no experience of labour unrest which could not ultimately be traced back to a failure of communication on the part of management."
I myself have not had forty years' experience of business, but, broadly speak-
734
ing, from my own experience, I would endorse that statement. We all know, for example, that in some shipyards a new tool or a new technique can be introduced without any great trouble, while in others its introduction, or even the threat of its introduction, leads immediately to strikes. The difference is usually the difference in the quality of management and the ability of that management to communicate with its labour force. It may be harsh to say so, but it would appear to me that at least part of the breakdown on the Southern Region may be due to a breakdown in communication between management and labour. The negotiations between the two sides seem to have dragged on unconscionably long without being resolved.
There are many striking exceptions to the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, made of management in this country and which to some extent I have reflected. Take, for example, the successful results of the four-year agreement by the Esso Company two years ago. Their labour force was substantially reduced, overtime was eliminated and a great many uneconomic working practices cut out. These were one side of the coin. The other was the package of generous redundancy payments, help in finding new jobs and a substantial increase in basic wages. That shows what modern, realistic and well-communicated management policies can achieve, and it is the sort of thing which is being increasingly achieved in this country. Here, if I may say so, I think that in his strictures on contemporary management the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, probably for the sake of emphasis, went farther than I would go. I would rather say that it is very patchy; that the bad patches are much too bad, and there are too many indifferent patches. In any event, the advance which is being achieved is being achieved not fast enough and not far enough. As a nation, we still have an awful lot to hoist in on management efficiency before we can claim that we have a mid-21st century economy.
However, it is on the other side, the responsibility of the trade unions, that I suspect our discussion to-day is likely to be mainly focused. Here, again, I hold that it is largely a question of leadership and communication. I recognise

735
that there will be many noble Lords speaking in this debate with far greater experience of this aspect than I have. But I would remind your Lordships that over 90 per cent. of Britain's strikes take place without the authority, and usually without even the tacit approval, of a trade union. It is a staggering figure. Clearly, if there were better communications in the trade union movement, and stronger exercise of authority from the top, we should have fewer quite unnecessary strikes.
Many of the failings of the trade unions are due to their structure and organisation, much of which is hopelessly fragmented and quite archaic.
"Is it not time for the whole trade union structure to be overhauled, modernised and simplified?"
Those are not my words: they are the words of Mr. Maurice Edelman, the Labour Member of Parliament for Coventry, North, in to-day's Daily Express.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I would point out that Mr. Maurice Edelman is not a trade unionist.
EARL JELLICOE: Mr. Maurice Edelman may not be a trade unionist, but I think he is perfectly right in this matter, and I hope that the trade union movement in this country will recognise that he is right.
How is this change to come about? Back in 1962 the Trades Union Congress declared its intention of reviewing these matters and seeing what could be done to improve things. Yet only too little has happened. At the 1964 Trades Union Congress, the General Secretary said that he still had hopes that more discussions would be fruitful. But he emphasised that he was more sober than some of his colleagues in his estimate of the time it would take to get things moving. Mr. George Woodcock is a very shrewd and realistic man. But the question which must be asked is whether this country can afford to wait indefinitely for voluntary action on the part of the unions to modernise their aims, their structure and their methods. Believing, as I do, very strongly indeed in the voluntary principle, and in the extra incentive which comes from voluntary decision, nevertheless, in default of other
736
evidence, I consider that the answer to that question will soon, in default of progress, have to be, No.
Parliament has the same right and responsibility to ensure that trade unions, and, for that matter, employers' associations, operate in the national interest as it has with other friendly societies, and, indeed, with limited companies; and Parliament must also ensure that these powerful organisations operate with a due regard for the rights of individuals and minority groups. It is in this context that we on this side of the House welcome the Government's decision to establish the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Donovan. I shall be glad, incidentally, to have any information which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, can give about the Royal Commission's programme of work. When is it likely to report? Will it possibly make an Interim Report? And, by the way, when may we expect to receive the Report, now, I think, overdue, of another important Committee, that under Lord Devlin?
Having said that, I must make it clear that the welcome which I have extended to the Royal Commission is subject to three conditions. My first is that I trust I am right in assuming that the Government really mean business. I cannot forget that in September last year a certain Mr. Harold Wilson declared that he saw no need for a Royal Commission which would "take Minutes and waste time". There was nothing in the Labour Party's Manifesto about it, or in the Queen's Speech. I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply can assure us, now that Mr. Harold Wilson is Prime Minister, that he has really changed his mind about the utility of a Royal Commission.
My second qualification is that I hope not only that the Royal Commission will cast its net wide and deep in its inquiries—I am sure that it will—but that the Government of the day, whatever their political complexion, will not shrink when it comes to implementing such of the Royal Commission's recommendations as are in the national interest. I, for one, regard trade unionism as an absolutely essential constituent of a healthy, modern industrial State, provided that trade unionism is itself healthy and modern. Likewise, I regard the right to withdraw labour as an absolutely essential right and liberty; but, of course, on

737
the condition that that right is exercised with a sense of responsibility for the interest of the general public.
On the foundation of those principles, I hope that the Royal Commission will examine all the ideas which have been mooted as to how our trade union movement can be rendered more dynamic and more modern and the action of some of its members more responsible. I hope that they will carefully examine, for example, the ideas which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, has ventilated this afternoon. They should certainly consider the idea mooted in the article by Professor Roberts, to which I have already alluded, that
"the time has come when the fiction that unions are outside the law should be brought to an end "
A way of achieving this, as Professor Roberts points out, is to make collective agreements into collective and legally enforceable contracts. I will not weary your Lordships with all the other possibilities; they are, of course, legion. My hope is that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to assure us that the Government's approach to all this is both radical and determined.
My third and final qualification in welcoming the appointment of a Royal Commission is this. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that, just because this Royal Commission has been established, the Government do not feel that shorter-term interim action is not called for. We have lately seen far too much of totally irresponsible strike action. We have seen the convenience and the interests of the general public ignored and abused. I remember very well the words which the Minister of Labour himself used when he was caught at Whitsun at London Airport in the toils of one of these unnecessary disputes. He said:
"These strikers have the power to disrupt the lives of good people. Those good people may, ere long, say that they have had enough and that they are not going to be pushed around any longer; and they will have my support."
Can the noble Lord, Lord Champion, tell us what lay behind those words? They represented pretty tough talk. Do they, in this interim period before the Royal Commission reports, foreshadow tough and early action?
I would only add this, in conclusion. We are now in the midst of a new Indus
738
trial Revolution—the Industrial Revolution of nuclear power, space travel, computers, automation and so on. But we have entered it with an industrial structure, for the most part (and this, I think, applies particularly to our trade union structure) born of, and still firmly anchored in, our earlier pre-Victorian Industrial Revolution. One symptom of the antiquity of that structure is the rash of old-fashioned unofficial strikes to which we are exposed. If we are to keep our heads above water in this modern world, let alone to make the sort of headway in it to which our native inventiveness entitles us, then we must adapt, and adapt pretty quickly. No one can guarantee that a process of change, perhaps especially in this vital field of industrial relations, is likely, at least in some ways, to be other than rather painful. But the alternative to that essential process of adjustment, accompanied perhaps by some pain, is the greater comfort, and the stagnation, of the backwater.
3.40 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, has raised a question of serious public concern, and I am sure the whole House, as I am and as the Government are, will be grateful for his having done so. I must say that he made the sort of speech that I expected from him, one that comes from knowledge and a deep concern for the country's welfare. A certain amount of this ran through the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Of course, he had to make a few Party cracks; he had to use the stuff that had been dug up by the Party Central Office. I do not blame him for this, but I must say that I think this is a matter upon which the Party approach is much better left out.
If we are to have the Party approach, if I and the Government are to be challenged to have the guts and ideas to tackle this problem, all I can say is Why was it not tackled in the last thirteen and a half years? They had the time. If they had the guts and the ideas, why did they not tackle it? In this connection one must remember that the highest figure of days lost as a result of strikes occurred in 1957, when there were 8½ million days lost. I do not want to continue in that vein. When I was speaking for the Opposition, either in this House or in another place, I never

739
approached this question of labour relations, and this problem which besets industry generally, from a Party angle. I am glad that, as his speech proceeded, the noble Earl began to depart from that and become sensible about the whole thing. Some of his points I shall, of course, have to answer in the course of my speech. I must admit that I would have preferred that the Motion had been expressed in more positive and broader terms, since sound industrial relations of course involve much more than the mere absence of strikes.
The noble Lord's speech went much further than his Motion. I welcome that because so will mine. Sound industrial relations should provide a basis for efficiency, high productivity, and economic advance. Strikes are damaging to industry, wasteful of our national resources—and I hate them as much as any noble Lord, although my home background is that of a trade unionist. They may well be a symptom of a deep-seated malaise, something that cannot be got over in a few minutes.
Before I proceed further, I wish to submit some figures to your Lordships so that you may have some measure of the size of the problem we are discussing. I assure your Lordships that I shall not minimise it, or show complacency about it; neither does my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. But it is important to know how the present compares with the past, and how this country's experience compares with that of other countries. Since the war, the days lost each year from stoppages of work have fluctuated considerably, and it cannot be said that there is any clear trend up or down. The highest figure was the one that I mentioned just now, 8½ million days lost in 1957, and the lowest was less than 1½ million days lost in 1950. Exceptionally high figures have usually been due to large national strikes. These are a very rare event these days, and I am very glad about that. During 1964 the days lost were about 2¼ million. A loss of 2½ million days—
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords—
LORD CHAMPION: I will just complete my sentence. As I said elsewhere, only a convict likes to be stopped in the middle of a sentence. In 1964 the days
740
lost were about 2¼ million. A loss of 2½ million days would be equivalent to less than one hour per year per worker, Now I will give way.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but unfortunately I stood up just after he had completed the sentence. I was not quick enough. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether time lost through working-to-rule is included in any shape or form in the official figures.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, these are the actual figures of days lost through strikes, and have no relevance at all to the so-called working-to-rule or go-slow and the loss to the community as a result of action of that kind. I may have a word or two to say about this later on, but certainly the figures do not include anything which can be called either working-to-rule or going slow.
If we compare our position with that of other advanced industrial countries, we see that we are neither at the top nor at the bottom. But our record puts us nearer to the top than to the bottom. That is nothing to be proud of. We lose, for example, more time this way than the Netherlands and Germany pro rata, but less than France and Italy, and certainly less than Canada and the United States of America, despite the fact that the noble Lord claimed some big advantages for the last two countries, and Canada in particular. I think that the more serious problem which we have to face in this country is the continuing prevalence of limited local strikes, which during the last ten years have varied between 2,000 and 3,000 a year. The year 1964 showed some deterioration compared with 1963, and the record for 1965 so far shows some further increase—and I give this to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who made some reference to it—although these figures are, of course, not likely to be above the level of some past years.
The great majority of these strikes are unofficial, and this is a problem which managements, unions and Government have to tackle. Here I agree with both the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet. This is a matter for management; it is a matter for the trade unions and, in

741
so far as Government can make an effective intervention, it must make that intervention.
I think I must examine some of the circumstances which lead to strikes. I do not, of course, mean, and I will not imply, that unofficial strikes are justified, but we must try to find out the causes before we consider possible remedies. Most strikes are, of course, about pay in one form or another. Most people want to improve their standard of living, although it is obviously short-sighted to press for wage increases which merely result in price increases and, therefore, do not raise real wages. As the Government have made quite clear, the scope for the steady increase in our standard of living necessarily depends upon improving productivity. The negotiation of a so-called productivity deal involves a lot of hard thinking, and it is a task which must first be undertaken by management. It requires, if I may say so, a radical and professional approach, not only to wage-fixing itself, but also to the organisation of work; and it applies also to labour, and will necessitate a willingness to co-operate.
The Interim Report of the National Board of Prices and Incomes on Road Haulage makes this point. I suggest that, wherever possible, management should be thinking along these lines. Here I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet. They must be thinking on these lines. As your Lordships will be well aware, strikes about pay often stem from dissatisfaction about pay relativities. This is a complex question, and it is the relativities which are closest to home, that is to say, between other groups in the same firm, which often lead to disputes. I suggest that there is a heavy responsibility on management to watch this situation in their own firms very closely.
While speaking of the responsibilities of management I wish to refer to two other aspects of industrial relations which, if not properly handled, can cause strikes. Here again I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The first is communications. A strike may well occur because employees do not understand the reasons for the actions taken by the management. It may not be easy, particularly in a large under
742
taking, to ensure that the lines of communication to and from the workshop floor are entirely satisfactory all the time. The difference between the firms of to-day and the old family firm is that the contact between the employer and the employee becomes attenuated. It is lost. The position of the foreman in this line of communication calls, I suggest, for special attention and, if necessary, for training. It is of crucial importance that every effort should be made to achieve good communications and for management to take the workers into its confidence on all important questions which affect them. This will not always prevent trouble, but it certainly helps.
The second question to which I wish to refer is discipline. A considerable proportion of strikes takes place because an individual worker has been dismissed or suspended. Let me make it quite plain that in any undertaking there must be discipline and that those who disregard it must expect to suffer. I believe, as I always felt in the Army, that there has to be discipline. I believe a measure of discipline is absolutely vital to the running of any considerable undertaking. But the point I wish to make is that this discipline will be more readily accepted by the great body of employees if its basis is understood and if, where possible, procedures are agreed upon which, in suitable cases, allow for a prior warning to those concerned and some opportunity of appeal to higher authority within the firm when it is alleged by the employee that the action of management is unjustified. Sometimes men strike in protest against a dismissal and the outcome is that the dismissed man is reinstated. This does not make good sense from the point of view of management. It cannot. The essential thing is that the employees should know where they stand when breaches of discipline take place.
I would say one other thing about the responsibilities of management. To-day, questions of industrial relations and personnel management are just as important for the efficient running of a large undertaking as are questions of production, finance and marketing. Many leading firms have recognised this fact and have to-day first-class personnel directors who play a part in the top management of the firm. But this is by no means universal, and other firms

743
should consider following the example set by the firms I have mentioned.
My Lords, I will now speak about the responsibilities of trade unions. There can be no doubt at all that this country needs strong and responsible trade unions. I hope noble Lords will not seek to argue that the troubles we are discussing would be less if in some way the power of the trade unions were to be curbed. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Unofficial and unconstitutional strikes presuppose that there is a need for greater strength and greater authority within the trade unions. If this is lacking then there is a need for self-examination—a self-examination to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, spoke in the better moments of his speech. I think that many experienced trade union leaders would admit that their organisations are over-extended by the growing responsibilities which they have to bear. Some of the great trade unions are facing this problem squarely and making changes which would enable them to give their members the service which is required in our rapidly changing society. I would urge, on behalf of the Government, that more should be done in this direction.
The whole of my personal experience has convinced me that it is in the interests of trade union members that industrial negotiations should be carried out in an orderly way. The implication of this is that there must be sufficient trained and experienced men, full-time officials and shop stewards, to negotiate on the trade unionists' behalf, and moreover that agreements once entered into should not be lightly overturned by an irresponsible but vocal minority. This, I repeat, demands strong trade unions. I said a few moments ago that the lines of communication between the workshop floor and management must be satisfactory all the time. It is equally vital that the line of communication between the trade union headquarters and the engine shed, the shunting yard or the workshop floor should be in good working order. I know some of the difficulties of this, but if it is not really working well as between the trade union headquarters and the man on the shop floor or in the shunting yard, often one cannot get the acceptance of the idea because it has not properly been put over. The line of communication has failed.
744
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, made, I thought, two positive suggestions. The first was that unofficial strikes should be made illegal and that heavy penalties should attach to those who are in breach of such industrial agreements—in breach of them by striking. Coming from such a quarter, of course, I would not dismiss that suggestion lightly, but I must point out, and we must face the facts of this matter, that its implementation would raise very difficult problems indeed. For example, in the case of an unofficial strike, how could one identify the effective leaders? And, if action is taken against them, either by legal or any other means, one would merely turn those unofficial leaders into martyrs and further aggravate the situation. Those of us who are in the trade union movement know how we love our martyrs! You have only got to call a man a martyr and we are all prepared to strike straight away. The last thing we must do is to turn people into martyrs by the sort of action it seems to me the noble Lord had in mind. But undoubtedly the idea merits careful consideration, and I would say it could not possibly be overlooked by the Royal Commission.
The noble Lord dealt with the drivers' go-slow. Although a railwayman, I am not going to defend their action. I can to some extent understand it. I know some of the difficulties in this field. I know how so often men who are carrying and bearing tremendous responsibilities find themselves getting less than their daughters, who are typists. But, as I say, I will not and must not enter into a defence of their action, because I believe that they should rely upon the men that they have elected to the head of their trade unions to settle their disputes. But I must say I would never agree that any free society should do anything which would diminish the right of a man to strike. This is essential to freedom, as I understand it.
His second suggestion seemed to me—I am not sure that I understood it correctly—to be rather along these lines: because it is the public who are harmed by disputes, representatives of the public should always be in at trade union negotiations. I must say that this to me, and I dare say to a lot of people, is superficially attractive, but I do not believe that it is a practicable suggestion

745
for all negotiations. Nevertheless, despite that, it is one of those things which must be considered by the Royal Commission.
I do not want to push off everything on to the Royal Commission; it was appointed by this Government, despite the words the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, read out as to what my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson said at some time. We appointed this Royal Commission, and we expect it to do a useful and thorough job and to come forward with recommendations which, provided they are sensible recommendations, one would hope any Government (ours or that of the noble Earl, if by any chance his Party ever come back into Government) will implement without undue delay. I cannot tell him exactly when the Royal Commission will be getting to work. They have already asked for evidence. It is expected that they will start taking evidence by the autumn, but this is by no means certain, so I cannot give this as a fixed date. I am not quite sure, either, when the Devlin Committee will he reporting, but I sincerely hope their Report will not be too long delayed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, has already referred to inter-union disputes. This is a matter of some difficulty. I think he knows a little about this as a result of his own industry; I can well imagine that he does. But I am not going into this too deeply, because certain things are taking place in this regard. This situation arises partly from trade union structure. Important mergers have taken place in recent years, for example in shipbuilding, and, as he will know, in printing; and more can be expected. The more mergers of this type we can see, the less likely I think we are to have a serious demarcation dispute. And, although there are not many such disputes, and the numbers of days lost do not amount to very many, naturally they immediately strike the public eye and are widely reported in the Press.
I have spoken of management and trade unions, and I now wish to refer to the men who are directly concerned in this Motion. I must remind your Lordships that the great majority of working people in this country do not strike from one year's end to another. The actions of those who do take part in unofficial strikes may, however, have serious results
746
which affect a great many people. In the first place, it is common for a strike by one group of workers to result in the laying-off in the same firm of a larger number of other workers. Also the future prospects of a firm, and indeed the industry in which they are engaged, may be adversely affected. Strikes not only raise costs and make industry less competitive; they also give an impression, in many cases an exaggerated impression, of unreliability as to delivery dates. When such strikes take place in public utility services, then obviously there is at the least serious inconvenience, and sometimes real hardship, to the general public, as is the case with the go-slow in progress at this time. I feel sure, however, that, except for a minority of men whose real objectives are political and not industrial, men who take part in unofficial strikes do not intend deliberately to cause hardship or damage to anybody. They are simply reacting to a situation, a situation which sometimes has not been fully explained to them.
I think there is little doubt that men sometimes stop work without having weighed up the likely profit or loss to themselves. Let us suppose that an unofficial strike over pay is followed by improvements. How long, they ought to ask themselves, will it be before this has offset the loss of wages during the strike? This is a question which is often asked too late, except—and this is my experience—possibly by the wives at home; they are the ones who tend to ask this simple question. These things do cause public opinion to turn, quite unfairly I am sure, against the trade union movement as a whole; they cannot possibly serve the best interests of the trade union members. I suggest that the answer to this problem, so far as trade union members are concerned, is, first and foremost, a better understanding at workshop level of what is going on in the firm and in the industry; and, if I may say so, a better understanding by employees of their own interests. This leads me once again to underline the responsibilities of management and trade unions. It is they who must show the way.
So far, I have not mentioned the responsibilities of Government in this whole field, because I am sure that it is right that we should put the main responsibilities on the people engaged in industry. They, and they alone, can solve the

747
problems, although they will look to the Government for help. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, through his National Joint Advisory Council, is seeking to promote the study of some of the urgent problems of industrial relations, studies which will, I hope, lead to action by employers and trade unions. In one respect the Government are taking legislative action. I refer to the Redundancy Payments Bill. I will not outline (I have so much material here, and I have been going on so long) all that I have in this connection of Government action, but I am absolutely sure the House will agree that the decision to set up a Royal Commission on the trade unions is of historic importance. Their task is great, and I hope that all those who bear responsibilities for industrial relations will submit evidence to the Commission on the wide range of matters which come within their terms of reference. In the meantime, if there is anything that my right honourable friend can do to solve some of the problems which exist, even before this Royal Commission reports, he will be only too happy to do it.
There has been a quiet, a gradual, reappraisal of some of these difficulties by industry itself and by some of the trade unions. I could mention a number of them. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned the Fawley agreement—a good example. There is the agreement concluded by John Brown and Company and the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, Shipwrights and Blacksmiths and Structural Workers—one of the important trade unions. There are others. These are notable events in the shipbuilding and other industries. I believe that it is to constructive developments of this kind that we should look for an improvement in industrial relations in the workshop, the shipyard and the factory. It is at this level that there are the greatest opportunities for progress to-day.

RATIONALISATION OF SERVICE FUNCTIONS
4.12 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place on the progress made in rationalising Service functions. May I, at the same time, apologise to the noble Marquess, who is about to make his maiden speech, and to my noble friend Lord Stonham, who also has a Statement to make. I am sorry that we should have to do it at this moment. The Statement is as follows:
"I have decided to introduce new schemes in two separate fields of activity. The first scheme relates to the organisation of the Intelligence Staffs in the Ministry of Defence, while the other results from the study of centralised responsibility for motor transport in the three Services which was mentioned in this year's Statement on Defence Estimates.
"The Intelligence Staffs of the former Service Departments were merged in a single Defence Intelligence Staff with effect from April 1, 1964. In the light of experience since then, I have decided to take a further step in reorganisation by substituting two functional Directors—a Director of Service Intelligence and a Director of Management and Support of Intelligence—for the present Director of Naval Intelligence, Director of Military Intelligence and Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (Intelligence) "—
that is, two new "across the board" Directors for three Service Directors—
"I believe that this change will improve our ability to deploy our Defence Intelligence effort with the maximum flexibility and effect, and that it will open the door to economies—including the immediate cut of one two-star-post—over and above the substantial saving which has resulted from the original merger.
"On Motor Transport, I have accepted an outline plan under which

749
the Army Department will assume responsibility for the development and procurement of all mechanical transport and spares for the three Services, except for a few specialist vehicles which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation. The Army Department will also assume responsibility for the distribution of Service vehicles, for central storage and the repair of vehicles, assemblies and spares above unit or formation level. The three Services are now collaborating on the preparation of detailed plans and revised procedures, and the changes in organisation and responsibilities will start to take effect from the 1st April, 1966. It is not possible to be precise about the financial effects of these changes, but I would expect to save about half a million pounds a year at the start, and to make additional savings when the full scheme is in operation."
4.15 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. It seems to me that the decisions announced in it flow naturally from the process of merger and integration which was initiated by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence in the last Administration, and I think they are to be welcomed.
I should like to put three questions to the noble Lord. The first one is a relatively minor and semantic one. Am I right in assuming that "one two-starpost" means one post of major-general rank? If so, would it not be better if we could be told this in English rather than in "McNamarese"? Secondly, can he tell us a little more about the reorganisation of the Defence Intelligence Staff? I think I see the meaning of it, but I am a little foxed by the functions which are embraced by that rather intellectual title "Director of Management and Support of Intelligence". Is there anything which he can say to clarify the functions comprised within that title? Thirdly, I notice that motor transport, or those aspects of motor transport, covered by this Statement are to become the responsibility of the Army Department. I should perhaps know this, but can the noble Lord tell us whether one of the Service Ministers is to have a special responsibility vis-à-vis that integrated Intelligence Staff and, if so, which one?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry, but I had certain semantic difficulties with the noble Earl's speech. "MacNamarese" was, of course, introduced by the previous Administration. It may well be that this is another matter that we should reform. But a "two-starpost" avoids inter-Service difficulties, as to whether one should call it a "major-general" post or the comparative rank in the other Services. Without going into it in great detail, I think I ought not to try to explain these particular two roles. I think the noble Earl probably has a good understanding of it. If he would like me to pursue it further, I could do so either by writing or by making a further Statement in the House. But it would be necessary to go rather deeply into the whole of the Intelligence structure if one were to explain these things, and I hope the noble Earl will not press me on that matter. Therefore I have not answered usefully two of his questions, and I am afraid I did not quite understand his third question. Perhaps he would like to repeat it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I said I should perhaps know the answer, but I do not. I notice that the responsibility for motor transport is to be transferred to the Army Department. I was wondering whether one of the Service Ministers will have a special responsibility vis-à-vis the Intelligence Staff, and, if so, which one?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the simple answer to that is that most operational and Staff matters go directly to the Secretary of State himself. One of my right honourable friends, the Minister for the Army, does have certain responsibilities on rationalisation and functions, but the Service Intelligence operates primarily to the Chiefs of Staff, and they report direct to the Secretary of State.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as a matter of general principle, I should have thought it was a good thing to have a combined Intelligence Directorate replacing the three Service Directorates as heretofore. Whether it is right to have one Director or, as in this case, two Directors, apparently of equal rank and unexplained duties, one does not know. This is a typical example of what happens in the fog of Defence arrangements and

751
the way in which Parliament is always at a loss to make any intelligent criticism of anything to do with Defence, particularly of the Intelligence Services. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already excused himself from describing what these two gentlemen are going to do, what their duties are, and what the division is between them. In view of this, I do not see that there is any intelligent question on it which I can ask.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord has failed to ask an intelligent question. I would only remind the noble Lord that a Statement made in this House is not a suitable occasion for going very deeply into organisation. If the noble Lord wishes to have a debate on this or any other Service matter, it is in his hands.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say where the responsibilities lie in regard to amphibious vehicles and hovercraft?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that really is another question.

THE CONTINENTAL SHELF: OIL AND GAS RESOURCES
4.22 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Marquess for this further delay before he makes his maiden speech, but I hope that it will be convenient to your Lordships if I repeat to the House a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Power. I will use his actual words:
"I hope to be in a position early next month to invite applications for further production licences to search for and get oil or gas on the Continental Shelf.
"The territory on offer will include blocks which were offered on the last round but were not taken up, and certain areas which have recently become available in territorial waters. In addition, subject to the approval by Her Majesty of an Order in Council designating additional parts of the Continental Shelf, I hope to offer further
752
blocks in a strip between the edge of the present designated area in the North Sea and the boundary with the Norwegian, Danish and Dutch parts of the Shelf; in an area about 10 to 20 miles wide around the South coast from Dover to Teignmouth; in the Eastern half of the Irish Sea; and in an area extending round the Orkneys and Shetlands. I will arrange for a map to be placed in the Library showing the areas within which blocks will be offered.
"The royalties and other financial terms applicable to licences will be unchanged.
"I turn now to the considerations I shall have in mind in awarding licences. In the Government's view, the overriding objective is to secure the most thorough and rapid exploration and development of the oil and gas resources of the Continental Shelf in the national interest. I shall, therefore, consider all applications which can contribute to this end, and will pay particular attention to the programme of work proposed and the capacity of the applicant to carry it out. I shall also take into account any exploration work already done by or on behalf of the applicant which is relevant to the areas applied for, and his facilities for disposing—in this country—of any oil or gas won.
"As required by the regulations, all applicants must be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies resident in this country, or bodies corporate incorporated in the United Kingdom, and the profits of the operations will be taxable here. Where the applicant is a foreign-owned concern, I shall look at the extent to which British companies receive equitable treatment in that country. Other things being equal, however, I intend to give weight to the contribution which the applicant has made or is planning to make to our economic prosperity, including the strengthening of the United Kingdom balance of payments and the growth of industry and employment in this country, with particular reference to regional considerations. I shall also take into account any proposals which may be made for facilitating participation by public enterprise in the development and exploitation of the resources of the Continental Shelf."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is a fascinating field of endeavour, and we all hope that many of those who will get licences will strike lucky. There is only one question I should like to ask. The noble Lord said that in considering who was going to get licences the Government would have regard to the contribution which the applicant was making, or planning to make, to our economic prosperity, with particular reference to regional considerations. The phrase "with particular reference to regional considerations" sounds to me, not like "McNamarese", but more like a typical piece of Whitehall jargon, and I should like to know what it means. Does it mean that an applicant who is successful in finding oil will be required to construct a long pipe-line to some area where we desire to have a refinery, or does it mean that preference will be given to applicants who are already working in some other capacity in development areas; or does it mean something else?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his opening remarks, and I join with him in hoping that they will "strike it lucky". If they do, it will be lucky for all of us. In regard to his question about the considerations which the Minister will take into account in granting licences, and in particular regional considerations, if licensees are going to delve down into the Continental Shelf they will, of course, need equipment. One of the considerations would be the amount to which the purchasing and procuring of that equipment would contribute to the economy in general in this country.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That would be so. Is the point that, although it might be less economic on grounds of regional planning, we might give preference to a firm which would order its equipment in Scotland or Durham, instead of ordering it in Birmingham?
LORD STONHAM: I do not want to convey the impression that this factor would be overriding or paramount, but it would, as he suggests, be one of the considerations which the Minister would take into account in the manner he has suggested.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I do not know whether I misheard the noble Lord, but I thought he said that applicants must be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or companies registered in the United Kingdom, and then went on to say that if the applicant was a foreigner then this, that or the other would happen. I did not understand that, but perhaps I misheard him.
LORD STONHAM: It is quite easy to misunderstand when a Statement is being read. Indeed, I myself read it twice, in order to make sure that it was correct. So if the noble Lord will allow me, I will read that section again. The words are:
"As required by the regulations"—
that means, of course, the existing regulations—
"all applicants must be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies resident in this country, or bodies corporate incorporated in the United Kingdom, and the profits of the operations will be taxable here. Where the applicant is a foreign-owned concern, I shall look at the extent to which British companies receive equitable treatment in that country."
It means that an applicant can be a body corporate incorporated in the United Kingdom, but foreign-owned.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I see the point.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
4.29 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, although it is only recently that I sat first in Parliament, in your Lordships' House, I have for a great many years taken advantage of the right of a younger son to stand at the Bar, and I am therefore familiar with the proceedings of the House. I know that one who addresses your Lordships for the first time can count on sympathy and understanding, and I am grateful that I speak with knowledge of that fact.
In dealing with this important question which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, has introduced, I hope that I shall not be thought guilty of egotism if my remarks are confined almost entirely to my own experience, because I have had

755
experience in industry over 60 years. When I left school, I entered a shipbuilding yard and became a member of the trade union responsible for the craft in which I was employed, and that has left a memory with me which has been most helpful to me throughout my career. I shall mention two incidents which struck me straight away. The first was when one of my mates said to me, "D'ye ken, Dudley, it's bad when you're idle—"that is, unemployed—"and the kids start roaring for grub." Your Lordships can imagine that that is a thought which has remained with me always. The state of affairs then, was that there was no National Assistance, no unemployment benefit; nor the various measures which soon after that, with the approval of both trade unions and employers' associations, led to what is often referred to as the Welfare State.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned the difficulties which arise, particularly in the shipbuilding industry, about lines of demarcation. It is often thought that that is something which has occurred only quite recently, and people are often surprised when I am able to tell them that with my trade union card, which I still keep, I also have a little booklet setting out lines of demarcation. It is dated 1898, so it is not very new. There are a large number of rules—in fact, I have a similar booklet containing the rules of golf, and there are even more rules of demarcation than there are of golf. However, I continued in the yard, and then passed on to the other works where I was also working on the shop floor. I hope that no-one will think, "Well, these are the recollections of an old man, but what importance have they to-day?" My Lords, they have had enormous importance to me, because when I was responsible for administrative work in industry I knew what to expect, and I was also able, when I became Chairman, to keep in very close touch with all the employees of the companies.
I would again refer to something which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said. He spoke about family concerns where there was a spirit of loyalty and pride in what had gone before, but I must say, after recent legislation, I have felt that that sort of thing was discouraged. How
756
ever, the point I wish to make is this. In manufacturing industry, there are a very large number of firms who have been in existence for a number of years, and have a number of employees with long service—men who are proud of that service, and who are determined to do everything necessary in the interests of their company. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, that is not the sort of thing that is mentioned in the newspapers. But if there is a strike, however unofficial, prompted by strangers who are not influenced by the sort of attiture I am talking about, that is well publicised in the newspapers, on the wireless and in everything else, and it goes abroad. At the same time it is said, "It is no use buying stuff in Great Britain. They say in their own papers that they are of no use; they are late and so on." My own experience in export work is that very often we quote a delivery date which we know we can keep, but we do not get the order because other concerns abroad say that they can do it better, more cheaply and sooner. I have frequently had experience of finding that the plant is delivered after the date on which we had promised to deliver it, and could have done it.
I should like to say something about this question of being in touch at all levels. The sort of firm which I am thinking of is one in which the shop stewards are not, as some people think, irresponsible and fractious people who are always making trouble. That may be so in certain cases, which I shall mention in a moment, but the vast majority of manufacturing industries in this country are working peacefully and efficiently. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to certain stoppages which have caused a great deal of disturbance, but in the main they were not manufacturing industries but services. It is the case that in services, such as the railways, road, air and, to a lesser degree, sea, it is impossible for the conditions which I have described to exist, because the services are scattered over such a wide area. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, is not a person whom I suspect to be not fully aware of what happens on the railways, of course, and there we have people who are always conscientious and obliging; but they are scattered over a wide area. They cannot be in the same position as the members of a concentrated works, who meet every

757
day and know each other, are determined to be together, meet in their homes and all that sort of thing. There was one additional case to which the noble Earl referred, and that was of a company with very large undertakings spread about in different areas; and there, again, there is difficulty for them.
I was very much impressed with an article which appeared in The Times last week, on the subject of the policy of joint consultation in Sheffield. I should like to read one paragraph only of that two-column article, and it is as follows:
"Little is heard of joint consultation these days and it is sometimes assumed that it is no longer of significance, but there are many places of work where it has become an essential part of the texture of industrial life, helping to create mutual understanding between management and men and particularly important in times of technical change."
That article referred to what is going on in Sheffield, where there are a number of works with great divisions. Some of them are very large, but they all know each other and work together. If I may mention the case of my own firm, we have there a very friendly spirit, like most firms in Sheffield, and it may be of interest if I say that each morning the chairman and the convener of the shop stewards' committee meet with the managing director, and they discuss whatever is necessary for the day's work. There are also these friendly relations that lead to very pleasant parties, and so on; and everybody knows each other. Those in administration and the directors have all passed through the preparatory stages of the work, and know what is happening.
I will end by referring to a conversation which I had a few days ago with a friend in another works where I have myself been for over fifty years. He was recently appointed foreman of a department in which he had worked since he was an apprentice. He told me that not long after he was appointed he had had a conversation with an outsider who said to him, "How do you manage, now that you have had to change sides?" His reply was, "I have not changed sides. We have only one side here. All I have done is to take on a different job on the same side, and we are all working for the same thing." I should like to end by saying that I have always hoped that, somehow, we might get rid of saying that
758
there are two sides to industry, with the assumption that each is trying to "do the other down". There may be cases of that; but my point is that the majority of the productive industry in this country is working on lines such as I have described from my own experience—and I have been to a great many works.
4.42 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, my first words must be to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech. It gives me particular pleasure to do this because of the fact that we have been long acquainted in the practical working-out of the problems that arise in industry, and particularly in the realm of capital and labour. As your Lordships must have gathered, he is an eminently fair-minded man. He is a man of long practical experience, starting, as he has told us, with an apprenticeship in the shipbuilding industry. I welcome very much indeed his type, not merely as an individual of character, but as someone of experience in these problems that we are now grappling with in this country. I hope we shall hear from him many times in the future, and I shall welcome him always.
I should also like to congratulate those other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and in particular Lord Thomson of Fleet. His was an outspoken, courageous address. He said many things that a great many people feel but think it is indiscreet, and perhaps too provocative, to voice; and his contribution, much as I would dispute many of his major points, was one that must give us all food for thought. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to get through his speech he read it so rapidly that I could not get down all his points. Indeed, were I to attempt to reply adequately to those I heard I am afraid I should occupy the whole of the time of this debate.
However, I should just like to make this general observation. There is no country in the world that has a wider and more extensive experience, ranging over the pages of history in the evolution of our economic system, than the United Kingdom. Many countries have based their trade union movements upon what happens here; and, of course, others have modified theirs to suit the particular conditions arising in those countries.

759
In no part of the world is there anybody better informed on these subjects than the British employers and the British trade unions. They have regularly engaged in the work of the International Labour Organisation since its inception in 1921, or thereabouts; they have their own international organisations; and, in the nature of things, they exchange experiences in the course of those discussions. As Members of this House may know, I was myself, for eighteen years, the President of the International Federation of Trade Unions. We are therefore not people who are ignorant as to what is happening elsewhere; but what we have to think over is how far what is happening elsewhere is applicable to British conditions and the traditions which govern the daily thoughts of everybody in this country.
Now as I understand it, and probably without any intention to be in the least supercritical, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, made, in effect, an indictment of the trade unions, of the employers, and even of the public in their attitude of mind. The workers were criticised, presumably on the ground of not giving of their best—something that in many industries is palpably true but which, as a general indictment, is perhaps overstating the case. In passing, I would just say this. It is one thing to make a speech in the House of Lords, as I well know; it is another thing to give evidence before a Royal Commission. If I might presume to advise the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, he has an ample opportunity, lying at his elbow now, to make his statements in the presence of experienced people who will be able to examine very closely the proposals that he has made this afternoon. That is not put as a challenge, but merely a friendly invitation from one who, like the noble Lord, is desirous of finding out the best methods by which our industrial relations could be helped.
But I think it would be wrong for me to allow to pass without observation some of the specific points to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, gave voice to-day. He spoke of the national spirit in the U.S.A. and Canada. I have been in the United States at least twelve times, and I dealt with their trade union officials and many of their leading
760
industrialists in the late war. Frankly, I did not notice any substantial difference between the approach of the average worker to his job there and that in this country. It is true that the Americans were brought up in industry, first, under what was, in effect, a despotism, against which the American Federation of Labor and other organisations fought for many years until, under the New Deal legislation of President Roosevelt, they were given for the first time advantages which had been secured in this country by free and voluntary negotiation and discussions between employers and work-people. That, I think, should be remembered.
The noble Lord mentioned specific points about how, as it were, American and Canadian experience may help in the realm of preventing strikes, and referred particularly to the "cooling-off" period of, I think it is (but I would not be sure), sixty days which is required to lapse before a major dispute can take place. What effect has it had? In the post-war period we had in the United States the greatest steel strike that had ever occurred in the history of the industry in any country. It was the longest, and, I may suggest, in some places it was the most bitterly fought of strikes. That is one instance. I have read in the newspapers over recent years of newspaper strikes in the United States which have stopped the presses completely for periods so that mimeographed copies had to be distributed to such people as were fortunate enough to get them.
At the present time there is a shipping strike in the United States, as I read in The Times of July 17. What they say is:
"The shipping strike on the east and Gulf coasts which began a month ago now involves 111 vessels, which are still idle at their piers. No fewer than 184 sailings have been cancelled."
It continues, later:
"Total losses to the industry from the strike so far are estimated at over 5 million dollars …"
I mention that in passing. I also read, less than a week ago, about a series of strikes in Canada, some actually in operation and some threatened. I think that altogether about five or six separate strikes were covered by this one cutting from The Times. That is quite unchallengeable. So I think it is necessary for

761
us to keep in mind that strikes are not peculiar to Great Britain; they occur in every advanced industrial country that operates in a democratic way.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, instanced Australia. I was a little puzzled about his reasons for speaking of Australia, a country which relies almost entirely (because of its history) upon a system of compulsory arbitration imposed by the Federal Government and also by the individual States. I do not know whether it is realised that under that legislation, in substance, the trade unions in Australia are incorporated and can sue members in the open courts for arrears of contributions—something completely unknown here and a system which would he completely foreign to the desires of the average worker. There are many things in Australian legislation and in their methods of approach to the problem which I think are highly commendable. But it is not a very long time since I read an article by Mr. Holt, who was then the Minister of Labour, in which he said that people outside Australia look upon Australia as a strike-ridden country. He disputes that and he gave various figures to refute it.
But, much as we have been troubled by dockers and port workers in this country, Australians have been troubled far more by the water-front strikes over the last 25 years. This is despite the fact that strikes are, in substance, made illegal. So I think we must keep things in some sort of proportion. When I was in Australia—and I have been there twice within the last seven or eight years—I made careful inquiries into these matters, naturally, from my trade union interests, and I found that the working days lost in Australia, measured by their working population and compared with ours, are just about the same as those lost in the post-war period here. So it cannot be claimed that the Australian system has prevented strikes. It may have prevented a strike here and there; but as a generality I do not think that could be claimed.
It has also been suggested that secret ballots should precede a strike. I hope I am not misquoting; I had difficulty in getting all the points down as clearly as I would have wished. That idea has been thought of many times here. In 1927, when a Conservative Government was
762
preparing the groundwork for the 1927 Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act, that matter was very fully canvassed; and it was rejected by the Conservative Party because of the complications, not only in administration but in the consequences which would ensue from such a strike. If a strike had been decided after a secret ballot, then, by common logic, that strike could not be stopped except by secret ballot; and there arises the question of who is to take the ballot and of its constituency. This would present enormous administrative problems and the Conservatives rejected the idea, not because of any influence from the trade unions—I was at that time the Secretary of the Trades Union Congress.
Another point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, was about the output of the American worker. It is common property that the American worker has three times the horsepower at his elbow that the British worker has, and if there is any criticism at all, if there is any fault, that fault must lie not at the door of the trade unionist or of the average worker, but against the general organisation of our industries—and I must say that I share the noble Lord's feelings on this point to a great extent; and I have given voice in this House on several occasions regarding what I consider to be the difficulties of British industrial organisation. Do not let us forget that great advantage of horsepower when we come to an industry which, with all due deference to the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, I long regarded, perhaps because of its nature, as one of the worst-organised in the whole country—the shipbuilding industry.
What happened during the War? The United States were building ships, so we were told, in four days. I visited Baltimore and several other places where ships were built to see how it was being done. Of course, it was obvious. Much of the work was being prefabricated in places, some of them, a thousand miles away from the shipyard. And if you took the total man-hours involved on the job, the output of the British worker, if my memory serves me aright, was about two-and-a-half times as high as that of the Americans working in shipbuilding. So I am encouraged to believe that if the British worker were put up against the American, or any other, he will not fall

763
by the way; he will do his job as expeditiously, and perhaps with a higher measure of skill, than most workers who would be our competitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, echoed a sentiment or feeling that there must be no more stoppages. The thought has occurred time and time again to me in my trade union life to see how such stoppages could be averted and what was the mechanism available to do it. To be candid, I am of the opinion that no such mechanism exists, nor is it likely to exist, for a considerable time to come. The real remedy lies in the sense of discipline, in the sense of responsibility, of the average man and woman who form the trade union membership and also of their opposite numbers—and this is a very important point—in the ranks of the employers. We have not completely got rid of our autocracy in industry, even to-day. Most men of the type of the noble Marquess, if they were, might I say, numerous in industry, would themselves be able to resolve these problems without the sort of apparatus which becomes necessary in large-scale business in modern society.
I was not very clear in my mind whether the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, when he spoke about there not being any more stoppages, was referring to both unofficial strikes and official strikes. The noble Lord nods his head. All I can say is that this presents a problem that could easily be the subject of a separate discussion. I do not know how it can be done. There are some people naïve enough to believe that it could be done by law. It sounds attractive, but no country has yet succeeded in doing it by law.
I do not think that the average British workman is likely to tolerate legislative interference to a greater degree than his colleagues elsewhere, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, knows perfectly well that the employers are just as bitterly hostile to the idea of excessive Government intervention in any phase of collective negotiation—and I see that the noble Marquess nods his head. I did not hear him indicate his assent, but I know that he is in agreement with me on that point. I repeat that in this country we know our business in industrial affairs. Although we are
764
passing through an abnormal period, a period of disturbance, of irresponsibility and inflation beyond anything we knew in pre-war days, it will all come right; and we shall go on with our collective bargaining, as free from legislative interference as we have been able to be in the past.
The example of Germany has been quoted. I am not going to take my ideas of democracy from Germany. There have been too many experiences in the course of my lifetime of Germany being susceptible to a form of dictatorship and authority which would be foreign to the concept of people of this country. Sweden was given as another instance, which seemed to me to be just contrary to the view that this problem could be settled by legislation, or even largely settled in that way. If there is one thing about which Swedish employers and trade unions agree, it is that there shall be the minimum interference by the Government. I should say, speaking again from memory, that there is less such legislation in that country than in practically any other European country.
They do their business by direct negotiation, and they succeeded, after a disastrous lock-out many years ago, in getting a form of organisation, of close contact by reasonable men on both sides, which has resulted in a commendable absence of strikes. I gathered that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, considered this system was no longer tenable in this country. I think he actually used those words. If that is so, all I can say is that it presents a black outlook for us. I believe that the people of this country, no matter to what Party or occupation they may belong, or what may be their circumstances, instinctively resent the imposition of unnecessary authority. They always have done and they always will. In a previous debate in which I spoke I was told that what I was saying amounted to threats. I tried at that time to illustrate the difference between threats and warnings. I have not at any time in my life been accustomed to using threats. When I see difficulties looming up, and problems which I think may cause major disturbances, I try to warn people and that is the spirit in which I am speaking to-day.

765
We must, of course, all deplore the numerous strikes which have taken place, and the disregarding of the agreements formed between trade unions and employers which were the rule before the war. At that time there were three-year and, in some cases, five-year agreements. Breaches of these agreements have been official, in the sense that unions have put in wage applications as if those agreements did not exist. No one likes the idea of inconveniencing the public. A hostile public is no asset to the trade union movement—just the reverse; but it is not the intention of strikers to antagonise the public. Any antagonism and inconvenience which arise are a consequence, and trade unions are in the unfortunate position of being unable, in the normal process of things, to achieve their objectives without causing inconvenience.
I think that we have to keep things in perspective. I repeat that all democratic countries suffer from industrial disputes. There have been very few official strikes in Britain during the post-war period. It is the unofficial, short, sharp strikes in breach of agreement which have caused most of the trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has already given figures in respect of the loss of working days in recent years. I know that is not the whole test, but it is part of the test. I have looked back a little further. At the beginning of this century, in 1900, the number of working days lost was 3 million. Then the working population was much smaller than it is to-day and trade unionism was very much less developed. We might, naturally, have expected to find that there was an increase in the number of strikes and in the loss of working days as the years have gone by, and the working population has increased. In the first decade of this century the average amount of time lost in working days was 3½ million. In 1912 the figure was 40 million in the one year. In 1919 it was 34 million; in 1921 it was 85 million. In 1926, with the National Strike, the figure was 162 million. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said that in 1964 the estimated loss in working days was, I think, 2¼ million, so do let us keep these things in some sort of perspective.
I am particularly troubled about the technique which has developed of, not a
766
normal strike, but working to rule. That is not a strike and certainly cannot be so defined under any law that we have, but it is possible to cause more trouble in that way than by a straightforward and open strike. This leads to the question, who makes the rules? It is not the work-people, so far as I know. One of the gaps in British industrial relations results from on absence of consultation with work-people before the rules are made which they are expected to observe. If the rules are so unfitted to guide the operations of a normal day that when they are applied by the workmen business is disorganised, there is something wrong with the rules. I hope that working rules, and that sort of thing, can be a matter of general agreement, wherever that is feasible, but I have not seen any tendency towards that happening.
The refusal to work overtime is regarded as working to rule, but I entirely dispute that. I say that a reasonable amount of overtime has been implicit in collective bargaining ever since trade unions and employers hammered out their agreements together. There are particular industries, like engineering and—I hope that the noble Marquess will support me—the shipbuilding industry, where there is a limit on the amount of overtime which can be worked in the agreed rules between the employers and the trade unions. That is practically non-existent elsewhere so that workpeople can say, "We are not going to work any overtime at all". Without some overtime, the normal operations of British business are not possible. In recent years, the average amount of overtime per employee worked has been about five hours a week. I hope that in trade union agreements with employers that fact will be recognised and provision made for overtime. In a recent set of negotiations which seemed to be leading to a strike, the whole of the inconvenience rested on a refusal to work overtime.
I have spoken long enough, but I feel very strongly on these subjects. I do not want a mistake to be made, because we have several times been on the eve of securing the most cordial relations between central employer bodies and trade unions and have come nearer to achieving this than ever before in our existence. A new organisation has been

767
formed, the British Industries Confederation, possessed of potentialities for close and co-operative working with the trade union movement. I should be very sorry, indeed, if anything occurred to frustrate and make impossible that close relationship. This is not a time for hasty measures, but for mature consideration by the Royal Commission, as my noble friend Lord Champion has said, to deal with this most intricate subject.
So far as my information goes, in a preliminary survey, the Commission have set out 330 questions, and all of them important questions. I hope that that Royal Commission will be able to get down to things without becoming too academic. The T.U.C. and the existing B.E.C. have been examining particular disputes. Is it not the common-sense thing to wait for their reports before we start making condemnations of this party or that party? The general public seldom learn the real causes of a dispute until long after.
I am going to close by asking your Lordships not to run away with the impression that legislation will provide an effective solution to the problems which can arise and will continue to arise in British industry.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I just point out that in Holland, which I am sure the noble Lord will agree is a very democratic country, there can be no strike by law in a public utility without the employees giving prolonged notice? I understood the noble Lord to say that we cannot prevent lightning strikes by legislation. There is a democratic country that has prevented them in the public services.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, that is perfectly right. I think the noble Viscount's question goes right to the heart of things. But law is one thing and the operation of law is another. In this country, we have a law regarding public utilities, too. Persons who give notice to cease work in breach of contract can be prosecuted on indictment. One case occurred some years ago in the gas industry. They prosecuted people on indictment. What happened? The dispute was settled and after that the indictments came before the court. There
768
were strong speeches from counsel—I think that one was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, but I am not sure about that—but, in the end, proceedings were withdrawn. The employers knew perfectly well that to have their men left under a threat of indictment was not conducive to good relations. In Holland, they have at least three central trade union federations, one of which is based on a religious structure and attached to the Catholic Church. But, if my recollection is right, there have been such strikes in Holland and in its neighbour, Belgium, there have actually been purely political strikes.
5.14 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow a few words from these Benches (not quite so thickly populated as they were yesterday) on this extraordinarily important subject, raised in a bracing, almost daring, speech by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet. When I put my name down to speak, naturally I could not anticipate that I should be sandwiched between two such authorities as the noble Lords, Lord Citrine and Lord Williamson, who I understand is now to follow me, and I hope that my words may be regarded as a little light relief during, as it were, the tea interval.
Although, in the nature of the case, people like myself do not come into such close and immediate contact with industrial problems as do many of your Lordships, yet we are not without some contacts of value to us and what we say on these subjects, whatever may be its importance or lack of importance, is not entirely based on that general observation of affairs that is common to us all. We do try to make some intelligent use of the contacts we have, and I may say that before speaking to-day I have taken the opportunity to have some prolonged discussions with those experienced in trade union work and also with some of those actually on strike at the present time.
Before I continue, may I be allowed to add my tribute of congratulation and praise to the noble Marquess for his maiden speech? I never know whether the word "maiden" is a suitable adjective for a young man making his first speech in your Lordships' House or for

769
a mature man. It seems to me to be singularly unfitted to either of them. However that may be, we must be grateful that the noble Marquess has exchanged his seat on the Steps of the Throne for a seat in the Chamber and has exchanged silence for speech, a speech as cogent and interesting as that to which we have just listened.
I share the views of several of those who have spoken who have tried to keep this matter in some sort of proportion. I do not think that we help the case by making things out to be worse than they are. It is helpful to remember that all the days lost by strikes are less than 10 per cent. of the days lost by illness. That helps us to see the scale of the problem, so far as the actual quantity of lost time is concerned. But, of course, that is not all the story because the loss of time caused by strikes may well indicate a deep-seated malaise, a bad state of relations, that affects the whole of industry, whether strikes are on or not. Whereas the incidence of illness is sporadic and falls haphazard over the whole realm of industry, a strike breaks out in some particular industry, maybe at a nodal point, and can hold up the whole of production, or delay exports, because it may have broken out in a port or, as we know only too well at the present time, it may inconvenience thousands of our population because it affects a public service.
I should like to assume that for a very long time to come the present system, in its broad outline, will continue and I should like to make a few observations as to how that system could perhaps be improved. I do not want your Lordships to think that all I am going to suggest is a little more Christian spirit or general good will, for I have lived long enough to know that industrial disputes, like politics, are mostly about power. The noble Lord who spoke from the Dispatch Box, whose speech I so deeply appreciated, said that most disputes were about pay. That may be so, so far as the stated reason is concerned, but I strongly suspect that many of these disputes, whether large or small, are really disputes about power, about where power is to lie in this great field of industry.
It worries me to some extent to see that there is hardly any section of our country that is not willing to use power,
770
for at any rate limited and sectional ends, if it thinks it to its advanage to do so. I include in that statement doctors, apparently now dentists, and also, I think, teachers; and we shall soon come to the point when those sections of the community that have not used these powers are very limited. Among them I think we can still count the nurses; I think we can still count the Judges; I am glad to say, especially now that I have another Bishop with me, that we can count the clergy; and there may be many others besides. But it seems to be generally part of our national mentality that, if you have power, you are entitled to use it. That is a point which we must consider seriously.
However, assuming that things go on more or less as at present, I have had it suggested strongly to me that one of the most valuable things that can be done is for shop stewards to be more regularly and more easily trained in their complicated duties. It seems to me that the general idea now is that an agreement is made, perhaps after a strike or after long negotiations, but once it has been made all the various exceptions to it, all the anomalies that may arise under it, become a highly complicated subject calling almost for a lawyer's training. One cannot expect the average shop steward to go through that; but I believe that it would be to everybody's interest if the shop stewards, who are so powerful, were given every possible opportunity by management and trade unions to be trained so that their decisions may at any rate be based on the widest possible knowledge
Another point I should like to stress is the importance of time in all these disputes. We talk a lot about "escalation" of the war in Vietnam and elsewhere. There is nowhere in which escalation is more important, it seems to me, than when a strike is about to break out. Once the dispute has arisen, it rapidly moves forward on to a broader front, and everything that can be done at an early moment in the dispute to stop the situation spreading is of the greatest value. It has been suggested that if there were a reconciliation panel, or something of that sort, appointed for every area, which could go at once, physically, to the spot where the dispute is breaking out this might often prevent a situation from

771
developing on to an ever-wider front. One of the things they might suggest, where there had been a failure to agree, would be that there should be an immediate change of personnel. It would be a splendid thing if it was accepted on all sides that, if one set of men had failed to agree, the same problem should be looked at by a totally new set of men from both sides, just in case new minds and personalities could see things in a new light.
Much has been said about the importance of communication; and with this I agree wholeheartedly. I think we should do well to break it down into rather simpler and plainer language. It seems to me that it is not only a question of explaining to men in industry important new technological processes. That is, of course, important, but the ordinary small change of human intercourse, between those who have to give orders and those who have to receive them, is also of the utmost importance. It would probably be most inappropriate in industry if communications between those in the chain of command were hedged about by the kind of long urbanities and civilities which we use in this House—they would not go down well with the ordinary working man. But they have their own way of distinguishing, as I believe, between what is a courteous order and what is a arrogant order; and there is nothing more important, perhaps, in the ordinary evolution of good relations than that everybody who has to give an order should be trained from the beginning as to how to give it in such a way that it does not turn the man who receives it into a machine, but enhances and retains the dignity of his personality. I believe that more strikes break out because of this sort of thing than we might imagine.
Having said those things about the present system, I should like to end by raising a more far-reaching question, and it may be one where I shall not be able to carry many of your Lordships with me. I am bound to say that it worries me deeply that, somehow or other—through failures, perhaps largely on the part of capital and management; through the necessary combination of men into the trade unions in order to secure reasonable conditions: whatever
772
may be the history of this process—we have now landed ourselves in a position where industry is what I call laminated; that is to say, it is divided horizontally instead of vertically. If, by some extraordinary turn of fortune's wheel, our social development had taken a different line, and if all those concerned with shipbuilding, for instance, felt more united together as shipbuilders than as anything else (and the same principle can be applied in every other industry in our land) we should, of course, have a totally different situation. But we cannot put back the clock; we have to live with the situation. But I sometimes wonder whether it would not be possible to inject something into our industrial life that might open up new possibilities.
In this connection, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the book I hold in my hand. It is a book, which no doubt some of your Lordships will know, by a Mr. George Goyder, entitled The Responsible Company. Mr. George Goyder is that same Mr. George Goyder who only a week or two ago wrote to The Times pointing out that when Bishops spoke on social questions they are always wrong. I hope that on this occasion he will make an exception, and perhaps think that in this case I may be right. I believe that in this book he has opened up a line of thought that may be most valuable to us. His point (I apologise if this is familiar to most of your Lordships) is that in the modern world a company which legally is strictly responsible only to its shareholders is an anachronism; that a modern company, and particularly a large one, is something which has ramifications in so many directions that this old-fashioned way of describing the duties of a company is inappropriate; that nowadays a company has responsibilities, certainly to its shareholders and its workers, but also to those who use those services or buy the company's goods—the consumers—and to the community in general.
He has pointed out in this book that in America, and particularly in Germany, some companies have accepted this view and had their Articles of Association drawn up accordingly. He mentions particularly the Carl-Zeiss Foundation, a great optical instrument undertaking in Germany, which has written into the whole

773
foundation of the company that these various responsibilities and duties all have to be taken account of in the work of managing and conducting the company. I see no possible opportunity of so rewriting our law that existing companies ought all to be reconstructed on these lines. But I believe that if there could be some experiments in our country with companies which accepted this four-fold or manifold responsibility—accepted it formally and legally, as well as in practice, as many already do—there might be an opportunity for something new to grow up in our country which would gradually make archaic and out of date the kind of horizontal separation between management and workers.
The question would then arise, of course: What would be the view of trade unions of such a world? I believe that, once they had seen that the whole purpose of the company had been so enlarged as to make the terms of the old controversy no longer relevant, new functions would be found for them in the way of improving the relationships and the sharing of each of the various elements in industry in the whole enterprise. I throw in those last few words only to express my sense of dissatisfaction with any situation in which a permanent controversy, and almost battle, is accepted as part of the whole inbuilt structure of our industry, and as an expression of my hope that, some day, we may get even beyond the very best relationships that so far have been developed between trade unionists and employers.
5.32 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Thomson of Fleet in submitting this Motion to the House, which provides an opportunity for all of us to consider these questions which are exercising and worrying the minds of us all. The noble Lord made many suggestions. He made, I think, a rather racy speech. I was not able to make notes and I shall be pleased to read it at leisure. But I think on balance the noble Lord's speech was unduly weighted against the trade unions. I would only say that it is freely admitted in employers' organisations that in our main industrial relations there is as much blame on the employers' side as there is on the workers'.
774
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate was sandwiched between two trade unionists, but it did not prevent him from making a most interesting, informative, and thought-provoking speech. I think it goes to show that this question is a difficult and intricate one, and that there are not any textbook answers to it. I agree with the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Citrine: what sort of a democracy is it we want? I remember the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth saying that we shall not get anything like a perfect democracy unless we get the individuals forming our society acting with a sense of social consciousness—and that applies to industrial relations as much as it applies to anything else.
Noble Lords will notice that the Motion refers to "stoppages", and I am sorry about that. It is likely to convey to the lesser informed on these matters, or a substantial proportion of them, that strikes or go-slows are officially authorised by trade unions. Of course, such a conclusion would he quite wrong, and of recent stoppages in motorcar factories, docks, mines, railways and airports, I should say that the vast proportion would be unofficial action, in some cases condemned publicly by the unions concerned. So it is because of the unofficial and unconstitutional actions of sometimes comparatively small numbers of work people that the good name of the trade union movement is being besmirched. In this day and age of highly organised industry, it is the case that a few recalcitrant trade unionists (or non-unionists, if it comes to that) can decide to stay away unofficially and stop the whole works, and throw thousands out of employment. Therefore, this question of unofficial action becomes a much more important matter, and it brings it into the realm of Government and what is to be done about it to defend ordinary members of society against this sort of thing.
It would be intolerable if the whole trade union movement, comprising some 9 million work people, was to be restricted, and possibly subjected to penal conditions, because of the lunatic antics of a small minority. But there is a responsibility on unions to exercise discipline and control of those members who persist in unconstitutional action. While from time to time a few hundred men, or sometimes a few thousand, see fit to

775
take the law into their own hands, there are 9 million trade unionists, and 9 million non-trade unionists, who are getting on with the job and allowing their claims and complaints to be settled peacefully through the appropriate machinery. Every day and every week thousands of industrial settlements are taking place through the normal negotiating machinery, and there are still some industries and many firms in this country who have never had a major stoppage.
If your Lordships will allow me to quote the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, speaking in your Lordships' House on Thursday, May 6 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 265 (No. 71), col. 1072] he said:
"From reading the newspapers one might think that the British workman was perpetually on strike. It is very difficult to understand where the production comes from, with obsolete plant and workmen who are always on strike—but neither of those contentions is in the least true. In fact, the percentage of work lost in this way by British workmen per annum is something like a quarter of the loss in the United States."
I could add to that, and say that we in this country compare very favourably with any other democratic industrial country. I am not bringing this point before your Lordships by any means to condone strikes and other forms of impediment to production, but only to try to get the problem into perspective.
I recently said in your Lordships' House that strikes benefit no one, neither the workers concerned, the industry, nor the nation. Nevertheless, the right to strike is basic to our democratic way of life and should be safeguarded at all costs—the right of men to decide whether or not they will work for an employer on the terms offered or not. But, having said that, I say that the right to strike in a democratic society carries with it certain responsibilities and obligations: for instance, giving proper notice to an employer in accordance with the working agreement—normally seven days' notice on either side—and, secondly, so far as trade unionists are concerned, acting only within the provisions of union rules and abiding by the executive authority of the union. The right to strike does not give anyone the right to break his contract of employment, the right to flout working rules and agreements, or the right to defy the authority of the union and its constitutional decisions. I
776
believe that unofficial strikes, go-slows and so-called working-to-rule are bringing the right to strike into contempt and, worse, putting it in jeopardy. The Royal Commission will no doubt go into this question and all of us will look forward to getting its report in due time.
One of the troubles in some parts of industry in recent years is that lance—corporals have assumed the rôle of company commanders, and from time to time they usurp the authority of the union and incite men to take unofficial strike action. Some five years ago the Trades Union Congress appointed a committee of inquiry, of which I was chairman, which made certain recommendations to the 1960 Trades Union Congress, two of which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. One was that where strike action was taken or prolonged, contrary to general policy and specific advice, the unions should take some form of disciplinary action against the members concerned. Secondly, unions should be more vigilant and if, after a warning, a shop steward repeats actions which are contrary to rules and agreements, his credentials, which are his opportunities for doing good—or for doing harm—should be withdrawn. These recommendations were approved by the Trades Union Congress in 1960. Yet, my Lords, the sad fact is that some unions have failed to take the necessary action to discipline certain recalcitrant workshop representatives and, in consequence, some industries and shops are threatened with constant stoppages of production.
It is tragic that the social standards which have been built up over the last twenty years are being threatened by indiscipline and selfishness which, if continued, will mean, as sure as night follows day, a diminution in the standard of living. The Prime Minister's recent forceful statement is to he welcomed, and I believe what he said has the full support of the nation. The survival and economic prosperity of the nation transcends all other considerations and must be paramount. It is, I believe, within this conception that individuals and organisations must operate, and it is the responsibility of Government, in the last resort, to see that this is carried out.
5.42 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord,

777
Lord Thomson of Fleet, for having introduced this debate, and I say that also on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches. My own qualification to speak is, quite simply, that for a good many years now I have been engaged in large-scale industry in trying to prevent and, if necessary, to help in settling these disputes of which we are talking before they result in stoppages of work.
If he will forgive me, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, on his main theme this afternoon, although I am bound to say—and he himself acknowledged this—that this is a complex subject. However, I find myself more in agreement with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, because legislation of the immediate, comprehensive and highly restrictive kind which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, appeared to be advocating would not seem to me to be helpful in the present climate.
From my experience, I would suggest to your Lordships just a few ways in which to tackle this problem constructively. First, in trying to keep within bounds the natural aspirations of men constantly to improve their standard of living. It is not sufficient—and this I suggest we have seen in the last few months—to subscribe to general declarations of intent, to plead for restraint in applications for wage increases, or to appeal for greater productivity. Exhortation may have its place in the pulpit and on the political platform, but from my observation it cuts precious little ice on the factory floor. What is needed—and here I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—in the general interests of the economy and of the community, is that bargains should be struck between management and men in which improvements in pay and conditions of employment are exchanged for reduced manning scales and the general elimination of restrictive practices. They must be realistic bargains, of course, and it is important particularly to see that reductions in manning are accompanied by adequate safeguards against redundancy and, where redundancy is unavoidable, by generous compensation for loss of employment.
In seeking to improve employment conditions, I have in mind especially the need gradually to do away with distinc-
778
tions between clerical staff, on the one hand, and manual workers, on the other. These are based on social and economic conditions which are no longer relevant and it is high time they were done away with. It is sometimes said that this attempt to eliminate distinctions by giving more security to manual workers and by exercising less control over them is fruitless because the workers cannot be trusted. But why should anyone be expected to exhibit a sense of responsibility if he is not treated as a responsible person? I believe that the capacity to accept responsibility and to direct behaviour towards organisational objectives is latent in all of us and there is no reason to suppose that the British workman is an exception.
In conditions of full employment in an affluent, educated society the task of management in industry to-day is no longer merely to control; it is to create the conditions in which men will recognise and seek to develop for themselves this capacity of which I speak. It involves an attitude of mind on the part of management which calls for wisdom, humility and courage in permitting men to feel that they have a part to play in the enterprise. It is not necessary to dwell this afternoon on the mechanisms required for this purpose. I had not intended to make any reference to Party points, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to a particular book by Mr. George Goyder, and I think I should say that the main theme of this book has been thought about a good deal within the Liberal Party. I myself find this a complex question and would not wish to draw any conclusion this evening, but I would emphasise that it has been considered to a great extent. However, like everything else within this field, I think that, if at all possible, this matter is best left to industry itself to sort out in the first instance.
Secondly, I suggest that there is an educational job to be done (and on this point I was so glad of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester had to say) in seeing that not only shop stewards but also management and supervision are told about the policies of the firm, and the reasons for those policies, and particularly about agreements concerning negotiating procedure, wages and working conditions that have been

779
entered into between the company concerned and the trade unions. In my view, too—and I speak in this matter from some practical experience—education of this kind should take place during normal working hours and at the expense of the company concerned.
In the case of shop stewards, courses are perhaps best organised jointly by management and trade unions, if only to avoid any suspicion that, in helping to sponsor them, management is simply trying to put across its own propaganda. By the same token, speakers can be drawn from both management and union representatives, and discussions should similiarly be open to both. After all, if a firm's policies and the agreement made between that firm and the trade unions are sound, they should bear examination in this way. In my experience the informal atmosphere of the classroom contributes to friendlier relations, promotes more confidence and is often more productive generally than that at the negotiation table itself. It helps, too, to bring about a situation in which, when a dispute does arise, it is more likely to be resolved because the parties to it have learned to know, away from the heat of the particular argument, at least some of the relevant facts; the importance of following constitutional procedure; that there may be some reason for the other fellow's point of view and that he, too, is an ordinary mortal.
I should like, finally, to talk for a moment about trade unions. I hope that, from what I have so far said, it will be plain that trade unions do command my sympathy; indeed, I believe in them enough to feel that if there were not such organisations some other combination of men would need to be found to help to keep management up to its job. But today the enormous power of the unions is matched by an equally great responsibility urgently and voluntarily to streamline their structure, to improve communications with their members, and to do everything possible to see that the agreements they enter into are, in fact, honoured. I was very glad to hear the forthright words on this point spoken just now with the courage we should expect of him, by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson.
I do not minimise the difficulties of trade union leaders in this matter, for
780
I know very well how in the last resort they depend for their office and their livelihood on those who have elected them. I have already indicated one or two ways in which they are entitled to look to management for support—indeed, for a lead. But there are some things which only they can do. I sincerely hope that they will do these things, without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission, and before public opinion hardens to the unhappy point, in a democracy like ours (I do not underestimate the difficulties, and I am not advocating this), where legislation is invoked to do them for them. I say this in no threatening way, but as a friend who has worked closely with trade unions for many years.
There are petty tyrannies in the branches, as we know very well; there is interference in individual liberties; there are undisciplined and irresponsible strikes, in defiance of authority and in breach of agreement, as many of your Lordships have already said this afternoon. These all have one characteristic in common: that they seek to place the interest of a particular section above that of the community at large. And they must end, for, in the last resort, there are greater interests than those of any group—the liberty of the subject and the welfare of the nation as a whole.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I have not the same close and continuous experience of handling industrial problems as the noble Lord who has just spoken from the Liberal Benches. Therefore, if he will excuse me I shall not attempt to follow him on the points he has made. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has paved the way to one or two things I mean to say very quickly, but I do not think I should have been brave enough to take part in this debate at all if it had not been that, a long time ago, in 1918, I worked in the Ministry of Labour and spent part of my time in a section which dealt with trade boards and joint industrial councils. There I had the privilege of working under two men, Bertram Wilson and Heath. They are probably now only names to most people, but they were two practical idealists, and their contribution to the cause of industrial organisation and

781
peace is very much greater than anybody to-day realises.
Their ideal, as I understand it, was that in each industry there should be a joint council consisting of responsible representatives of each side, employers and employed, authorised to represent the views of each side, and of such standing that, when agreement was reached in the council, and those concerned left the conference table, there was a reasonable prospect that when they went back to their employers' associations or unions the agreement they had reached would be made binding in the employers' office and on the factory floor.
As my noble friend Lord Aberdeen and Temair said just now—and here may I congratulate him very much on what he said?—that ideal has been reached, in a great many industries, notably not only the shipbuilding industry which he mentioned, but the iron and steel industry, in which he spent a long and honourable time. Of course one can say that to stage a "wildcat" strike in a blast furnace would be a highly dangerous proceeding, and perhaps that is one of the reasons they happen so seldom. But we have not reached that same happy state of affairs in a number of industries, and if there is one reason more than another why that has not happened, it has been the growth of the theory and practice of the unofficial strike. I will give an actual example of this, without mentioning names—though I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, knows what is coming.
Last year a firm with which I am connected (and here I must declare an interest) decided to exhibit their wares on a stand at one of two exhibitions in West London. Here I ought to tell you that the exhibitors are not parties to the actual contract with the people who put up the stands. There is an arrangement, which sounds to me as near to a restrictive practice as one can imagine, by which the exhibitors are compelled to use the firms which are approved by those who own the exhibition halls. But never mind about that at the moment. Just before the exhibition started a dispute arose between skilled and unskilled labour. I know what it was, but I am
782
not going to waste your Lordships' time by telling you about it.
The result of that dispute was that, although the exhibition started on the Monday, it was Wednesday evening before the stands were completed. So those firms who were exhibiting, and doing their best to get customers, not to speak of export business, had to endure their stands' being, half the time of the exhibition, in disorder. It is only fair to say that the Joint Council of that particular industry declared the whole thing illegal. That was all they could do. I am sorry to say that it reminded me of a rhyme in a children's book—
"Then how the pussycats did mew,
What more, poor pussies, could they do?"
But the exhibitors were made fools of in the eyes of those who had come from home and overseas to visit the exhibition. There was nothing they could do about it, except to say, as well they might, that in a country which aimed to be well run, no private people should be made to suffer in a public nonsense of that kind. There is the story, short I hope, but none too sweet.
Now what is the moral of it? I have told this story because I think that, in its way, it is quite a collector's piece on a small scale, not to be connected with any of the go-slows and things which are happening now, and because it exhibits all the bad features of a state of affairs in which unofficial strikes exist, whether they are tolerated or whether they are not. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, the headquarters of the unions are all, at least nominally, setting their faces against such things. But I could quote cases, again within my own experience, in which the unions concerned have thought they could have it both ways—"Let the unofficial strike run, and if it shows signs of taking good ways, cash in on it".
That brings me to the real point, and the only one I want to go on to make; namely, that the existence of an unofficial strike, wherever it takes place, presupposes to my mind the existence of an alternative organisation for leadership—an organisation alternative to the unions who are supposed to be responsible for the leadership of those men concerned. There must be an alternative organisation, otherwise the unofficial strike could

783
not be organised; and no amount of the double-talk and jargon which so often surrounds these things (though not, I hasten to say, in this debate) can obscure what I believe to be an undoubted fact. I cannot see how it can happen otherwise.
As I have said, I do not pretend to a close knowledge, these days, of trade union affairs, but having thought a good deal, for quite a long time, about questions of leadership, I have come firmly to the conclusion that those who aspire to leadership should make up their minds that they will never be leaders unless they aim to be leaders first, last and all the time, and therefore should aim to do away with any rivals to their leadership, so long as they want to exercise it. That, I think, is fundamental. "It must be so", as my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein used to say in the days when he lectured on the military art. So, if our friends in the trade unions really want to lead, they must be determined to lead, and must allow nobody else to lead at any time. If it turns out that they want the protection of more legislation, by all means let them have it. I personally doubt whether legislation or laws are the answer, because this is a human problem which I believe should properly be dealt with in human ways. But there it is.
The rules of leadership, as I understand them, apply impartially in every walk of life. Everything I have said applies equally to employers' associations and to everybody else in this world. In my view, there can be no real progress until this matter is tackled by the people who are supposed to lead the workers. It will be a hard pull because several times various unions we can think of have been nearly unhorsed, and it is not going to be at all an easy matter for some people to climb back firmly into the saddle and grasp the reins. But if they do, they can count on wide encouragement and support from a circle far wider than the normal circles in which these things happen. My Lords, that is all I have to say, except for one comment. I wonder whether those in the trade union Congress House ever had any time to study military history, because if they did they would discover that the great Duke of Marlborough, before he was able to complete his plans to win the
784
Battle of Blenheim, had to put an end to the arrangement by which the allied armies were commanded by different commanders on alternate days.
6.7 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, for raising this debate to-day. At this late hour I do not want to comment on all that he said, but simply to put up one particular point that he made. He referred to the poor image that this country was achieving overseas on account of strikes and so on. We have heard to-day some details of the actual situation. Those of us in this House who did not know before know now that comparatively our record is not a bad one. I have some experience of going repeatedly to France and the United States, and I can assure your Lordships that in those countries there are many people who believe that we are a strike-ridden nation, despite the fact that both those countries have a considerably worse record than we ourselves have.
I want to say that I believe that the section of our society which is particularly responsible for the creation of that misapprehension is our Press. I am sometimes quite worried to note that achievements in British industry take a small place in the columns of our Press, but failure in the form of strikes and so forth takes quite a big place. Perhaps this is because achievement is much more frequent than failure and therefore is not news. I do not wish to be facetious about this matter, but if the Press of this country would do more to put this matter in proportion our image overseas would improve; and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, in believing that this unnecessarily low image is an extremely serious matter for our export industries.
May I move on to make my real contribution this afternoon, by making a comment which may sound derogatory—I hope it will not be—to some others who have spoken. I really do not believe that we shall approach a solution to this problem of industrial disputes by treating it in terms of communication—that almost bromide word which is discussed at every conference of managers and trade unionists throughout the country, and has been so discussed for years—or, in terms of leadership, that estimable quality which

785
we find in some men but which we cannot inculcate, and which we cannot even define. This is not the correct approach to what is in fact an extremely serious sociological problem.
I was interested in the comments of the right reverend Prelate, because he was the only person in the debate who drew attention to the problem of power. I would add to that problem the power of differential wages. These are the key points to the problems with which we are concerned. When people draw attention to the fact that the public may get fed up with those who strike, I am reminded of the thought that the public who object to being held at London Airport may contain those who will run the next strike next week, somewhere else. Indeed, strikes to-day are becoming so widespread, and so widely spread throughout the community, that we are all involved in them. It is not a matter of one class of society causing all the trouble. It is a sociological phenomenon of Western society. I do not think that it can be dealt with except by applying to the problem that penetrating type of mental discipline of the sort we have employed in exploring our physical environment over the years in which science has aided us. It is no good thinking that the problem can be solved by a few cursory discussions on a superficial level, for it cannot be solved that way.
My claim to speak in this rather highfalutin' manner is simply this. For twenty years I have been chief executive of an engineering company which now employs 5,000 people. Fortunately, in 1949 when Government funds were available to do research into the problem of organisation we went into collaboration with a group of sociologists, and that research continues to this day. I think that it is the longest piece of sociological research into organisation that has ever taken place. It has resulted in the publication of some eight books which have been published in a very large range of languages. It is the outcome of this research which stimulates me to stand on my feet to-day and point to the serious nature of the disciplined research which will have to be done if we are to achieve a solution in these matters.
In the rest of what I have to say, I want to mention two examples of the sort of approach which I believe is re-
786
quired. They are mere examples, indeed trivial examples, because I must make them short. The first example is not from industry, but from constitutional history. Bagehot in 1880–1890 studied Parliament, and in his book The English Constitution he draws attention to the wide difference between what the British Constitution was assumed to be and what in fact it actually was. In that famous book, using his brilliant English, he summed it up by saying that it was held that the great virtue of the British Constitution was the entire separation of the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. After a great deal of explanation, he came to the conclusion that the singular virtue of the British Constitution is the almost complete fusion of the Legislature and the Executive in the Cabinet. Here is a dramatic example of all those who thought about the British Constitution, not being able to look at it objectively and going on writing about it in an inaccurate manner.
Nothing is so true of industry as our inability to see what the real institutions in use are. The example I want to choose is about strikes. Some years ago British Overseas Airways Corporation had a strike which they stated cost them £250,000. They were so anxious about this strike that they caused an inquiry to be conducted into it and they published the results. The strike had concerned a change in the disposition and the work of supervisors, and yet the strikers were the craftsmen and operators in BOAC. In the report that was published these pregnant words were used:
"This is a strike which should never have taken place."
One of the reasons for a strike is the failure on the part of representatives of the men to convey to those men adequately a proper idea of the plans of management. It is a common fallacy that it is the duty of shop stewards, or even of trade union officials, to convey to the rank and file the details of the policies and plans which management propose to pursue. This common fallacy arises from a lack of ability to analyse the real nature of the situation. This is where I am perhaps going to get a little "longhaired". We have to recognise that there are at least two rôle systems in every company. There are a series of rôles into which people contract to do work.

787
This system of rôles covers everybody employed in the company from chief executive down to the lowest manual worker. There is another system of rôles which people take up, and this consists of what one might call elector or constituent rôles and representatives who are elected. This is a completely different series of rôles.
Confusion about these two rôle systems leads to the confusion which results in management, after thinking out detailed changes, quite consistently relying upon representatives informing the rank and file. So these representatives—representatives who are responsible to those who elect them, and not to management, and whose communications can in no way be checked by management, and whose function it is to explore every change to see whether there is anything in it which might adversely affect the interests of those who elect them—are given the task of conveying an objective account of these plans to the rank and file. If they are asked questions about these plans, they are quite unable to answer them. I hope nobody will think that I am delivering an attack upon representatives, for I am not. Yet if management were to adopt the practice of addressing themselves directly to the rank and file over some vital change which might cause anxiety, these representatives would, in my experience, be the first to object on the grounds that it was interfering with the process of negotiation.
But, of course, it does not so interfere with the process of negotiation. Management can talk to 10,000 people, and if they were to attempt to negotiate with that number they could not do so. What is required is an assurance that they will not interrupt the process of negotiation, but it is their function to convey details of their plans to that rank and file and to answer appropriate questions. If British managers are asked to take on that rôle of elucidating their plans in this way they will normally refuse to do so for similar reasons to those given by representatives. Yet it is my experience that, when this is done, sometimes strikes can be inhibited before they start. This comment is based on an analysis of two rôle systems and an observation by sociologists of what really exists. We have given a name to this process and it is contraction, because the manager is contracting the
788
lines of communication between himself and the shop floor. This is my simple example—one out of a hundred which I could give your Lordships if I had time.
I will just say this before I sit down, and I am going to use the name of the firm because I do not think they will object. We all know that up till about two years ago the Ford Motor Company in this country endured a series of the most painful and prolonged strikes. It may have escaped your Lordships' notice that for the last eighteen months we have heard nothing of strikes at the Ford Motor Company. I think I know something about the reasons for this, because that company conducted a penetrating analysis of the rôle of foremen in their company, and a substantial team of people drew up an explicit statement of the authority and responsibility of those foremen, as well as explicit statements of the policies which that company felt it proper to follow in the regulation of work in their workshops. It was the first time that these explicit and readable statements had been available to everybody. I think that this simple analysis of the situation, and the making explicit of matters which had not been explicit before, has indeed made a very great contribution to the change which has come about for that company. This is only touching a corner of a vast subject. I hope that I may have stimulated interest in a much more penetrating analysis of this subject at a much higher level of abstraction.
6.22 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, for putting this Motion on the Order Paper. I shall read his speech in Hansard to-morrow with the greatest possible interest, because I think it is very good to study the criticisms of one's activities, and I think it is very good for us all to know what they think of us on the other side of the Atlantic. But the only point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, to which I want to refer to-night is the use of the word "amateur". I think I can deal with that in congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on

789
his maiden speech—because, quite clearly, he is not an amateur. He started, as so many of us in industry have done, in a boiler suit on the shop floor; and that, I may say, applies to a great deal, in fact to nearly all, of management to-day.
This debate has been intensely interesting to me, and the speeches uniformly good, and I can only hope that this debate will be widely read in British industry to-morrow, because, unfortunately, we do not have 308 noble Lords here to-day to hear this very important debate. I find myself in sympathy with much that has fallen from every noble Lord who has spoken. I think the only shade of disagreement I have is with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, because although I share his distaste for the word "communications", I still think, without going into a long explanation, that leadership and communications are vital to industry to-day.
I am not going to pursue the many points raised by other noble Lords, because they have all said so much better than I could have done the things which I wanted to say. But I hope that, in what I am going to say very shortly, I shall be able to enlist your Lordships' interest and support. The membership of this House covers so many fields of activity in our national life, that we must all have many opportunities to help in this all-important cause of improving industrial relations. Naturally, this objective is very close to my heart, because I speak as Chairman of the Council of the Industrial Welfare Society, which, under its constitution, exists for the betterment of human relations at work, education and training in industry; better personnel and welfare services, and better community relations—which I think covers the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
The Society, which some of your Lordships may not know about, was founded many years ago just after World War I by Robert Hyde, and directed itself mainly to improving the physical attributes of welfare—canteens, lavatories, washplaces and so forth. But now its work is in a much wider field. Its name is slightly out of date, and we are, in fact, hoping to change the name at an extraordinary general meeting next week.
790
Our Council is strongly representative of industry and the trade unions, and our membership contains many names which are well known in British industry. We could do with much more support. We receive no Government grants, and we pay our way out of the subscriptions of our members and by charging minimum fees for our services, in the way of courses, lectures in company training, and so forth. We even provide services, training and so on for certain Departments of Her Majesty's Government. We hope that in due course the Society's representatives will be called to give evidence before the Royal Commission.
I am very glad to say that we are finding an increasing demand for our services, not only at home, but also from the Commonwealth, and this I find particularly pleasing and satisfactory. We have had a group of young men from Tanzania this summer, for whom we arranged special courses. I must not take up your Lordships' time by giving details of all our work, but suffice it to say that it covers a very wide cross-section of industry, from the largest to the smallest firms, and we provide courses, lectures, seminars and the like for every level of management; for trades unions; for shop stewards; for cooks—in fact for everybody in any way concerned in industry. I can speak from personal experience, because when I was active in industry I sent many of the people for whom I was responsible to these courses. I made a particular point of interviewing each and every one, man or woman, whatever their position, when they came back from their courses, and in every case the benefit they received was quite outstanding.
From our Society's reports and experience it is possible to build up a picture of industry's most pressing need for advice and assistance in this matter of industrial relations. The picture which presents itself to me is that the first priority is the need to improve and strengthen the leadership, at all levels, both in industries and in trade unions. This impression, which I get from my work at the Industrial Welfare Society, merely confirms my own experience as a factory director, because until recently, when I retired from active work, I was a factory director and responsible for ten factories in different parts of the country, employing 10,000 people. That is not a

791
very large number by our standards today, but I can assure your Lordships it was quite large enough for one factory director.
That brings me to the next point I want to make, which is that one of the problems of the age is size: and the larger the concern, whether it be an industrial concern, a nationalised concern, a trade union or what-have-you, the more difficult is this problem of leadership. Perhaps I may briefly illustrate this by my own experience. When I took on the job of factory director I made a vow to visit every factory—not every day, because they were all over the country, but every month—and to go right round every factory once a month. I did this until the end, but I must confess that by then it was getting rather too much, because we had been expanding very quickly and I was not getting any younger.
However, this is a problem common to all big organisations. They bring in, and they have to bring in—it is almost a status symbol now—the personnel department, the personnel director, the personnel manager and so forth. My Lords, these are necessary and absolutely vital, particularly in a big concern, but in my opinion they conceal one hidden danger. It is very easy for the line manager or director to say, "Ah; that is the personnel department's job", instead of going down on the floor and sorting it out himself. There is a tendency, or there may be a tendency, to shelve responsibility on to the personnel department, or some member of it. I used to tell my managers, "We now have a personnel department. It has all the records, it has all the basic information you need; but if I find you using the personnel manager or personnel director to do your work, you are out, because as a manager you should understand how to manage personnel; it is part of your job".
The other thing which I learnt from walking round these factories—an experience which I enjoyed (I wish I were doing it now, because they are air-conditioned, which this Chamber is not; I have sat here a very long time and the conditions are not good, though I understand that tests are being carried out)—was that the men and women who work in our
792
factories—and I do not mean only the factories with which I was concerned—no matter in what capacity, whether it be management, trade unions or floor workers, are, quite simply, the best people in the world. I regarded them all with the greatest affection and friendship, and I still keep in touch with them. But these people cannot be "pushed about". As one noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Citrine) said, they are not susceptible to exhortation, but they can be led. But they must be led by people who are prepared to learn, to try to understand and sympathise with their point of view, and to get to know it well. Once the leaders have that, they can lead the people to anything.
My Lords, these people have their quirks. We have all heard of the tea-break (though the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I have not had a tea-break this afternoon)—
LORD CHAMPION: Hear, hear!
LORD AMPTHILL: —of the "awkward squads" and the "black sheep". I have met them all. But, despite all these snags and difficulties, I know beyond doubt that these people are the best in the world and can be led to terrific heights. So many of your Lordships have proved yourself as leaders in so many different spheres that it would be presumptuous of me, speaking from these Back Benches, and with comparatively limited experience, to attempt to set out the attributes of leadership as I understand them. Moreover, I do not want to take up more of the time of the House than I need, and I am therefore not going to attempt this presumptuous thing.
I will make only two comments on it. First, I would emphasise that leadership is required at all levels, from the chairman and managing director down to the most junior chargehand, chargewoman and the most junior official in the trade union—and nobody can get out of that. Secondly, the only lesson on this that I was ever given when I was young was when I joined the Navy as a small cadet. We were taught then that our first responsibility was for the men who might be placed in our charge. The lessons that I learnt then are summed up in one sentence, and have been in the forefront of my mind ever since—and I have used them in industry

793
frequently. The sentence was, "The men must have their dinner hour". That, to me, summed up all that is meant by "consideration".
Early in my speech I spoke briefly of the work of the Industrial Welfare Society—a name soon to be changed—but I do not want your Lordships to think that our society, though naturally, my particular "baby", is the only one working in this field. There are other organisations, some sponsored by companies, some sponsored by trade unions, which do similar work. All are doing good work, and they are all helping towards the same aim—to improve industrial relations.
Before I sit down, I must refer to the Marlow Declaration, which, rather to my surprise, has not been mentioned in this debate to-night. For myself, I think that too little notice was taken of it and too little publicity given to it, but it was drawn up by eighteen men who met at Marlow between November, 1961, and February, 1963. These eighteen distinguished men were drawn from the churches, the boardrooms, the trade unions and the teaching profession. I will not read out their names, but they are here.
They signed a declaration, known as the Marlow Declaration, which was a carefully considered statement of their aims and principles on matters relating to social and industrial relations. This is, in my opinion, a very important document, and the right reverend Prelate will be interested to know that it is signed by the most reverend Primate, among others. It is too long to read, and it does not render itself very readily to being summarised. But it is a perfectly clear statement of the problems which beset industry to-day, so many of which have been mentioned during our debate tonight. With your Lordships' permission, I shall read the last paragraph. It says:
"We recognise that merely to identify governing principles is insufficient. They must be constantly tested and developed by experience. This will need the full support of all men of faith and understanding. We look to the Churches, the trades unions, employers and teachers to be in the van of a new movement. Unquestionably the ultimate answer must lie in the hearts and minds of British men and women. If they wish it to be so, they can confirm by action now that they are a people richly endowed by a thousand years of
794
unifying experience, and are capable of justifying the aspirations of their forefathers and the respect of those to come".
My Lords, I think that all of us here will believe beyond doubt that, given proper leadership, our people can do just that.
6.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think there are three points on which your Lordships are of one mind this afternoon. The first is that we are immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, for introducing this debate, for bringing this subject before us and for making the sort of forthright speech which we have grown to expect him to make. Secondly, I am sure that all your Lordships would wish to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his splendid maiden speech; and I am particularly happy, as an old friend of his, to add my personal congratulations. Thirdly, I think we are all agreed that the premise on which the noble Lord's Motion is based is correct; that, indeed, industrial disputes, leading all too often to work stoppages, have done very grave damage indeed to the economy of the country, to our prosperity and even, perhaps, to our solvency.
I should like, if I may, to echo what the noble Marquess said—and I think this was said also by the noble Lord, Lord Brown—that the ill effects of these happenings have been unfortunately exaggerated and made worse by the Press. I can well understand that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, who has an influence in these circles, may say that the seriousness of the position must be brought home to the people of this country. He himself did this most ably in his speech this afternoon. But, of course, if you bring the seriousness home to the people of this country through the medium of the Press, this is read abroad and can create, I am convinced, an opinion which is really unjustified. I am sure that orders have been lost—one noble Lord referred to this—not as a result of anyone's experience of our failure to deliver the good, but as a result merely of the reports appearing in the Press that we always fail to deliver the goods. I believe that the Press has a great responsibility in this matter to try, difficult though it must be, to present a balanced picture of the situation.

795
If I may, I will refer to the docks industry, in which I must of course declare my interest. The docks industry has a very bad name and this has been spread all over the world. Yet I took the trouble to have taken out for me some figures relating to the stoppages of work in recent years. These figures apply to the docks of London, which are fairly large and fairly typical and which have, perhaps, an especially bad name. This is an industry in which there are frequent causes for disputes because there is an extraordinary variation in the work being undertaken: there are rushes of work, slack periods, and great variety in the nature of the work. These conditions very easily give rise to disputes—perfectly genuine and understandable disputes—about additional rates of pay, and so on.
During 1964 there were 822 references in the London Docks to the local joint area committees (those are the joint committees, of which the noble Lord has spoken, and which he says should exist) which come and examine the problem on the spot. Of those 822 references, all except nine were settled on the spot. Nine of those references had to be referred to one higher committee, and there all were settled except for one. One dispute went to the National Joint Council. So your Lordships will see that the machinery for settling disputes does exist and does work. During the same period the number of unofficial stoppages was, curiously enough, the same as the number of disputes referred to the second committee—nine in the year. But nobody who reads what is printed in the daily Press would imagine that the figures would come out anything like this.
In trying to put this matter in perspective, I find this difficulty. It was natural that much should be made of the number of man-hours lost in strikes; and we were glad to hear that in this country our experience is not as bad as that of some others. But, if I may say so, having suffered the losses through strikes that we have, it is no comfort to know that other people have been worse hit. There is another point that I think ought to be borne in mind. It is that the number of man-hours, or man-days, lost is really no measure of the problem; because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, or the noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed
796
out, these figures, which vary from year to year, are greatly affected by a long and difficult dispute in a large industry. In fact, I would suggest to your Lordships that the damage done is not proportionate to the number of man-hours or day-hours lost. One long and bitter strike, such as, let us say, that in the South Wales steel industry earlier this year, does rather less harm to the economy than is done by a number of short, wild-cat strikes which disrupt the even flow of business. So I think we should not be led into complacency by being told that our position in the "league table" is not too unsatisfactory.
I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, that the right to strike is not in question and should not be challenged. But I think we can look forward to the time when industrial disputes will be settled without recourse to strikes, just as we can look forward to the time, in the international sphere, when disputes can be settled without recourse to war. I think the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, was rather pessimistic about this. I hope and believe that in his younger days he was more starry-eyed and that he may have believed, as I believe, that if we all work in the right direction we shall reach the stage in the end—by agreement and not by legislation—where all disputes will be settled without resorting to strike action.
One thing I have noticed very much in recent years is that whereas in the early days the strike was a weapon of last resort and only taken up when all efforts to find a solution had failed, today, far too often, the strike or withdrawal of labour or stoppage of work is used as a first weapon. One must pause and wonder why that is so. I suppose it can be said that in the early days the employment of the strike weapon imposed such a grievous burden on the striker and his family that it was, indeed, a weapon that could be used only if all else failed. In those days the man and his family lived much nearer the bread line, the trade unions had not accumulated sufficient funds to enable them to finance strikes and it was a desperate affair—as can be learned from reading of these things in bygone days. But now the position is different; and I cannot help feeling that somehow, because the burden does not fall so

797
heavily on the striker as before, a degree of irresponsibility has spread, and all too often stoppages of work, or, at any rate, overtime bans, are introduced without any discussions whatever—sometimes without even the management knowing what the dispute is about. I can assure your Lordships that these things happen often.
I could give your Lordships some examples but I think it would be unwise to do so as the hour is late. In any case to do so might destroy the hope that I have of putting these matters in perspective.
We rejoice in the better economic conditions which make striking much less of a penance than it was in the old days; but that fact puts on the trade unions and their members a greater burden of responsibility in deciding what action they should take. There is one feature which seems to me to have developed since the early days. One of the burdens which the striker used to face was the probability—almost the certainty in the case of the ringleader—that he would lose his job, and he might find it very difficult to obtain employment elsewhere. We all welcome the fact that, as the trade unions grew stronger, they were able to protect their members in cases where a strike had been fought on established and authorised lines.
So far have we gone now that it seems to me that reinstatement in employment after a strike has almost ceased to be a term of settlement and instead has come to be regarded as just as much a right as the right to strike. I do not think that is so, and I sometimes wonder (I wondered again this afternoon, when listening particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, deliver his forthright condemnation of unofficial strikes) whether the trade unions would use their great influence in the case of unofficial strikes to support employers in getting rid of men who consistently break agreements and persuade other men to follow them and to exhibit a form of loyalty which we must all admire but which so often leads them into the wrong path.
It is quite clear that with this change in time the balance of power has shifted. As I have said, that places a great burden of responsibility on the trade unions. There is, I think, a further shift in the case of the large service industries. I
798
speak here not only of the nationalised industries like the railways and the electricity supply industry, but also of the docks. If we look at the earlier development of our industrial system, we see that the two ultimate weapons were the strike on the part of the work-people and the lock-out or the closing of the works on the side of management. Eventually a manager might say, "I am sorry; I cannot meet your demands. If these are the only terms on which you will work, I shall have to close down." Everyone knows, the work-people and the trade unions know, that that weapon has been removed in the case of the great national service industries. It is inconceivable that the railways would close down or that the electricity supply industry would close down—or the docks, for that matter.
So, my Lords, what are we to do about this? I was a little disturbed at the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, that because a Royal Commission had been appointed there was nothing to do but wait for it to report. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, it may be some time ahead before a Report is received, and time is not on our side. In any case, if anything can be done to improve the industrial atmosphere surely it ought to be done without waiting to hear what a Royal Commission will advise.
I like the idea of introducing a cooling-off period—again without legislation but with, I hope, agreement between the two parties. I do not think the long cooling-off period of 60 days provided by the American legislation would be desirable. We know that too often disputes have festered because there was a certain laggardness on the part of management in getting down to a settlement, but I think that a cooling-off period would be a very desirable thing. Another thing which I think desirable would be that before a dispute was allowed to develop into a stoppage of work or a strike—call it what you will—a clear statement of the issue in dispute should be produced. Very often a stoppage arises and half of the men involved do not know what it is about. As I have said before, sometimes even management does not know. If those who advocated a stoppage had to apply to themselves the discipline of writing down what the dispute was

799
about, and if they spent perhaps a week in doing so, tempers would cool and many opportunities to solve the problem might arise.
It could have been said in the old days that this would be unreasonable, because work-people were not sufficiently educated to be able to express themselves in that formal way. But, my Lords, I think you will agree that although that may have been true fifty years ago, it is certainly not true to-day. With the assistance of their union officers, work-people are perfectly capable of setting down what a dispute is about. I believe that if they did so, we might find that some disputes would solve themselves.
I am sure that this malaise in industry can be cured only by a change of attitude and by the establishment of a feeling of confidence between the two parties. I recognise that the initiative in this matter must be taken by management, and I say that, despite the fact that change for the work-people has put them in a better position. It seems to me, because of historical reasons of which your Lordships will be aware, that the onus is on management to make the first move in seeking to establish an atmosphere of confidence. If that can be done, I hope that the trade unions and their members will be quick to seize any hand which is offered to them, and to carry this initiative forward to a fruitful conclusion.
6.56 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I feel that we owe our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, for initiating this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech. I was not able to hear his speech, but I have heard very good reports of it. I am going to be extremely nonpolitical and, in fact, look at this matter more from the Labour side than the Tory side. We are in a bad position at present in this country. We are falling behind the other countries of Europe in exports and productivity. At such a time I feel that it is useful to have a debate in this House where people speak from experience, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and many others.
I have two points which I wish to make: one is a general and the other a
800
point of individual business. On the general point, I always hoped that a Labour Government would be better able to deal with this question than the former Conservative Government, because, obviously, work-people would have more faith in a Labour Government than in a Conservative Government which they might think would represent management and the employers. I welcome very much the initiative taken by Mr. George Brown. I think that, unfortunately, he has run up against a great many snags, many of them created by the Government and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I have made this point in your Lordships' House on several previous occasions, but I think it is worth making again. It applies equally to Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Maudling as to Mr. Callaghan, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am quite certain that whereas in the 1850's and the middle of the last century it might have been possible to avoid inflation by imposing extra taxation in order to prevent people from having extra money to spend, when extra taxation is imposed in the 1960's (whether it be on beer or tobacco, or in the form of the 15 per cent. surcharge now reduced to 10 per cent., purchase tax or any form of indirect taxation) it puts up the cost of living. As it puts up the cost of living, the trade unions, rightly, want more wages for their members in order to pay for the extra taxation. When there is full employment it nearly always happens that claims for higher wages referred to employers or outside bodies are granted because the cost of living has gone up. I would appeal to the present Government, and to any Conservative Government which may be in office in future, not to put up taxation in such a way as to put up the cost of living, because then wages go up and they go up more than the amount of goods produced.
After having been for thirty years chairman of a company founded by my grandfather in 1848, I gave up that office at the end of last year. Until recently that business was a personal concern and we never had a strike during the whole of its existence, not even during the General Strike in 1926, when the workmen were called by their union to join the strike but decided that they would stay at work. At that time, they had to resign from their union, not by any dictation from

801
us but as a result of their own decision, but afterwards they returned to membership. We have had happy relations because the workmen knew what was happening. The local head of the firm had the workmen in the yard and explained to them what was happening. I must say that a relationship which until now has never resulted in a strike is a very satisfactory form of relationship.
Our company was the leading member in a merger, which I think was the largest in this country and which resulted in the consolidated company becoming twenty-second in size of all companies in Great Britain, with a capital of between £100 and £200 million. At the merger, I met with the chairmen of the other companies and we agreed that we wanted this merger to be a commonwealth of businesses, with as much self-government in the areas and separate businesses as could be maintained. I think that is extremely important. Even now, if anyone is discontented with conditions, he can go to the local head and does not have to come up to London to the top board, of which I have the honour to be a member. I think that a commonwealth of businesses, such as we have, is comparatively just as important as the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brown, mention the Ford Motor Company. I know little about it, except that I drive one of their excellent cars, which I have had for a number of years. But I feel that something must be wrong where many strikes take place, and I am pleased that their record over the last eighteen months has been good, because we look to the Ford Company for a great number of car exports. I am glad that the relations between management and employees have improved.
We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about the London Docks and unofficial stoppages. There is no doubt that unofficial stoppages are difficult to stop, even for the officials of the trade unions concerned. I think that wild-cat strikes are doing our country a great deal of harm at the present time. That is all I wanted to say, except that I think that management, shareholders, owners and workpeople in all businesses should pull together so far as they can for the mutual good of their businesses and of the country as a whole.
7.4 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am sure that all of us who have listened to the debate this afternoon appreciate the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, in opening the discussion, now some hours ago. He raised a number of provocative and stimulating questions and we are all deeply grateful to him. However, I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord must be a little disappointed because, possibly like myself, he has found that the debate has taken a different turn from that which he anticipated. No doubt he has observed that no other noble Lords have taken up, pursued and given support to his main point—namely, that he wishes to see legislation that will enable coercive action to be taken against all those who engage in unofficial strikes. That may be a poor paraphrase of his position, but unless the noble Lord contradicts me, I think your Lordships will accept that as a rough paraphrase of his main point.
Instead of pursuing that point, speakers on both sides of the House have demurred at the noble Lord's emphasis on that or have equally emphasised that this may be a dangerous procedure. That does not alter our appreciation of the noble Lord's initiative in drawing attention to an important matter, particularly so in view of the existence of the Royal Commission which is to investigate problems such as those put before the House this afternoon. May I remind your Lordships of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission? I quote them so that we may appreciate how comprehensive they are. They are, first, the rôle of trade unions and employers' associations in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation; secondly, the relations between managements and employees; thirdly, the rôle of the trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and, fourthly, the law affecting the activities of trade unions and employers' associations.
I think that every speech we have heard to-day bears on one or other of the terms of reference which I have read out just now. Therefore, apart from any other value, this debate is of great importance to the Royal Commission and all those who sit upon it. I think there

803
has been a considerable measure of agreement among all those who have spoken to-day. There are some points of disagreement, about which I may have a word to say before I finish, but I will try to be as brief as possible, because I am conscious that my purpose at the end of a long and useful debate is to tidy up the office before we turn the key behind us and go home.
First of all, we are broadly agreed that industrial disputes seriously injure our economy, because they cause the total volume of production and wealth available to be less than it otherwise would be. I admit that this is almost a platitude, but it is as well to gather up our points of agreement. Secondly, we appreciate that the injury done to our economy by industrial disputes is not particular to the United Kingdom. That has been emphasised already, but it may be of benefit to your Lordships if I once again emphasise that out of some 26 countries I have listed before me we come about tenth in the number of days lost because of strikes during the course of a year. I give the figures for what they are worth. During the ten years, 1954 to 1963, while we lost an annual average of 297 days per thousand persons employed in mining, manufacture, construction and transport, the United States lost 1,048; Italy, 818; Canada, 606—I am sure that will be of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet—Denmark, 508; Belgium, 501; Australia, 386; Ireland, 375; France, 329. So we have eight European or neo-European countries who suffer a greater loss than we do and, if we include India and Japan, we come even lower down in the list.
There are, of course, a number of countries whose loss per year is much lighter than ours,down,indeed,to Switzerland and the South African Republic, at 7·5. In mentioning these figures I am not doing so complacently. I am doing so simply in order that we may get, as many noble Lords have pleaded with us to do, some sense of proportion. We must have this sense of proportion, otherwise we are liable to engage in exaggerated and, I think, ultimately injurious statements. So I say there is no reason for complacency. We must exert every effort to seek to eliminate and drastically
804
reduce the causes of industrial disputes, whether due to the employers, the employees or management.
Another point of general agreement, I think, is this: that as we live in a democracy we have to take all the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, of that situation. We live in a democracy, and therefore we should seek remedies through encouraging enlightened voluntary effort rather than through State compulsion. It is interesting to observe that both employers and employees, or bygone representatives of employers and employees, unite in that respect.
There are certain possible disagreements, but before I come to these I think my task is to make some passing reference to the excellent speeches that we have heard this afternoon. The first observation must be to emphasise the congratulations that have been given to the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, on his maiden speech. These have been so eloquently expressed that I should be merely painting the lily if I were to say more than that I, too, thoroughly appreciated the statement and the manner of the statement. It was sagacious and wise, and drawn from great experience, and it was given as a tribute to our common thought. I therefore wholeheartedly express my appreciation of his maiden speech, and trust that we shall hear more from the noble Marquess in the days to come.
I noticed that in the course of his speech the noble Marquess emphasised that shop stewards are not the fractious people, always making trouble, that some people assumed them to do. I am glad the noble Marquess said that, because sometimes shop stewards have a reputation for being precisely what the noble Marquess says they are not. It is quite true that some shop stewards are less responsible than others, but I would say that the majority are responsible workers, and I am glad that the noble Marquess paid tribute to them.
We had an extremely impressive and informative speech from my noble friend Lord Citrine. If I may say so with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, I wondered whether, before he prepared his speech, he had cared to consult my noble friend Lord Citrine or my noble friend Lord Williamson, both

805
of whom have had extensive experience in the trade union world, so that he might, perhaps, amplify his own reflections, and maybe modify his judgments. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, did not do so, then I am certain that he is to-day as grateful to the House, particularly for my noble friend Lord Citrine's contribution, as Lord Citrine and the rest of us are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet.
My noble friend Lord Citrine, drawing on a vast experience, with a reputation for being an extremely balanced man, right throughout his trade union career, gave as his decided opinion, quoting many examples from the countries he had visited, that circumstances were not quite so serious and grave as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, seemed to indicate. Not, again, that he denied the gravity of unofficial strikes. He, together with my noble friend Lord Williamson, again and again stated that these were deplorable in the extreme; and no doubt this will have an effect. But my noble friend Lord Citrine's great advantage to us to-day was that he drew on his experience, and corrected in some ways an impression left by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet—who no doubt has himself benefited thereby.
We had an interesting speech from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, in which he again spoke of the need for the training of shop stewards. But, among many other observations, I was interested to hear the right reverend Prelate's reference to the book written by George Goyder. I have read that book, as I am sure others have. While I cannot possibly agree with all that Mr. George Goyder says in the book, certainly he makes his contribution; and out of such reflections as those of George Goyder quite a number of interesting experiments in human relations in industry are being made.
I know of one, in particular, whose initiator I have known for some fifty years or more, the Scott Bader Commonwealth, a concern run by the whole of the staff and employees, technical and otherwise, who have complete corporate responsibility. I do not know how the experiment will work out, but up to now it is showing signs of much success. It is a tribute to the fact that there is fresh thinking along new lines, designed to
806
encourage a new structure in industry, in which both management, on the one hand, and the subordinate strata of employees, on the other, manage together to share joint responsibility. I should have liked to say more about this fine venture, but time forbids.
I would say, again, in regard to my noble friend Lord Williamson, that we appreciated his speech as much as we did that of my noble friend Lord Citrine. In particular, I am glad that we made it perfectly clear that the Trades Union Congress is not a supra-authority, with autocratic powers over its various union members. Some people think that it is, and imagine that all the Trades Union Congress has to do is to issue its edicts from time to time, and that, given, perhaps, legislative power to implement those edicts, all is well. It is not so. Like the trade unions themselves, the Trades Union Congress is a voluntary body. Again I say that there are disadvantages in this; but there are advantages, as well.
Then there were the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Rochester, Lord Brown and Lord Ampthill, all of which were equally valuable contributions to our thought this afternoon. Finally, there were the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Brocket. I would say, in regard to the observation of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that it is quite true there has often been a, great deal of unfortunate publicity regarding misfortunes in the trade union world. If there is an unofficial strike, or if there is a go-slow activity (if that is not a paradox), it causes publicity. One does not blame the Press, because in the Press world bad news is good news, and good news is bad news in so far as it is hardly worth mentioning. But it is true that the great majority of disputes in the industrial world are settled quite peaceably. The machinery to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred does operate, and operates successfully. It is only in a minority of cases that it seems to fail. We should bear that in mind in trying to get the right perspective.
Having said that, perhaps I may, quite briefly, put the whole matter in a somewhat different context than it has been put by any noble Lords this afternoon.

807
I think we should appreciate that all the trade unions of this country, to a greater or less degree, feel that when we are discussing industrial disputes we should not try to isolate them from other forms of dispute in our society. They are very conscious of this. They want to know why there should be so much concern about industrial disputes, and not so much concern about professional disputes.
Take, for instance, the doctors. What are the doctors doing at the present time? Again, I am not criticising but only trying to explain, so far as I can, what may pass through the minds of the purely industrial workers. They observe, for instance, that the doctors, well organised in their trade union, though it may be called an association, are saying, in effect: "Here are our terms. Unless our terms regarding both remuneration and conditions are accepted, we will go on strike; we will withdraw from the National Health Service." Of course, they may be entitled to do so. It may be their means of trying to press home, under difficult conditions, their demands, and perhaps with some anticipation of success. If that be so, then the industrial worker thinks in exactly the same way. If the professional men, whether they be doctors, lawyers or teachers, take advantage of certain circumstances to try to press their claims, and accompany them with threats to withdraw their services unless their claims are conceded, we can understand that that sets an example to the industrial workers.
But it is not, as I see it, merely the professional workers. There are others, too. There are those who own property and land, who are represented, no doubt, by many of us in this House. The industrial worker says: "I have to live in a house. If it is a council house it is subsidised, but I may have to purchase a house over a long period of time, or I may have to rent a house at a very high rental." One reason why the rental may be high, or the mortgage may be heavy is because of the increased price of land. Then he realises that the landowner has been taking advantage of the needs of the country, and by the precious law of supply and demand is saying: "You want land—
808
here is our price. It is a high price; it is five and sometimes ten times more than it was ten years ago. That does not matter. The need is intense, and because we know you must have this land you will pay this price or go without."
I know that we are all involved in this process. All I am seeking to emphasise is that if you try to isolate the industrial worker, who has his labour to sell, from the landowner, who has his land to sell, then you are beginning to be provocative to the industrial worker who wants to know why there should be this discrimination. If it is right that the landowner or the property owner can say, in certain circumstances, "I will now put up my price and get everything I can", then the industrial worker says, "Why should I not do the same?" It is rather difficult to refute that argument.
The conclusion, which I do not necessarily accept, is a very searching one: what is the difference between the selling of labour, on the one hand, and the selling of land, on the other? If you are right to sell land at the highest price to take advantage of the urgent need of the community to get land, surely one can understand the industrial worker, who has only his labour to sell, saying, "I will pursue the same method". As I say, I do not necessarily agree with all this: I am merely saying, let us understand that we cannot isolate one from the other. If, therefore, we are going to satisfy all the industrial workers, we have to satisfy them over a wide field. They ask why, if restrictions are to be imposed on them, with legal penalties, this has not been imposed on the landowner and property owner, also with legal penalties. They remember in another place, and elsewhere, the constant assertion made by eminent statesmen that this should not be done because it would interfere with the free market. "Very well", the industrial worker says—again not necessarily rightly: I am stating this as how his mind operates— "we will do exactly the same thing".
Quite obviously, what is necessary is a far deeper sense of social responsibility in every quarter, so that, whether we be landowners or property owners, sellers of land or property, or the sellers of our

809
labour or our services, we may become increasingly conscious of our duty to the whole community. That, of course, may also lead to difficulties, because one of the factors which operates in the minds of minority sections is the feeling that, just because they are minorities, the good of the whole may overlook the justice of the few. This feeling, of course, is frequently found. It is one of the factors that has lead many people to hesitate about supporting Britain's joining the Common Market: will this country of ours be subordinate to the general whole, without due regard to our particular needs? That feeling, again, operates frequently among minorities in the industrial field. It sometimes operates to the disadvantage of their own trade unions.
May I say, in passing, we should appreciate that hostility to irregular, unofficial industrial action is at least as great among responsible trade union leaders as it is among any of their critics. They do not want this to happen. Nevertheless, it remains true that sometimes a local branch or a local section of workers, in the railway world or elsewhere, feel that their claims are being overlooked; that the long processes of negotiations are being dragged out; or that their union may be too cumbersome to pay attention as swiftly as it should, and therefore they are apt to say, "If we go on unofficial strike—it is irregular we know—at least that may speed up negotiations". And sometimes, one has to confess, it does. We have to recognise that these are some of the factors operating in the minds of industrial workers. There are many factors. Just as every one of us is impelled by multiple motives—one may dominate at one time and another at another, but they are all there, more or less—so it is in the behaviour of men who are trade unionists or employees.
There is just one other factor that I will mention, and then I will close. There are times, I am convinced, when, consciously or unconsciously, groups of workers have responded to what I call a purely ideological motive. They are not necessarily fully conscious of what is happening, but I am persuaded that there are some, in the minority of cases, who are led to respond to the ideological exploitation of a given difficult condition and circumstance. That is, I think, only a minor matter. Those other matters that I have mentioned are human factors. We
810
should appreciate them, and in appreciating them we should consider very carefully all the helpful proposals that have been made to-day, but, above all, realise that once we start to try to intimidate those who are irregular, we may make the position infinitely worse. We provoke a reaction of resentment, and the resentment then exploits a situation which gets out of hand and becomes ten times worse.
I some other countries this is easily solved. There are, so far as we can tell, no industrial disputes leading to strikes in the Soviet Union—nor, indeed, in the areas of other totalitarian States. There is one way by which we can solve the problem: by insisting that the State shall itself prevent any disputation from arising. We can choose that way if we please. If we do not choose that way, then we have to accept all the limitations of freedom, and the loss of its blessings. It is good that in the debate this afternoon, with its atmosphere of urbanity and human consideration, not one single noble Lord has said anything that is provocative or exacerbating, or has not evinced deep sensitive concern for workers as human beings. It may be therefore that from this debate there will be exuded an atmosphere elsewhere that will assist not only the Royal Commission, but, indeed, employees, management and employers themselves throughout this country, to find a means by which disputes can be solved rationally, and so not only assist their economy but encourage the well-being of our land.
7.28 p.m.
LORD THOMSON OF FLEET: My Lords, I think I should conclude this debate. I have a few remarks I should like to make. I thank all those who have taken part. I am sure that this has been an interesting debate. I think many facts and suggestions have been put forward, and I am hopeful that this will have an effect on public opinion; that it will crystallize public opinion in this respect. As I have been many times in the past, I know that I am a bit ahead of my time. My guess is that what I am saying now you will all be saying in a few years from now. I just like to do it quickly, and get it over with.
I am sorry in this debate for one thing particularly, and that is that every noble Lord who has spoken seems to be quite

811
happy about the situation in this country. Everything seems to be going fine. Nobody is disturbed. Believe me, you had better be disturbed, because we are in a desperate mess, and anyone who knows the facts will confirm that. Something has got to be done to remedy this situation. I do not withdraw one single remark that I have made about the situation in this country. Let me point out that most of the noble Lords who have spoken have had experience only of industry in this country, but I have had over 35 years' experience in Canada and the United States of America, and now nearly 12 years here. I can see the difference; I can speak with authority; and therefore I do not withdraw a single remark that I made with regard to what I believe to be the situation of the economy in this country.
Something must be done about these "wildcat" strikes, about the disinclination of both management and labour to recognise their national responsibility. I believe it is up to our Government to do it. I do not believe that we can get a voluntary agreement; we should have to spend a great part of our lives waiting for that to happen: and we cannot wait.
I should like to refer to one or two remarks made during the course of the debate. My good friend Lord Williamson made some very fair remarks. He agreed that the unions must accept some responsibility for these strikes, but he mentioned that he thought my remarks were directed against the trade unions. I can assure your Lordships that was not my intention. Another speaker—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Citrine—said that the employers do not want any interference in the present negotiations. I do not care a hoot whether they do or not. I am not speaking for the employers, but for the country. I have some interest here, and I am not concerned whether it is labour or management. I simply say that, in my opinion, these things or some substitute for them must be done. I am not adamant about these suggestions, or naive enough to think that they will be adopted and immediately put through by way of legislation—I hope noble Lords will accept that I am not that stupid. What I do say is that, if my suggestions are not acceptable, something must be done to
812
take their place, and it is up to the Government to do it. We have no right to drift along in this aimless way, just hoping that something will happen. It just is not going to happen.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I just point out one thing? The debate has been about industrial disputes. You chose the words; you are making odious comparisons—
NOBLE LORDS: "The noble Lord."
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord is making odious comparisons between the situation in this country and in the U.S.A. and Canada in regard to the economic position. If we are to debate the economic position in the future we shall find ourselves in some agreement with the noble Lord, but as the comparison between the United States and this country in terms of industrial disputes shows that this country is better, I really do not accept the noble Lord's criticism that we are complacent about the situation. The noble Lord said—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
LORD THOMSON OF FLEET: The noble Lord may well be correct, and perhaps I am drifting from the Motion, but the subjects are tied in so closely that I feel that, in the interests of being logical, this might be excused.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, all referred to the fact that the newspapers exacerbate the situation by talking about the strikes. I should like to say my newspapers tell the truth, and if there are strikes, and things of this sort happen, we talk about them because people are entitled to know these things. I am sure that none of the noble Lords would suggest that we should suppress the news when it happens, or minimise the importance of it, or exaggerate the importance of an accomplishment. My own view is that one is expected to accomplish things in this world. I think we are all expected to do our job, and if we do it I do not think that is very good news, but when we fail to do it then that is news.
LORD SORENSEN: Very briefly, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, no doubt the noble Lord's newspapers do tell the

813
truth, though not necessarily the whole truth, in so far as the good news is concerned. The news of the peaceful, placid, tranquil operation of the trade unions is never put into print. That is the point I am getting at.
LORD THOMSON OF FLEET: I am sorry, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I think we tell the truth. Of course, if it is a piece of information which has no particular value to the public there is no point in printing it, because if we printed that sort of thing nobody would want to buy the newspaper.
I do not want to prolong this debate unduly because it is getting pretty late; and I am getting hungry, too. But I am disappointed that no one except the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, has attempted to explain why labour—management problems are in a class almost by themselves. He brought in some other exceptions, but there is no lawful way of settling such a disagreement. It becomes a slogging match. If any two persons have an argument and it becomes a disagreement they have recourse to the courts; they have a recourse to a forced settlement which gives them both justice. The noble Lord has quoted one or two cases and has mentioned land, but I understand that the Government intend to do something about the land situation. Do they intend to do anything about the labour situation? The fact that there are some anomalies, and that these things are not being taken care of is surely no reason why something that is, in my opinion, so grossly wrong should be left alone. I suggest that this point should be given consideration.
There is one other remark that I want to make before I sit down. I personally very greatly appreciate the actions of George Brown. I believe that he has tried to do something that is very much in the interests of this country. He has my complete support in every respect, and I regret that employers are not cooperating with him. Of course a number of the trade unions also are not cooperating, but I regret that any employer should not co-operate. He deserves our support; he should have co-operation, and I think that employers who disregard the standard he sets up are doing a very great disservice to free enterprise and to the economy of this country. I
814
have very high praise for George Brown and for the courage he has displayed in doing these things. My Lords, I do not think there is anything further that I can usefully add, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CASE OF MR. CHRISTOPHER SWABEY
7.38 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL rose to call attention to the case of Christopher Swabey, former Lieutenant-Commander, R.N., who was court-martialled in 1956, and to move to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should set up an independent Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the case and to advise whether, in their opinion, there has been a miscarriage of justice. The noble Lord said: I should like first of all to explain why it has been thought necessary, by some of those who have been gravely disturbed by this case of Christopher Swabey for a long time, to raise it again in your Lordships' House after a lapse of over two years, although I must make it clear that the greater part of this delay cannot be laid at our door. I should also like to deal in advance with a criticism which I know will be made, because it has already been made to me personally; namely, why, nearly nine and a half years after this court-martial took place, is this finding being questioned, and why is Christopher Swabey not content, or not prepared, to accept the opinion of those who have already reviewed the proceedings, that there are no grounds for saying that there may have been a miscarriage of justice?
The first reason is this. It is one more step in the long battle which Swabey has been waging to clear his name, for he knows that he did not commit this offence. Is it likely that he would have gone on fighting for more than nine years, spending a very large sum of money which he can ill afford, if he were guilty of that offence? He is not a fool, and I can assure your Lordships that he is not doing it for publicity. He knows perfectly well that had he been content to accept injustice the whole matter would have been

815
forgotten by the public many years ago. As for his friends, they have never believed that he was guilty of the offence. I would submit to your Lordships that this determination on his part to fight on is the greatest proof of his innocence.
The second reason is that since our first debate on this question more evidence has come to light regarding the knowledge of the first court-martial—about which you will be hearing later on—the first court-martial in Malta, and the fact that there was considerable talk about it in Naval circles, both before and during the second trial. The third reason why it is only right and proper, in my submission, that there should be an independent Commission is that it would throw some light on certain aspects of Naval court-martial procedure which require independent investigation, not merely because of this case but for the benefit of others who may find themselves in a similar position in the future.
I would make it clear, in case any of your Lordships think otherwise, that those who are supporting Swabey are not just a bunch of cranks, busybodies and do-gooders who are never satisfied with anything and are only out to make trouble. They include several Members of your Lordships' House who have great knowledge and experience. Some of them are Bishops, some are lawyers, but last and by no means least, a number of them are senior Naval officers, including a distinguished Admiral of the Fleet. All these people I have just mentioned have known all about this case for a long time. They know exactly how many times the case has been considered in the Admiralty by various First Lords, but they are still of the opinion that it should form the subject of an independent inquiry by a completely independent body, which up to the present it has not been.
There are a number of reasons for our holding this opinion. As I have no intention of keeping your Lordships for too long at this late hour of the day, I propose to deal with only some of them and I leave others to be dealt with by other Members of your Lordships' House who are going to speak later. First and foremost, I think, is the fact that the whole background of this case, including its venue, have made it almost impossible, or did make it almost impossible,
816
for there to be a fair trial, and to make this understood I am afraid it is necessary for me to go back to the first court-martial of Swabey, which took place in 1950. In 1950 Swabey, who had then been in the Navy for a little over seven years and had seen service in several ships, was convicted by a court-martial at Malta of—and I read the words of the charge:
"conduct unbecoming the character of an officer in that he visited without cause the wheelhouse of H.M.S. "Rowena" where two ratings, one of whom was drunk, were then sleeping"
The same court acquitted him of other charges alleging indecency, but they convicted of the unbecoming conduct charge and dismissed him from the Service for the simple reason that there was no other sentence they could pass upon that charge.
It seems to me highly improbable, to put it at its very lowest, that the court which convicted Swabey upon that charge, which, as you will hear later, formed part of the same incident as the indecency charges—particularly as at that time not only did he have a completely unblemished service record but he had impeccable confidential reports from all the Captains under whom he had served, and I have seen those reports—would have done so had it not been for the unfortunate prejudice left in the minds of the members of the court by the charges alleging indecency, though in fact they found them unsubstantiated and acquitted him of them. In support of this argument. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to quote from the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester in the debate in 1963. He said this:
"The community may be lax (or charitable, if you put it that way) in its attitude to some vices; but there is no doubt that it is particularly sensitive to any imputation of homosexuality. This is true everywhere. It is particularly true, as we should expect, in the circumstances of Naval life. The mere suggestion of it creates at once an attitude of abhorrence and revulsion which tends to colour judgment and sometimes produces hysterical reactions.
"It is, moreover, a form of offence notoriously difficult to define; it covers not only acts but also tendencies or suggestions. This means that the very charge of it, even when it is rebutted, sets up a train of suspicion that is not likely to be eradicated. I know of no other offence equal to this in which the accused tend to be condemned in people's

817
minds even before their case is heard; and in which, even when they are acquitted, they will never, in the public view, be wholly exonerated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 1068, March 19, 1963.]
I imagine that many of your Lordships would agree that there is a great deal of truth in what the right reverend Prelate said on that occasion.
But in this case I think there is still more to be said. These other charges of indecency, the charges that were considered by the first court-martial together with the charge of unbecoming conduct —and I have never heard this denied by the Admiralty or the Navy Board as it is now called—were made by a couple of ratings who thought they had been caught in flagrante delicto and chose that particular method of getting out of it by making counter charges of a similar nature against Swabey. It only remains for me to say in regard to that court-martial that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty on review of the proceedings were pleased to dissent from the finding of guilty and to annul the sentence. I think the fact that they did so surely indicates that they were satisfied that the charges of indecency, which, after all, were part of the same transaction, were entirely without foundation. It is this wild accusation, Swabey contends—and I, for one, entirely agree with him—which forms the whole basis of the accusation made against him in 1956 which led to his trial by court-martial, the trial which is the subject of the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Between 1950 and 1956 Swabey's conduct had never been called in question. Had it not been so it is certain that he would not have been appointed by the Admiralty to command H.M.S. "Redoubt", as he was in March, 1956. The fact that he was considered suitable to command a small ship of this kind raises another point which, in my submission, is entirely in his favour and quite indisputable. The greater part of his previous service had been in small ships. Had he been a person of homosexual tendencies, is it inconceivable that this would not have been known to at least some of the officers who served with him, and would it not have been a subject of general conversation on the lower deck? Most of your Lordships have, I know, served in one of the Services and many of you must know that this is true.
818
People of that kind almost invariably give themselves away in one way or another, and the word quickly goes round.
Not only has no one who served with Swabey ever thought for a moment that he was not normal but many have specifically sworn to the contrary. One of them, Lieutenant-Commander Rosling, who knew him when they were cadets together at Dartmouth and later served with him at sea in a small ship, said this about him in an affidavit:
"He had been on all these occasions a perfectly normal officer, messmate and friend with the tastes and interests of the ordinary healthy minded naval officer. In the close confines of the mess life of small ships, I feel sure that if there had been any doubt about his character I would have known it. However, at no time did I ever feel that his relations with officers and men were other than perfectly normal. Had I the least suspicion otherwise I should have been at great pains to avoid further contact with him, having a deep loathing of any form of perversion."
That is not all. There are other Naval officers and a number of Naval ratings who also served with him and have said—and are willing to repeat upon oath—that they never had any reason to believe that he was not a perfectly ordinary person, and that they had never once heard a breath of scandal about him.
I am once again going to ask your Lordships' permission to read a letter which was written to Swabey on February 5, 1965. It was completely unsolicited, and it was written by this man because he had read something in the Daily Telegraph
"Dear Mr. Swabey—You may not remember me but I was on board 'Bleasdale' until 1948 and I was latterly your navigator's yeoman.
"I was shocked to read in the Telegraph yesterday of the dreadful ordeal which you have been subjected to. I cannot believe, as a fairly responsible member of the lower deck—where scandal is always the most prolific—I would not have known of the peccadilloes even of the officers. Never was there any mention of scandal as far as you were concerned, and all the ratings, myself particularly as I had more to do with you than the others"—
he was navigator's yeoman—
"held you in esteem. If another inquiry is held I, for one, would gladly repeat this on oath and I am sure other shipmates whom I could contact would do the same. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you think I could be of any assistance. Otherwise, may I send you my heartfelt wishes for a successful conclusion to the case to enable you to clear your name."

819
Surely for this reason, if for no other, there should be an independent commission of inquiry, so that this kind of evidence can be heard and considered entirely objectively by a body which is in no way connected with the authorities who have so far investigated this case.
There is now ample evidence that the officer whom Swabey was relieving as commander of H.M.S. "Redoubt" was handing over his ship with considerable reluctance, and that in conversation with another officer, Lieutenant-Commander Harvey, who was then in command of H.M.S. "Bastion" and stationed in Malta, had mentioned the fact that Swabey had been court-martialled on a previous occasion. On the day that Swabey was due to arrive on H.M.S. "Redoubt". Lieutenant-Commander Harvey was aboard and, after talking with the other officers, he left with the distinct impression that there was a hostile atmosphere regarding Swabey's appointment; and next day Harvey was again on board H.M.S. "Redoubt" and he left the ship convinced that there was general knowledge on the part of all the four officers, including Sub-Lieutenant Havers, whom you may know was the officer who was later to complain of an indecent assault upon him by Swabey. This would doubtless explain what would otherwise seem to be inexplicable—namely, that Swabey's conduct on the night in question should have appeared to Havers to be the approach of a homosexual.
What evidence there was in any event was so flimsy that I am certain that no court-martial of which I have had any experience—and I officiated as Judge Advocate at hundreds of them during my service with the Judge Advocate-General's Office—would have regarded such conduct as Swabey's as indecent assault without there being some reliable corroboration. And the only evidence which was put forward by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of Havers was Swabey's reaction when he returned on board the "Redoubt" and Havers made the accusation of indecency. This evidence was, as you will hear later, in my opinion, just as consistent with Swabey's innocence as with guilt.
Now it is not difficult to imagine the shock with which Christopher Swabey heard these charges made. He had been through all this before, and the kind of things that people might say, and would be saying—and he must have known that there were many in Malta who knew about the previous court martial—must have come to his mind immediately: "There's no smoke without fire", "Once a queer always a queer", and many other remarks of a similar nature. What, in fact, was his reaction? To put it shortly, he was, not unnaturally, agitated, and walked up and down the ward-room passage. He said that the sub-lieutenant had gone berserk. He said that he did not want it to go further, but he would mention the whole thing to Lieutenant-Commander Davidson, who was commanding the ship at the time, in the morning; and lastly, he said that he had been all through this before and knew what it was all about.
One must surely ask oneself why it was that the court found that this was corroboration; and it can only be assumed that it was because they had no official knowledge of the previous court-martial, because it was not mentioned by the defending officer at the trial. This was, in my opinion, a most unfortunate decision, but I will be dealing with it in a few moments. Had this decision not been made, the Judge Advocate at the trial would have been bound then to warn the court that Swabey's reaction was quite consistent with innocence, and for that reason it could not be properly relied on as corroborating Havers's evidence; and that should have been the end of the case.
But surely there is another point that arises here, and it does not need a lawyer to appreciate it. All it needs is ordinary common sense. Even if Swabey had been what the court were asked to believe, is it likely, is it possible, is it even conceivable that he would have made indecent advances to an officer who was just about to come under his own command in a small ship, and whom he had only just met—that he would have made them, first of all, in a public bar, where he is supposed to have put his leg up against the leg of another officer, and then subsequently in a taxi which had no partition

821
between the driver and the passengers, on which occasion he is supposed to have put his hand out on to the leg of Lieutenant Havers?
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever been in a taxi in Malta in the evening, but I have, and when they are driving round corners quickly it is quite often necessary to save oneself from falling over. Had not Swabey done that on this occasion I think he might well have found himself in a much more compromising position vis-à-vis an indecent assault than if he had tried to stop himself from falling over. I am sorry to have to say this, having regard to the fact that several First Lords, and I believe at least two Lord Chancellors, apparently believe it, but I think anyone who would believe that would believe almost anything. That the court believed it, as they must have done, would appear to me to indicate quite clearly that they had some knowledge of the other court-martial, although they had not heard about it in court; and they took the view, or may well have taken the view, that because no mention of it had been made by the defence the reason was that there was something to hide.
About this unfortunate incident I want to say only this: that the decision was made because of the absence of a preliminary investigation in this case, which was described by Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, in his submission to the Admiralty on Swabey's behalf, as "absolutely crucial", because if a preliminary investigation had been held, with a summary of evidence being taken, those advising Swabey prior to his court-martial would have been able to appreciate the whole of the prosecution's case, and they would then immediately have appreciated the emphasis which the prosecution would have to place on the only piece of corroborative evidence available to them—namely, as I have said, the behaviour of Swabey immediately he arrived on board H.M.S. "Redoubt" and the accusation was made against him. Defending counsel would then surely have made an entirely different decision and the circumstances of the 1950 court-martial would have officially been brought to the notice of the court. The court would then have been made aware of the reason why Swabey behaved like he did when the accusation was made. This aspect of the
822
case is going to be dealt with more fully later in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who, as a former naval officer, has a personal knowledge and experience of court-martial procedure in the Royal Navy. I propose to leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill.
In the debate in this House the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who then occupied the Woolsack, said that it had long been the practice in the Navy not to have a preliminary investigation in respect of the trial of an officer by court-martial. I am assured, however, by a number of senior naval officers, including a distinguished Admiral of the Fleet, that it is the practice to hold such a preliminary investigation. I must leave it to your Lordships to decide which of these statements you would prefer to believe; but, whatever your decision may be, the fact that in Swabey's case the failure to hold a preliminary investigation was prejudicial to a fair trial and the likelihood that it might in future be prejudicial to others who find themselves in a similar predicament, is surely one more reason why there should be the independent inquiry which we are asking Her Majesty's Government to set up. I must apologise to the House for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, particularly so soon after Lord Egremont's appeal for shorter speeches, with which I am in full agreement, but I feel certain that you will understand and appreciate why it has been necessary for me to do so.
There is only one other matter with which I want to deal, and it arises from something which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said in his speech, when replying to the debate on behalf of the Government, in March, 1963. He said:
"These have been proceedings which have been considered by the Board of the Admiralty more than once, by the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court—your Lordships remember that they read the shorthand note with anxious care—and also, although it may not count much with your Lordships, independently by me, and as impartially and fairly as I have been able to do it. None of those whose duty it has been to read these proceedings have come to the conclusion that there is any ground for interfering with the verdict, and I would ask your Lordships to attach some weight to this unanimity of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 1107; March 19, 1963.]
There are only two things which I should like to say about that. "As impartially and fairly as I have been able to do it" were the words used. No one is suggesting, and I am not suggesting, that it was done otherwise, but I think that it should be remembered that, except for the occasion upon which the then Lord Chancellor was asked to go into the case by the First Lord after the Courts-Martial Appeal Court had refused to give leave to appeal, the only review of the proceedings up to that time had been by the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, by members of the legal branch of the Admiralty, who do not even happen to be lawyers, and by the Ministers responsible for that Department. It is true that it was submitted on one occasion to the Treasury Solicitor, but that was so that he should instruct the Counsel for the Crown in the application for leave to appeal.
It was submitted by Swabey's counsel at the hearing of the application to appeal that his immediate reaction on hearing the accusation of indecency made by Havers on their return to H.M.S. "Redoubt" was not capable of being regarded as corroboration, or that if it were, it was as consistent with his innocence as with his guilt. The court ruled that the members of the court-martial were entitled to regard such evidence as corroboration, and refused leave to appeal on that ground, but they appear to have ignored completely the importance of the fact that, from Swabey's point of view, there had been no mention of the previous court-martial at Swabey's trial. Had the court-martial been aware of this previous trial and aware of the result of it, surely they at least would have had to consider whether this corroboration of evidence was not a perfectly innocent explanation of Swabey's reaction and, having regard to the nature of Havers's testimony, they might well have decided that it would not be safe to regard that evidence as corroboration. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they could not reasonably have come to any other conclusion.
It must also be remembered that the Courts-Martial Appeal Court did not have before them any of the affidavits regarding the knowledge in Malta of the first court-martial which was even being
824
voiced in the precincts of the court during the second trial—and there is evidence to prove it. I myself and a number of others feel very strongly in the case of Christopher Swabey that justice has not been done, and certainly that it has not been seen to be done. I hope that many of your Lordships will have come to the conclusion by the end of this debate that the only way this can be achieved is by setting up an independent commission, and that you will demonstrate this by supporting my Motion in the Division Lobby.
Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should set up an independent Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the case of Christopher Swabey, former Lieutenant-Commander, R.N., who was court-martialled in 1956, and to advise whether, in their opinion, there has been a miscarriage of justice.—(Lord Russell of Liverpool.)
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: May I ask the noble Lord one question? Did not this case come before Lord Goddard?
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: It did.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: As what?
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: An application to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal.
8.7 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in pleading with the Government the case of Mr. Swabey. I shall not go into it in any detail, for the noble Lord has done it clearly and cogently. I hope that the Government will take note of the new points which he brought forward. I hope that this may sway them in their judgment. I am assuming that the Government are going to give the reply that no inquiry will be possible. I hope I am wrong, but I am working on that assumption.
I should like to argue the case on rather broader grounds. From the speech of Lord Russell of Liverpool, it must surely be clear that there is at least a prima facie case that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I do not think that

825
we on this side are called upon to prove more than that there has been a prima facie case in which an individual has suffered, or may have suffered, a miscarriage of justice. Here is a man who is acquitted of indecency in 1950 in Malta and who is sent back there six years later. One might query the wisdom of such a posting when one realises how much ill-informed gossip and scandal-mongering there always is in a close military community. There is the evidence of the taxi-driver that nothing happened. There is the court-martial in which the prosecutor, apparently, appoints his inexperienced junior to act as adviser to the court. There is a lack of corroboration and there are other matters.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to refer to two extracts from a letter which I have been passed by one of my colleagues—a letter written by a naval officer of much experience, speaking on behalf of himself and a number of other naval officers. He says:
"We base our criticism, from the naval point of view, that in Swabey's case there was no previous investigation before the court-martial. We believe that had there been one there would in all probability have been no court-martial and that the incident would have been disposed of in a normal way with disciplinary action."
Then he goes on:
"I feel, from a close study of the speech made by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, that he was less than fair when he said that the preliminary investigation was not necesary. I can only say that in all my 42 years' experience in the Navy, most of which was spent in command of ships, I have never heard of a case of an officer striking another without a preliminary investigation being held immediately afterwards."—
He underlines the word "immediately"—
"The Lord Chancellor of that day, I thought, was also unfair when he disregarded entirely the evidence given by the taxi-driver in Swabey's favour on the grounds that he was not a satisfactory witness and never explained that he was called by the prosecution."
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that is not stating accurately what I said. I never said that I disregarded the evidence of the taxi-driver. I never heard it; I do not know how that taxi-driver gave his evidence. All I could do was read what he had reported. I pointed out that the court which heard him, and saw him, might have formed the conclusion that his evidence was not credible—that is all.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I wonder whether, in fact, that was a fair conclusion to draw, because it seems a very odd thing that this taxi-driver who gave very strong evidence was called by the prosecution, which effectively prevented the defence from putting him up as a witness, because the prosecution, as I understand it, had given him such a cross-examination that they had invalidated his evidence. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount wishes to comment on this, but reading his speech in Hansard I got the impression that he regarded this taxi-driver as a thoroughly unreliable witness.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord may have got that impression, but I cannot answer for any impression he got. All I can say is that I would not, on reading a record, form any impression which could be relied on as to accuracy or inaccuracy of the witness. The point I am making, as I hope the noble Lord will appreciate, is that if the court who heard what he said believed him, he was a very telling witness for the defence, but if they did not believe him and disregarded his evidence, that is another matter; and it was entirely for them to decide.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount can help me on a matter of law. Why was it, then, that the prosecution and not the defence called this taxi-driver?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that I cannot answer. I was not responsible for the prosecution. But I must say that when I have been defending I have often been very glad if a witness for the prosecution gave me the advantage of cross-examining him and getting out matters which would help the defence, rather than being limited to examination-in-chief.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, all I say is that there seem to be sufficient grounds of doubt here. Even this discussion which I have had with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, must indicate that there is a good deal to inquire into in a matter of this sort, when a man's career, a man's life, is at stake. Surely, it all adds up to a prima facie case, that there might well have been a miscarriage of justice in this case. I ask the Government: How much more must we prove

827
in order to have an inquiry which will at least give an opportunity to an individual to clear his name? Swabey's career was wrecked. He is surely entitled to the independent inquiry for which he asks.
But there is another principle involved here, and I think it is a principle which affects Parliamentary democracy itself. In 1963, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I thought would be here tonight (no doubt he has a reason not to be: and let me say that I have the highest respect for him), raised this matter in this House and moved for an independent inquiry. According to Hansard he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and I think there are other noble Lords now in office who certainly supported that Motion. I contend that members are not morally entitled to refuse to do in office what they pleaded should be done when they were in Opposition. If the case was strong in 1963, why should it be any weaker now?
The same thing happened when I raised the case of Timothy Evans. When he had no responsibility, when he was in Opposition, the present Home Secretary pleaded that Evans's name should be cleared; but as soon as he took office we received a different answer. I think it is fair to ask: Who is running this country—the Ministers who are now in power, or the civil servants who are answering for the Departments and are trying to protect the Establishment at every turn? This is a principle of Parliamentary democracy, which we ought to uphold in both Houses of Parliament, and where a man's life or career is affected I do not believe that the Government have any right to refuse an inquiry. It is no use saying: "If we do this it will create a precedent". How many such cases are there in a generation? What is there to lose by acceding to this request? I cannot believe that the Government really intend to refuse an inquiry to-night.
On the last occasion on which this matter was debated, noble Lords opposite listened to the Answer given by the Conservative Government, and they were so dissatisfied with it that they took the matter into the Division Lobby, and lost by only one vote. I do not know what is going to come of Parliamentary democracy if we allow the idea to get around
828
that when you are in Opposition you can speak with sincerity and feeling, and can plead a case, but as soon as you come to power then you change and just take your instructions from the civil servants in the Departments. There are two principles involved here—the career of Swabey and democracy in this Parliament.
8.15 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, in order to assist the House and those noble Lords who are to participate in the debate, it seems to us to be advisable that there should be an early intervention by a Minister, giving the Government's point of view on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, particularly as to whether a further examination of the whole of this case by the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy has resulted in a change from the advice proffered to the House by the previous Government in the debate of March, 1963. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I begin by giving a brief summary of the case and leaving it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to reply to the points that will emerge, and those that have already emerged, in the debate.
Christopher Swabey, then a Lieutenant-Commander, joined H.M.S. "Redoubt" at Malta on March 22, 1956, as her commanding officer designate. On the afternoon of March 23 he invited a young sub-lieutenant, who subsequently became the complainant in the case, to go ashore with him that evening. He accepted and they left the ship together about 6 o'clock. Swabey and the complainant spent until 9.30 drinking at various bars and at a club. During this time, they met an old acquaintance of Swabey's, a retired Commander, who also drank with them for about an hour to an hour and a half, but then left them, declining Swabey's suggestion that he should join them at dinner. At about 9.30, Swabey and the complainant went to a restaurant and dined. They left the restaurant about 11 o'clock and took a taxi-cab back to the Dockyard and the ship.
The complainant alleged that during the evening he was frequently made aware of Swabey's physical proximity by odd and offensive contacts. This conduct by

829
Swabey culminated, according to the complainant's story, in an unmistakeably indecent assault in the taxi-cab just before they reached the ship. The complainant alleged that he instantly struck Swabey in protest and denounced his actions. Swabey alleged that he did not accuse him of being a homosexual until both had got back on board. It was this alleged incident in the taxi-cab which was the subject of the subsequent charge. On arrival on board, the evidence was that Swabey was agitated, and said that the complainant had suddenly gone berserk. He described this by waving his arms wildly above his head and saying "Whoosh". He showed anxiety to get possession of any report that the complainant might be writing to the first lieutenant. To one officer he said:
"I don't want this to go any further … if it does, it will end in a court-martial".
During his perambulations round the ship he described the complainant to an able seaman in derogatory and coarse terms.
Swabey was tried by court-martial at Malta on April 16 and 17, 1956, on charges of indecent assault, of being drunk on board and of acting to the prejudice of good order and Naval discipline in making an improper remark to a naval rating. He was found guilty on the first and third of these charges and acquitted on the second. He was sentenced to be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service. I must add, because the point has been made at some length in Swabey's petitions and has constantly been referred to in the many representations which have been made, that Swabey had been previously tried by court-martial at Malta in January, 1950. On that occasion, he had been charged with indecent assault, an act of gross indecency, an attempted act of gross indecency, conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and an act to the prejudice of good order and Naval discipline. He was acquitted on all these charges except the fourth—that of unbecoming conduct—on which he was found guilty and sentenced to dismissal. On review, the Admiralty dissented from this finding, annulled the sentence and ordered that he should return to duty.
Mr. Swabey was defended by the same counsel as defended him at his trial in 1950—a barrister who has deservedly a sound reputation, and is much ex-
830
perienced in court-martial work. At the trial in 1956, the line taken by the defence was that the complainant's memory of some of the details of that evening was imperfect, and that he was, therefore, an unreliable witness; that, early in the evening, some harmless touching had put it into his head that Swabey was a homosexual, and that he let his imagination run riot on this idea in the course of the five and a half hours or so they were in one another's company; that there was no corroboration of the complainant's story; and that, on the contrary, the taxi-cab driver, called as a prosecution witness, said in evidence that he did not remember anything happening in his taxi-cab which would support the accusation. The defence deliberately took the decision to make no reference to the previous trial of 1950.
Swabey submitted to the Admiralty a petition antecedent to appeal on June 12, 1956. This was rejected by the Admiralty on July 16. On July 26, 1956, he applied to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court for leave to appeal. This was refused on November 5. On April 11, 1957, he addressed a petition to Her Majesty, which was rejected on June 3, 1957.
The first formal petition to the Admiralty and the application to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court made the following allegations: that there was knowledge in Malta in 1956 of his previous trial in 1950, and therefore a probability of gossip prejudicial to his trial; that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that there was a misdirection of law on the part of both the Prosecutor and the Judge Advocate and, finally, that there were errors in the conduct of the prosecution and there was incompetence on the part of the Judge Advocate. The petition to Her Majesty added that the defence's decision not to refer at the trial to the previous trial of 1950 prevented the defence from giving the true explanation of his conduct on his return on board—namely, that, on hearing the accusations of the complainant, he was agitated by the recollection of his previous trial, whereas the Court had accepted his agitation as corroboration of the alleged incident in the taxi-cab.
My Lords, I am not going to attempt to reply or to deal with these points, which I hope I have set out fairly. The fact is that, after the last debate, some

831
Members of this House, and others, continued to press representations on Mr. Swabey's behalf; and, on the change of Administration last October, they made a further approach to my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy. They asked him to take a new look at the case, and the various affidavits and memoranda provided by Mr. Swabey's legal adviser. This he did, and I have it from him that he formed his own view upon them before discussing them with any adviser. He was concerned with only one question: had Mr. Swabey, as an individual, been treated justly? He concluded that he had been.
My Lords, we all know—and certainly those who have had ministerial experience know—how quickly a feeling of loyalty to his Department comes to a newly appointed Minister. He finds within it a loyalty to himself which he reciprocates, and, unless he is a watchful and determined person, he is in danger of becoming the creature of his Department. The point about this danger was, of course, made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Having known my honourable friend for very many years, I would never suspect him of becoming merely a mouthpiece of his Ministry, but it might be thought that his judgment might be suspect on that score, and I could understand it if that suspicion still dwelt in people's minds. Perhaps that is why he thought—though the decision was his, and his alone—that he should have fresh and independent legal advice, and he therefore referred the papers to my learned and noble friend the Lord Chancellor. An acute and legally trained mind was brought to bear independently upon the papers, and his advice confirmed my honourable friend in his conclusion.
A third mind, neither so acute nor legally trained, but having, I think, a modicum of common sense and nearly a quarter of a century's experience as a magistrate, read and considered, also independently, all the papers in the case. That mind was mine; and I came to the matter with a bias, for it may be remembered that at our last debate I voted for a new look. Of course, the names arc to be found in Hansard; but I did come to a consideration of this matter with a bias in favour of another look at it.
832
Somewhat reluctantly, but resulting from a careful consideration of every aspect of this case, I have to tell the House that I am satisfied that the conclusions arrived at independently by my ministerial colleagues are correct. The last point I would make is that none of the three of us could be thought to have a feeling of commitment to the decisions of the previous Administration, though I deeply respect, of course, the integrity of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of our 1963 debate, and I am sure that he, as do my colleagues and I, realised the seriousness for the individual and everyone concerned of the case we were considering.
My Lords, the cardinal issues here are justice to the individual and fairness to everyone who took part in the court-martial proceedings. These considerations we had in mind throughout our consideration of this case. As a result of this examination, we advise the House not to agree to the Motion.
8.30 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and I do this because, not having been in England at the time of the earlier debate on this case, and having read all the speeches in the debate and the other papers connected with this very sad story, I still feel that the circumstances surrounding the court-martial, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has already said, made an entirely fair and objective verdict impossible, and that Lieutenant-Commander Swabey did not in fact get a fair trial. I say this in spite of the powerful winding-up speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in the earlier debate and of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has just addressed your Lordships. He has set out the official case, what has always been the official case, and I am most grateful to him for giving it. I wish I could accept what he said because, if I may say so, I have a very high respect for him personally. But I am afraid that I still find the case, in the light of what I have read—and I have taken great trouble over it—entirely unconvincing.

833
I do not want to weary the House by going again over all the facts of this unhappy story—that was done in the last debate, in the remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and has been done again to-day in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—but I should like to explain as briefly as I can to the House what are the particular points that have raised such serious doubts in my mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has already reminded your Lordships, the case which we are considering to-day was not the beginning of the story. Lieutenant-Commander Swabey had been involved in a case of a rather similar character six years before. He had been acquitted on that occasion; although I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, made it as clear as he should have done that he left the court, so far as the charge of homosexuality was concerned, with no stain at all on his character. In the ensuing six years, before the second case, there had been, so far as I know, no suggestion of any kind of such tendencies on his part. In fact, he had, as we know, been promoted by the Admiralty to command one of His Majesty's Ships.
The fact of the earlier case was widely known in Malta and, in my submission, affected profoundly the attitude of more than one of the personalities immediately concerned with the case. Take Lieutenant-Commander Davidson, the commander of "Redoubt", the man whom Lieutenant-Commander Swabey was succeeding: how did he behave? When Swabey and the other officer concerned returned to their ship after their evening out on shore which had such a painful sequel, and when the other officer made his charge against Swabey, the first lieutenant who was on board "Redoubt" telephoned the commander of the ship at his house on shore and told him what had happened. What was his reaction? Getting this distressing information about the officer just appointed to the command of one of His Majesty's ships in Malta, one would have expected him to come down, inquire into the matter on the spot, treating both officers exactly alike, confronting them with each other in each other's presence until he satisfied himself of the true facts. He did, indeed, come down; but he conducted no immediate investigation at all of the character which I have described.
834
He merely sent a message to the base establishment asking that accommodation should be reserved for Lieutenant-Commander Swabey, almost as if his guilt had been already proved. When, in the morning, he returned to the ship where Swabey had also been brought, he asked him whether he had anything to say; but (so I understand from the papers I have read) he coupled with that question the information that the naval authorities were considering preferring charges against him based on the other young officer's information.
In such circumstances it is not surprising that Swabey should have preferred to remain silent until he had had an opportunity of consulting his legal adviser. Yet from that moment he was cut off; he was placed under open arrest. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has pointed out, no preliminary investigation was carried out. As I understand it this was in direct conflict with Queen's Regulations (or King's Regulations, as they were at that time) which lay down—and I quote a statement made in the earlier debate:
"There should be a preliminary investigation at which the witnesses will make their statements and at which the accused will have the opportunity to cross-examine if necessary with the help of a friend"—
who would, I gather, in this case, have been his counsel. But this preliminary investigation never took place.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his speech on the last debate, took the line, if I read his speech correctly, that this lack of a preliminary investigation was of no great importance. But that was certainly not the view of that eminent lawyer Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, who stated clearly in his submission to the First Lord of the day that this was pre-eminently a case, having regard to the previous incident, where every possible care should be taken to ensure a fair trial. And who shall disagree with him? Yet, no such care was taken—presumably because everyone assumed (I am sure quite honestly) that the accused was guilty. The effect of not having this preliminary investigation was that Lieutenant-Commander Swabey and his counsel had no idea, until the actual court-martial took place, of the line that the prosecution were going to take and what corroborative evidence they were going to produce.

835
When the court-martial did take place, what did they find? There was really no corroborative evidence at all. The whole case for the prosecution rested on his behaviour. He was said, as your Lordships have already been told, to have shown violent agitation. That was taken as evidence of his guilt, a view which seems to have been shared in the last debate by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. In this context, it is worth while looking for a moment at what was said at the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. It is perfectly true (I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape) that the application was made to the Appeal Court for leave to appeal. No appeal took place; but application for leave to appeal was made. That application was refused. It must be appreciated, unless I have got this very wrong, that the function of this Appeal Court when deciding whether to give leave or not to appeal is, as I understand it, not to re-try the case themselves, but mainly to review the conduct of the court-martial and see whether any irregularities occurred. They did not find any irregularities. But the effect has been that Lieutenant-Commander Swabey has been denied the right which any normal man has to appeal against his sentence—and an appeal away from Malta might have had, I believe, a very different result.
For instance, on appeal, the court might have taken a very different view of Swabey's agitation which was the main basis of the court-martial's decision. But the court to whom Swabey's application for leave to appeal was made did at any rate make one comment on the matter of Swabey's agitation, which I should like to recommend to your Lordships' particular attention. They said:
"If the court"—
that is, the court-martial—
"had chosen to consider Swabey's behaviour on board the ship, the agitation he showed, as corroborative evidence they were entitled to do so."
That is a very guarded statement indeed. The Appeal Court did not say that they shared the view of the court-martial. They said merely that if the court-martial took that view they were entitled to do so. And who shall doubt
836
that? They clearly were. But we in this House are equally entitled to take a different view; and I do, most strongly.
What would the attitude of any one of us have been, placed in the situation of Swabey at that time, however innocent we might be? Agitation, I think, is a very mild word for it. His mind must have gone back to that earlier case in which, indeed, he had been acquitted but which was no doubt fresh in the minds of the naval authorities and many others. He must have seen how easy it would be for these people to put two and two together and make five. His frame of mind must have been one of agonised horror at the gulf yawning before him. He must have felt himself enmeshed in a net of circumstances quite beyond his control. He would have been phlegmatic indeed, almost moronic, however innocent, if he did not show agitation. Yet this agitation, this very natural agitation, was the only corroborative evidence that was produced against him.
In the last debate the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, made a tremendous point of the fact that Swabey did not deny the charges made by the senior officer. There was—I quote the noble and learned Viscount's words—"no indignant denial".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 1099, March 19, 1963]. My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for saying so, I could not help thinking at the time I read his speech that it was a pretty thin point to make when a man's honour was at stake. Now I find that there is nothing in it at all, for since the debate in this House some further important information has become available in the form of an affidavit from Lieutenant-Commander Davidson, Swabey's predecessor in command of "Redoubt", who saw him on that crucial night and sent him ashore. In this affidavit the following words occur:
"He"—
that is Swabey—
"vehemently protested his innocence".
I am quite certain that if the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, had seen—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I say that I examined the record

837
and spoke having seen the record, and if that was the case I cannot conceive why it was not brought out in evidence at the trial. It was not. It is not on the record.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, the fact remains, that is what Lieutenant-Commander Davidson said. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would dispute it. He was the man who examined him and I should have thought he ought to have known.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If he did know and if that was his accurate recollection, he was a witness at the trial, and I cannot conceive why it was not in evidence at the trial. What I was saying was that my speech at that time was based on the record of the evidence and my statement was entirely accurate. There was no record of indignant denial recorded in the evidence.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not in any way criticising the noble and learned Viscount. I am only telling him what new information has just now come to light.
Indeed, my Lords, I think it is things like this which justify our holding this further debate. I have referred to Swabey's agitation, and who shall say that it was not justified? When the day of the trial came he found, as we know, that the composition of the court-martial set up to try him was certainly unusual and not reassuring. One would have expected in a case as difficult and delicate as this that the man appointed as Deputy Judge Advocate General would be a very experienced officer. Indeed, Recommendation 77 of the Pilcher Committee, of which I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne was a member, said this:
"In all cases of a very grave character, in all cases in which very difficult questions of law or the admissibility of evidence seem likely to arise and in all cases of a very complicated character"—
and who shall say that this case was not that?—
"the Judge Advocate should be chosen from King's Counsel and other barristers experienced in the English criminal law."
Yet in this case the man chosen was a young lieutenant whose first case it was
838
and, what is more, who was a junior officer in the prosecutor's own office.
Nor, apparently, did the prosecutor, either before or during the case, attempt to hide his prejudice. He clearly assumed from the first that Swabey was guilty. I have already spoken of the sinister interpretation which he put on Swabey's quite natural agitation. Then there were the words at the end of his final speech for the prosecution. This is what he said:
"To end on a somewhat personal note, at a recent court-martial I was approached by the President afterwards and he said. 'We were all quite sure that he did it, but the prosecution could not prove it'."
Then the prosecutor in this case went on with these, his last words:
"If you are quite sure in this case then the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof even if the evidence was not conclusive."
That surely, my Lords, was an intimation to the court that they need not bother too much with the evidence: their job was to convict. That seems to me to have been a very improper remark, and I was rather surprised that it did not bulk rather larger in the minds of the Courts-martial Appeal Court than it did. At any rate, I think it is pure evidence of the prosecutor's violent bias.
Then there was his treatment of the evidence of the taxi-driver as to what happened in the taxi on the way back to the dock. The young officer concerned in the case had testified that Swabey caressed his thigh, and that he swore loudly and vigorously at Swabey and struck him a blow with his fist. The prosecution sought out the taxi-driver for support of this allegation and put him in the box. Unhappily for them, the taxi-driver let them down very badly. When he appeared in the box he made it clear that he had heard neither a quarrel nor a blow.
My Lords, from the inquiries I have made it emerges that there is no division between the front and back seats in the taxicabs in Malta, and the driver must therefore have been within two or three feet of the two officers. Yet he heard nothing. As a result, his evidence being of no value to them, the prosecution dropped him like a hot potato. Although he was their own witness, his evidence became of no importance. In the words

839
of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in the last debate—I will quote his exact words (they are in col. 1100); I do not want to misrepresent him in any way:
"It is conceivable here that they did not think the taxi-driver's evidence was worthy of any credence at all."
The noble and learned Viscount added:
"He was a Maltese taxi-driver"—
as if that, my Lords, were one of the lowest forms of human life. But one cannot help suspecting that the prosecution's opinion of Maltese taxi-drivers would not have been so low if this particular one had given evidence of a very different character and had said that he had heard something. Then he would have become a good witness and they would have attached enormous importance to his words. Otherwise, why did they call him in evidence at all?
My Lords, the prosecution may have brushed aside the evidence of the taxi-driver as being of no importance in this case, but I am sure there must be many of us who cannot take that view. It seems to me that its very negative character is of the first importance. Those of your Lordships who are readers of the cases of Sherlock Holmes will recall a passage in the story of Silver Blaze where Sherlock Holmes, being asked by the local inspector of police in charge of the case, "Is there any point to which you would draw my attention?" replied, "To the curious incident of the dog in the night time." And to the further comment, "But the dog did not do anything in the night time", Holmes replied, "That is the curious incident." Similarly, my Lords, in this case one might say of the failure of the taxi-driver to hear anything at all of a violent fracas going on within two or three feet of him, "That was the curious incident." It cannot help making one extremely sceptical that any violent fracas ever took place at all.
That, as I think, has a much wider significance. If the evidence of the young officer in the case was so unreliable on this point, might it not be altogether unreliable? By that I do not mean for a moment to suggest that he deliberately falsified his evidence. I am quite certain he did not do that. But he had had
840
a good deal to drink. He was in something approaching an hysterical state when he returned to the ship and also his mind had clearly been preconditioned by gossip which he had heard. As one instance of this, he accused Swabey of pestering him throughout the evening, although other officers who were with them during the earlier part saw no signs of this. His immediate reaction and that of the other naval officers concerned in Malta in regard to Swabey may have been, "He has done it again."
But, my Lords, unless we take the view that the verdict in the earlier case was wrong (and so far as I know, no one has even suggested that) we here in the High Court of Parliament in London cannot, I think, afford to take so superficial a view. We must regard Swabey as up to that evening being as free from any stigma of homosexuality as anybody else. For such a charge was only once made against him six years before, and on that occasion it had proved to be entirely devoid of foundation. Is it credible that he, with all his bitter memories of the past, would have chosen this extraordinary occasion to exhibit for the first time such a tendency? I must say I find it very difficult to believe. I think it much more probable that it is a case of people who had heard about the earlier case giving a dog a bad name and hanging him.
Even if he did do what the prosecution suggest, it was, to quote the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was First Lord at the time, a minimum offence. In view of the facts that have been produced tonight, is even that certain? And it must, after all, be certain, if the verdict is to be justified. If I am told that what I have said does not prove his innocence, it certainly, I submit, does not justify the verdict reached by the court-martial. And this is not only my view but, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has already said, the view of two distinguished Admirals, whose names I shall be happy to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if he wishes, and of another distinguished naval officer, Captain Agar, V.C., who, in an aide memoire which has come into my hands since the last debate, supports everything I have said.
In view of the facts which some of us have made bold again to put before your

841
Lordships, I urge the Government to agree to an independent inquiry. It is, I submit, to the interest not only of Lieutenant-Commander Swabey himself, but of the Navy, that such an inquiry should take place and this most painful matter, whatever the real facts, should be cleared up once and for all. And I ask your Lordships to show that this is also your view in no uncertain fashion, if this Motion has to come to a Division.
8.52 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I rise to support this Motion. I would remind your Lordships, first of all, of other cases that have taken a long time for justice to be done. I remember the Archer Shee case, where an appeal was turned down by everybody and only the persistence of Lord Carson eventually saved young Archer Shee. Once this kind of thing arises there is a sort of loyalty to the Department that interferes with the sense of justice. I have not a very great knowledge of these things, but having had to go on courts-martial many years ago in the First World War, I must say that they did not give me a high opinion of military justice. I always remember a delightful old man who was trying a prisoner turning to me and saying, "What shall we give him?". I replied "Don't you think it better to find out whether he is guilty or not?". "Guilty?", he said, "of course, he's guilty. His colonel would never have sent him here unless he was guilty." These irregularities do take place.
I have read this case as well as I could. I have noticed a number of curious facts. I noticed one which my noble friend Lord Champion left out. One would have thought that Swabey invited this one man out for a purpose. He did not. He invited all his officers, and the others could not go because they happened to be on duty. I find the evidence extraordinarily unsatisfactory. I have never heard before of the things that happened when the men got back on ship being treated as corroboration. There was no corroboration. The only possible corroboration could have come from the driver of the taxi, and he did not give it, or some of the other officers. There was no corroboration whatever.
I really do not see why there should be opposition to an inquiry. Who is it going to hurt? Why should it be refused?
842
It will not cast any slur on the court-martial. It might be said that it is a slur to have a court of appeal, but I assure the House that there are a great many people who are gravely dissatisfied. I have myself a relative an Admiral, who after reading the case very carefully is convinced that an injustice has been done. I am convinced that in the interests of justice there should be a full inquiry. I ask who is going to be damaged, if there is a full inquiry? People often make mistakes, and I have known of several cases in the Army and the Navy where justice has had to wait a very long time because of a certain obstinacy, due perhaps to Departmental loyalties. I hope that this Motion will be accepted by the Government.
8.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have never had the privilege of serving in the Admiralty. The closest I have got to any naval experience was to serve as a member of the Naval Court-Martial Committee, whose Report, I think the noble Marquess will find, was only published after this court-martial, and therefore it would have been rather extraordinary if, in the conduct of that court-martial, there had been complete compliance with all the recommendations of that Report.
I first came into contact with this matter when my noble friend Lord Carrington asked me to look at the record of the proceedings. I undertook to do that, though it was no part of my function as Attorney General. I hope no one will think that I was in any way affected by any Departmental loyalty to the Admiralty or anything of that sort. I hope, also, that your Lordships know me sufficiently well to know that if I had felt any real doubt about the conclusions of that court-martial and about whether there was anything wrong with that trial, I would not have hesitated to say so at that time, even if I had been in a minority of one.
I read that trial with great care and formed a view of it then. Before the debate in 1963, I read the whole proceedings again and saw no reason to change my mind. Very little has been said tonight—in fact, I think only one thing—which was not raised in the course of that debate. First of all, there is the question of whether or not there should have been a preliminary investigation. We are

843
told that many Admirals, no doubt relying on their recollections, think that a preliminary investigation was absolutely invaluable. I was chided by the noble Marquess, who was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to criticise the speech I made, for the observations I made on it. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, did not give me notice that he intended to criticise my comment and then he cited from my speech, and contrasted these quotations with the statements he had obtained from the Admiral. He then politely said he left it to your Lordships whom to believe.
The information I have, from official sources it is true, is that a preliminary investigation is required by Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions in the case of offences by ratings only. Ratings may be tried summarily or by court-martial. The formal preliminary investigation makes it possible to determine which course is appropriate. Officers can be tried only by court-martial. A preliminary investigation may be held in their case: that is to say, there is nothing in the Regulations to stop it, if the captain is uncertain whether there is any matter in the allegations to be tried.
It is complained that there was no preliminary investigation here. There was no breach of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions in not having one. It is said that, because one was not held, Swabey had no knowledge of the case and how it was to be presented against him. But in a naval court-martial, unlike a military court-martial, what is called a circumstantial letter has to be handed to the accused before the trial commences. I am under the impression—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong; I have not been able to check it from the records that I have—that in this case the circumstantial letter was handed to Swabey or his advisers some fortnight before the case started.
I now come to the actual case itself. A Naval court-martial of this kind consists of members of the highest standing in the Navy; they are all senior and experienced officers. I think that is a matter which ought to be borne in mind. I think it is the case also (the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has, I know, great experience of court-martial cases; and I have sat as Judge
844
Advocate, I suppose, on a few hundred of them in the Army), as with most tribunals, if not all, that when there is a question of guilt or innocence of an individual they lean over backwards to avoid, if possible, finding a conclusion of guilty, because no human being wants to condemn another human being on a serious charge which may, as, indeed, it did in this case, result in the ruin of his professional career, unless he is absolutely satisfied of the guilt. I found courts-martial, which have always enjoyed, I think, a great reputation for fairness, to take the same course. Yet it is said and alleged—and there is no real foundation for it—first of all, that those senior experienced Naval officers were prejudiced against Commander Swabey, because they had heard gossip that some six years before he had been tried before a court-martial and had been acquitted. I find it very difficult to attach any importance to that. If any one of those senior captains had heard that, I cannot for one moment believe that the information would prejudice him against the accused.
Having said that the court was prejudiced against him because they knew of this fact, the criticism then turns round and says, "Of course, the court-martial could not decide whether this was corroboration or not, because they were not told of his previous acquittal". The only people who could have informed the court of that were the defence. They chose not to do so. A prosecutor conducting a prosecution would have no right to bring before a court the fact that a man had previously been before a court-martial and acquitted. This was no doubt a difficult decision for the defence to make, whether to bring it out or not. The accused was defended by a very experienced barrister, and he decided, in his wisdom, not to do so.
So far as the court is concerned, submit that two things, as I see it from the record, are certainly not established. The first is that any member of the court knew of this previous acquittal; and, secondly, there is no ground for supposing, if any member of the court did know, that he was in the least prejudiced against the accused, or likely to be. It was open to the accused to object to any member of the court if he wished. He did not do so.

845
Then, it is said, secondly, that this previous acquittal by a court-martial tainted Havers's mind and made him regard some conduct on the part of the accused as homosexual, when in fact it was not. That charge was made at an early stage in this matter. Naturally, when looking through the shorthand note, and reading it with care, one looked to see whether that was a possible view. I do not want to go into specific details, but it is right to tell your Lordships, as I said in the course of the last debate, that there was one incident alleged to have occurred before the events in the taxi-cab, which, if it occurred at all, was beyond doubt of a homosexual character. There could be no mistake about it, and it is recorded there in the shorthand note in the evidence given by Lieutenant Havers. That incident he could not have imagined: it either took place, or it did not.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, does the noble and learned Viscount not agree that he is the very man whose evidence has to be corroborated right through?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am coming to the question of corroboration, if the noble Lord will allow me. I am trying to deal with this argument as shortly as I can, and it will take longer if the noble Lord diverts me on to matters to which I am coming. I was dealing with the point of this particular evidence, where it is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that because Havers knew of Swabey's acquittal his mind was prejudiced, and that explained why, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, Havers thought the conduct was homosexual. The point I was making on that was that one incident in the course of that evening, before the events in the taxi-cab, as testified to by Lieutenant Havers, was of such a character that, if it occurred at all, there was no room for doubt as to its homosexuality. I was going on from that to say that this could not be imagined: it was either invented, or it was true. If it was a falsehood, it was clear perjury. If this evidence of what happened in the taxi-cab was false, that was perjury, too, of a most serious kind, affecting another officer.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount say what it was?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Sit down!
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Viscount should say what it was.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I can show the noble Lord the passage; but it is of an indecent kind, and I do not think there can be any dispute about it. I do not think I need to go into the detail; it is there, and the noble Lord can see it. I have no prejudice in this matter. The last thing I want to see is anyone wrongly convicted. I want to go on with this if I may.
We now come to the trial itself. The evidence was given by Lieutenant Havers, and it was cross-examined to. The taxi-driver was called as a witness for the prosecution. My noble friend Lord Salisbury made great play with this, as he is perfectly entitled to. But I must say that, as the accusation of this conduct alleged to have taken place in a taxi cab was made, I should have thought it the duty, whatever the noble Marquess might say, of the prosecution to put that witness before the court, or to see that that witness gave evidence. I do not know what that witness was supposed to say: I can only read the record of his evidence. As I said last time, if his evidence was accepted by the court, it was very strong evidence for the defence. And, as I said last time, and I repeat, it must always, must it not, be for the court to say whether or not they believe a witness, having heard him, having seen his demeanour? Questions of fact are daily decided by juries. Juries daily have to decide conflicts of evidence, and have to make up their minds whom to believe. We leave that function to them; we leave the function of deciding questions of fact to courts-martial. The only point I was making on the last occasion was that, as I see it, if the court accepted the evidence of the taxi-driver it told more strongly for the defence, but if they did not accept it, then it did not tell at all, either way. That is entirely for them.
Now I come to the question of corroboration. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that there was no corroboration in this case. The Courts-Martial Appeal Court, presided over by Lord Goddard held—and that is all they had to do to decide on this point—that there was evidence which, if it was accepted by the

847
Court-martial, amounted to corroboration. The noble Marquess is quite wrong in thinking that the Court of Criminal Appeal or the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, when they have to decide matters of that sort, have to express an opinion on the value of the evidence. The noble Marquess made a great point of the fact—if I got it down correctly—that the Appeal Court did not share the view of the court-martial.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say they did not share: I said that they did not say they shared it. What they did was to say that the court-martial were entitled to take a certain view.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That is because the noble Marquess does not appreciate the different functions of the two courts. What the Courts-Martial Appeal Court have to decide is whether the court-martial, on the evidence before them, were entitled to take that view The Court-Martial Appeal Court do not have to evaluate the evidence. Of course they did not say that they shared the view, because it would have been quite wrong for them to do so. No Courts-Martial Appeal Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal will say that, because they have not heard the evidence. All they have to say is whether particular evidence, if accepted by the court-martial—or, if you like, by a jury—if believed by them, would amount to corroboration. And that they held here. It was not just corroboration which depended upon his agitation: it was corroboration, if accepted by the jury, by reason of his whole conduct immediately after this particular incident.
So far as the court-martial were concerned, and so far as the record of the trial was concerned, it is significant that there was no evidence there of any indignant denial being made by Commander Swabey. It is, I should have thought, significant. It is a matter for naval officers to determine as to the kind of action that a captain-designate of a ship would be likely to take if falsely accused by a junior officer of homosexual conduct. Would it really make any difference if he had been previously acquitted on such a charge? I should have thought not.
848
But in resolving this conflict of evidence between Havers and Swabey, the court may perhaps have been assisted by some things that Swabey said in cross-examination. A Lieutenant Hare, who was First Lieutenant in the ship, testified that an evening or so after the events which gave rise to the charge Swabey had come to him and asked him two questions. They were: "What did I do on return on board", and, "What did I say on return on board?" Swabey was cross-examined, and perfectly properly, with regard to that. He said that he did not think his memory was imperfect, although it certainly was not perfect. The trial record goes on:
"Q. If it was not imperfect, how do you account for the questions you asked Lieutenant Hare on the Tuesday after this, 'What did I do on return on board? What did I say on return on board?'
A. I never said I said those questions.
Q. Lieutenant Hare said you did. Is he wrong?
A. I do not think so.
Q. Well, did you or did you not?
A. I wanted to find out.
Q. Just answer my questions. Did you ask him what you did on return on board? Did you or did you not?
A. It is quite likely I did ask him.
Q. Did you ask him, 'What did I say when I returned on board?'
A. No, Sir, I do not think so. I cannot remember exactly.
Q. And Hare is mistaken, is he?
A. He could be.
Q. The fact of the matter is that you have very little recollection of what happened on that evening after leaving the City Gem?
A. I suppose so, Sir."
Well, my Lords, the court had that evidence before them and they were entitled to take it into account.
I do not want to take up too long on this subject and I hope I am not taking up too much of your Lordships' time, but I have been criticised for what I said in that debate and I can assure your Lordships that I should have been very glad if I had been able to reach the conclusion that there was any ground for saying that something had gone wrong in this trial. Anyone who has taken part in it has really been attacked: the members of the court; the Judge Advocate—attacked in this House to-night,

849
despite the fact that the Court-Martial Appeal Court praised his conduct; the prosecutor, for making observations which I must say I thought were perfectly proper. Everyone who has had anything to do with this case, including myself, has been attacked.
My Lords, I have seen, I think, everything that has been sent round since the case was decided. I see no ground for altering my view. I say that with regret. It is always, of course, possible for a court to come to a wrong conclusion on a question of fact. We, who do not see the witnesses, who do not hear them, have to remember that we may get a very different impression indeed of what has taken place from just seeing the shorthand note. Here there were senior officers who heard the evidence, and despite all that has been said about them and about their being prejudiced, I, for one, find it difficult to believe, and I certainly am not prepared to assume, that they did anything but endeavour to discharge their duty to the best of their ability.
This Motion comes to your Lordships' House for the second time and, I think, raises a really serious constitutional issue. We in this House really cannot re-try cases by debate. And yet is that not really what we are being asked to do—or at least to say in a debate that a prima facie case for something having gone wrong has been made out? I doubt myself whether it is right for us, as a debating Chamber, to take upon ourselves the burden of reviewing the decisions of a jury or of a court on questions of fact. And it is not right for us to do so when the whole legal process has been exhausted. I took this view when I last spoke, but I do not stand on that—and I went into the matter in some detail to satisfy your Lordships, if I could, that the verdict was one which was supported by the evidence and that nothing appeared from the record to have gone wrong.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I just finish. It is, I think, significant. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to look at this matter quite independently, and I did. He formed his own
850
views. Now the Government have changed and the Minister responsible has formed his own view, quite independently, and it is the same as that which we expressed. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has been asked to look at it and consider his own opinion. My Lords, I understand that we are all in agreement. No Party considerations come into this; it is a question of the administration of justice, and I say to your Lordships, with the utmost sincerity, that, despite all the criticisms, despite what has been said in this great campaign—for that is what it has been—I can find no ground on which I can say the conclusion of this court was wrong.
9.19 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has reminded us that in this debate most of the arguments have been heard before, though indeed some new and weighty considerations have been brought before us, and perhaps some of your Lordships will ask, as he has suggested, why is it that this case refuses to die. Some of your Lordships will remember the last debate which we had in March, 1963, when I think it would be true to say that the bulk of your Lordships who were present, apart from those who took an active part in the debate, came to it with minds utterly new to the facts and that their judgment was formed on the basis of what was put before them then.
What made this debate and its decision all the more remarkable, I think, was that 35 voted for the Motion and it was lost by only one vote. It was, however, lost and therefore it might reasonably have been expected that your Lordships' House would not hear of it again; and it is therefore equally remarkable that you are having this case presented to you again to-night. During the two and a half years that have elapsed since that first debate, the strength of the appeal that underlies this Motion has not diminished. Why, I ask, will it refuse to die?
This fact is not due only to the individual or the family concerned. It is, of course, true that because over the whole nine years since the first events took place Commander Swabey's determination to vindicate his innocence has not wavered he has given some clear proof

851
of his own conviction. I do not need to stress, though I know well, what it has cost him and his family. He has been prepared to face, and even invite, public exposure of facts or debates in a matter from which anyone would shrink, the interruption of his own career, the great cost in which it has involved his family and it has certainly robbed him of his own peace of mind. All this is true.
We know that there are many unhappy people in the world whose own situation has become such an obsession upon them, who have lived with it so long, who have felt such a sense of persecution that they cannot get outside it and are prepared to persist against all reason. We are not dealing with that kind of case here. But the fact that this appeal has been renewed in your Lordships' House is due not to Swabey or his family. It is due to the fact that many of your Lordships were so impressed by the case as you have come to see it that you have felt bound to uphold this appeal. I must declare an interest here, since I have known Commander Swabey and his family for a full seven years. I know what they are like, I know what it has meant to them, and I was aware from the very start of the strong conviction of Bishop Bell, a very distinguished Member of this House as of the Bishop's Bench, one who certainly had not only a large heart but a very clear mind, who was also convinced that injustice had been done. His plea in his correspondence with the Admiralty—and certainly mine would be the same—was not based on any personal consideration for the man concerned or his family, his Naval background or the like; it was based on the sheer facts of the case and the genuine query about the justice of the decision.
And that has been true of other people who have been drawn into this from time to time. They are not personally or directly involved in his situation. Many have signified that they have come to this as the facts have been brought to them from elsewhere. Many are men of a distinguished Naval career who feel concern not only for the fate of the individual but for the honour of the Navy, and they, too, have persisted in their support in the face of a great deal of discouragement, just because it was a matter that concerned not only an individual. I hope that, in spite of the
852
lateness of the hour and the necessity for repetition, your Lordships will bear with those who plead for your consideration and support.
The charge which brought his career to an end and has damaged his own good name concerns, as you will remember, behaviour as between one man and another. All homosexual conduct contains an element of vice, a very grave clement if vice, about which we should all feel deeply, as recent debates in this House have indicated. While we may hold differing views about the place of the law in this, I hope it will never be said that our views differ about the gravity of this conduct, and it must be viewed with special gravity within the context of Service life. None of us would wish to encourage anything that would undermine the moral strength or integrity of these men, younger or older, who are engaged in the service of their country and in the special circumstances of naval life; and anything, therefore, which involves even the suspicion of such conduct is bound to call up strong reactions. This has been said, and we must accept it. I would have said for the very same reason, that it is most important that the danger of undue prejudice should be guarded against where these suspicions arise. This would be especially true in the closer community of a Service where the individual charged can hardly expect to have his case heard with the same anonymity as in a civil court.
But the strength of the Service, as we are thinking of it, or of any institution or community, does not depend only on the moral conduct of individuals: it depends also on justice. It depends upon the fact that those who are its members can be certain that they can have full access to the law; that their cause will be heard without the intrusion of any circumstances outside the actual case, and that any treatment meted out to them will be such as can convince the world that it is justice and that justice has been seen to be done.
About this particular case—and we come back, and back again, to this point—there seem, to so many of us, a number of disquieting features. I am not going back to them—they have been put before the House most forcefully by other speakers. I am not in a position to judge the weight of each one of them. I can

853
only express my own personal opinion, as indeed many others of your Lordships can. But I believe that the grounds for disquiet are strong enough for us to question whether justice has indeed been done.
This Motion is not asking to pre-judge this issue; it is claiming simply that the issue is such that it cannot be answered without a fuller and impartial inquiry. But this matter has dragged on for nine years, a very heavy ordeal for Mr. Swabey himself, and for his family—all the more so because during this period his hopes have been raised and delays have ensued. I have formed the impression that many, at least, of those who are in a position of authority and have had this case brought before them, are themselves uneasy. They have not been able to bring themselves to the point of taking action. But I believe that many of them remain uneasy. May I quote again a part of that letter which I quoted before, written to Bishop Bell in 1958 by the then first Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Selkirk:
"I would like to add this, for an offence of this nature I regard this incident as minimal. I have not formed the impression that there was necessarily any intention to commit an offence on going ashore, nor would it appear to me that there was any intention of doing anything more serious than the offence actually committed."
His words were:
"I regard this offence as … minimal".
I can well understand that phrase.
The charges made by the sublieutenant involved were set out in great detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, from the Woolsack in the last debate. He made a long and impressive speech, which I am sure had great effect upon his hearers. I would have said that the weakest part of his speech—and it was a part for which he could not but be responsible himself—was when he came to describe the actual charges, these uncorroborated charges, made by the sub-lieutenant. He has referred tonight to one incident in which, whatever it may have been, it was one man's word against another. He has referred to a number of other suggestions, or acts which were suggested. It is difficult to estimate any conduct if you look at the act itself—a look, a nod, a hand, can mean many different things in different circumstances.
854
The actions of which Commander Swabey was accused were themselves minimal indeed; and it is only the colour of suspicion which has been cast upon them by Sub-Lieutenant Havers which has given them the weight which they have since assumed. There has been built up on this small foundation a penalty so grave in itself as to be surely disturbing to anyone who loves justice. It was a penalty inflicted on one who, from his family tradition, from the testimony of his own comrades in the Service, from his own personal choice, had made the Navy his life, and who clearly wished for nothing more than to spend his life in its service. That was enough cause for unease in itself, but the unease to which I have referred derives not only from that but from the surrounding circumstances of the case, the aura with which it was invested. It is not on grounds of compassion—though they might well be strong if he wished to plead them—but on grounds of justice that we would appeal for a full review.
If such a review, when held, upheld the decision of the courts, then I should be the first to say to Commander Swabey, as to any others who, however convinced of their innocence, could not prove it, that he must bear it like a man and must try as best he could to remake his life in some other way. But if such an inquiry, as I would anticipate, might cast doubt on the decision, might do something to vindicate him, then not only could he hold up his own head in the full recognition of his innocence, but his case would be an example that, however costly and painful the process would be, the Navy itself and the country which it serves, is determined that none of its members or its citizens shall go without the fullest measure of justice which we can afford them. It is in the hope that, by such an inquiry, by an exposure of the full facts, from which, I think, he must naturally shrink, his innocence can be established, Commander Swabey has been sustained over these years; but his hope has been deferred often enough to make the heart very sick.
In the same letter to Dr. Bell which I have quoted, Lord Selkirk stated, I would remind you, that the possibility of referring the matter back to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court remained open.

855
And again, in a further letter to Dr. Bell written a month later, he said:
"I confirm our willingness that the case should be the subject of a special reference to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and that the petition, together with any further submission Swabey's legal advisers can make, would be made available to the court."
Nobody can bind his successors, but this was an honourable undertaking on his part, and I consider that—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is aware, as indeed I am that the reason the matter was not referred to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court—I think that the right reverend Prelate's predecessor was so informed—was that, under the Act, it could not be referred unless the Admiralty thought that there was something wrong, which they did not.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: It is perfectly true that they looked at it but did not refer it. It is part of the basis of our contention that they ought so to have done. Within a few months of this submission Bishop Bell himself died. I am sure that had he been here he would have presented the substance of his own dealings with the Admiralty very much more forcibly than I can. But others have not died, and the persistent appeal has remained.
It will be claimed that the Admiralty or the Government have reviewed the matter again recently, but certainly they have not done so either in terms which were then promised or in terms which would produce the kind of inquiry which alone can establish convincingly to us whether in that verdict of 1956 a young officer in the Navy has had the opportunity of justice which we should wish all citizens to be able to claim. That was nine years ago, and it is right out of our memory and perhaps right out of our concern, but it is in the memory and before the face of one man and he lives with it. I hope, deeply, that your Lordships will be sufficiently moved by what you have heard to-night, or know already, to give him an opportunity of removing that shadow from his life.
9.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, I think it is high time that a member of the Armed Forces, who is still serving on the active list, took some part in this debate. There is a very great deal of lobbying going on behind the scenes about this case. So much is that the case that there may be a danger that the fundamentals in the dispute are lost sight of, and it is those fundamentals which I should like to put to your Lordships to-night.
I have spent some weeks in examining all the papers in connection with this case—the affidavits, the petitions, the complete transcript of the proceedings in the court-martial, and, very important, Swabey's petition to the Sovereign. I have very considerable experience of courts-martial at the sharp end, and my personal experience, having sat as a member and as president, is that the president and members of the court will do all they can to try to establish the facts, to determine the real truth, and they will always give the accused the benefit of any doubt.
I will not weary the House by going over all the details of the court, but I should like to make a few remarks about the court itself. The trial was ordered by Admiral Sir Guy Grantham, who was Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean at that time—an officer of the highest honour and integrity; I know him very well and he is incapable of any malicious prejudice against anybody—and the court was composed of three post-Captains, two Commanders and two Lieutenants, which is a very good cross-section of experienced naval officers below Flag rank. The accused was asked whether he had any objection to any of those officers sitting as members, and he was further asked whether he had any objection to make regarding the constitution of the court. To both of those questions he said, "No". That is on page 7 of the proceedings. In all cases where the accused's friend asked about what particular procedure was to be adopted, that was agreed. A case in point would be severing the first charge from the other two. As your Lordships know, there were three charges and I shall not bother about the second and third. I should like to deal at some length with the first charge, which was the most serious and which was indecent assault or homosexuality.

857
I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that, under cross-examination by the prosecutor, which is on page 88 of the proceedings, Swabey admitted that if what Sub-Lt. Havers had said about his actions in the bars and in the taxi were true—if that were true—it would amount to indecent assault on his part. That was also admitted by the defence counsel in his final address to the court. It thus becomes a matter of who was speaking the truth. The members of the court have to decide who is speaking the truth, when the witnesses appear personally before them to give their evidence. In all that matter, the members of the court have to use their knowledge of human nature and their military knowledge—using the word "military" in its widest sense. They have to do that in reflecting on all the circumstances; and then give their individual opinions, the junior member always being asked first what his opinion is and the senior member last. In view of all that, the court decided that the sub-lieutenant was speaking the truth, and Swabey was convicted on that first charge.
I think the question now to be answered is: did Swabey have a fair trial? That is important: did he have a fair trial? It has been suggested that the court was prejudiced against the accused. I think that such a suggestion is absolutely monstrous, and it can serve only to undermine confidence in justice as administered in the Armed Forces. That is all it can do. To read, to re-read and to read again the transcript of the proceedings of the court-martial, covering 170 pages, takes time; but it has got to be done. It has got to be done if you want to be satisfied about the fairness or otherwise of the trial. There is no other way of doing it. I have so read the proceedings, and it is my view that Swabey had a completely fair trial on that day. It has been suggested that there was no corroborative evidence to support the evidence of the sub-lieutenant, but the court had to consider the behaviour of Swabey on board after leaving the taxi, and this appears to me to support the case for the prosecution, because, when you read the whole case, it was the behaviour of a man with a guilty conscience.
Now we must go to Swabey's petition to the Sovereign, which was dated March,
858
1957. In that petition to the Sovereign he relates the circumstances of his trial by court-martial in January, 1950, when, as has been stated, he was convicted of a charge of conduct unbecoming an officer because of his relations in the wheelhouse of H.M.S. "Rowena" with two able seamen, West and Baker. It is true that that conviction was subsequently quashed and the sentence set aside. I should now like to take your Lordships through some of the statements contained in the petition to the Sovereign, because it is very important.
On pages 3 and 4 of his petition Swabey pleads that his actions on return to the ship on the night of March 23, 1956, were due entirely to what he calls his "agony of mind". He had stood trial for offences involving indecency six years previously. He was now being falsely charged with homosexuality. He remembered (I am now giving his own words in the petition) "the pain and disgrace" which had clung to him in 1950, in spite of the quashing of the conviction, and his resentment; and he urged in his petition that his conduct on board that night was solely due to the fact that he had been—and these are his own words—"through all this before". If the sub-lieutenant persisted in his allegations he (Swabey) faced inevitable ruin. And he pleaded that these actions were entirely consistent with innocence and not with guilt, as had been decided by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
Now, Swabey's counsel decided not to introduce the circumstances of the 1950 court-martial as part of the defence; and some may consider this an error of judgment. But, whether or not it was an error of judgment, I find it difficult to believe that a senior officer, who had been "through all this before" would not, when faced with this accusation, have indignantly denied it and taken immediate action in respect of what was, if he was innocent, a gross and entirely false charge made by a junior officer. He never denied the charge when he arrived on board. He merely said: "Take that back, Havers."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
May I interrupt the noble and gallant Viscount?
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: I should like to finish—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
The noble and gallant Viscount will not give way. He has his speech already written.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: Why did he not order Havers to his cabin and place him under arrest? That is what he ought to have done. That is how I, personally, would see it.
There is another point not mentioned to-night by any noble Lord. Can you imagine the captain-to-be of a ship on arrival in Malta going ashore that evening with a young sub-lieutenant and drinking with him for five hours in bars? I cannot imagine it. All the circumstances have been examined and reviewed by the highest legal authorities in the Navy, by the political head of the Navy and his Sea Lords, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, by two eminent Judges and by the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. The matter was fully debated in your Lordships' House in March, 1963, and a Motion for reexamination of the case was turned down—admittedly, by only one vote. If we continue to debate this matter in your Lordships' House I consider it will be bad for discipline in the Armed Forces and it will be liable to undermine confidence in the justice of courts-martial in the Fighting Services. Furthermore, having in view all the facts, it tends to bring into disrepute the high prestige of your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord who moved this Motion decides to divide the House to-night, I will certainly go into the Division Lobby against him.
9.48 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, as many of your Lordships know, I spoke in support of the Motion on this matter which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on March 19, 1963. I do not intend to repeat what I said then, but I must rise to-night to support my noble friend, because I still feel strongly that there were matters which were prejudicial to Swabey's receiving a fair trial. I wish to draw your Lordships attention to one point, and that is the absence of any preliminary or summary inquiry before the court-martial. This matter was discussed at length during the
860
last debate, and I have had some correspondence with my noble friend.
I do not wish to go into the quibble about what Q.R. & A.I. actually mean. Some people say that the paragraph in question refers only to ratings and marines and not to officers. Some, like myself and others, think it clearly refers to officers too. I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time going over that ground again—it is really not necessary in respect to what I have to say, because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, in effect, that a summary inquiry could be held if those responsible thought it necessary. In fact, no such inquiry was held, as I will show in a few minutes.
Before I do that, as I do not wish to stand here under any false pretences, and as my noble and gallant friend has talked about lobbying, may I say that I have been lobbied by nobody. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to speak in the last debate and I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, to speak in this debate. In the last debate I said that I had never met any of Swabey's family and that is still true to-day. I also said that I had never met Swabey. I have now met Swabey. I sent for him this time last year when, your Lordships will remember, there was a Motion on the Order Paper, which was subsequently withdrawn, in the name of my noble friend Lord Salisbury.
I sent for Swabey for one reason only. I wanted to question him closely about what happened when he got back on board the "Redoubt" late—11.30 o'clock, I think it was—on that night in March, in Malta. I questioned him and I made a most careful record, almost a year ago, of what he told me. I do not propose to repeat it to your Lordships to-night, but I want briefly to recount that the first lieutenant of the ship and the midshipman behaved quite properly, and the captain, Lieutenant-Commander Davidson was recalled from his house ashore. He arrived on board at 1.30 a.m. He saw the first lieutenant and the rating, and somebody said that Swabey and the sub-lieutenant had turned in. The captain did not see them. He took statements from the first lieutenant and the rating.
What did he do then? At 2.30 a.m. he made a signal to base, St. Angelo,

861
asking for accommodation for an officer in the morning and for a boat to be sent for him at 7.30. In the statement which I have seen, by Lieutenant-Commander Davidson, since our last debate, he says that he did not see Swabey or the sub-lieutenant that night because he had been told that they returned on board drunk and were not in a fit condition to be seen. He did not trouble to satisfy himself whether the statement was true. He made a signal for a boat and for accommodation. He called Swabey at 6.30 the next morning and told him that he was disembarking him to St. Angelo. Swabey protested vehemently. He was never confronted with his accuser, but was sent off in a boat to St. Angelo at 7.30. When he arrived at St. Angelo he was placed under arrest—I do not know under whose orders. Later that morning he was taken back to "Redoubt" under arrest and brought before the commanding officer, and then, on advice, when asked if he had anything to say, he said nothing. He still was not confronted with Havers, but there and then his baggage was searched, a most humiliating procedure. He was sent ashore at 7.30 in the morning, put under arrest, brought back to the ship under arrest, and still there had not been any proper inquiry. His baggage was searched, they say for pornographic literature.
My Lords, you can imagine that happening in the case of a small ship, and in a small place like Malta. The port was pretty well humming by this time. Signals had to be made from one of the senior officers in Malta to the "Redoubt", telling Sub-Lieutenant Havers and others to keep their mouths shut about the case. General Signals in Malta or any other naval base are pretty widely read. Swabey, of course, committed a grave error, a great foolishness, in not remaining awake, dressed, in order to meet his captain, who he must have known would be returning on board. He turned in. Personally I think it was a very foolish thing to do.
I have considerable sympathy for Lieutenant-Commander Davidson, the captain of the "Redoubt", when he returned on board at 1.30 in the morning to face this dreadful situation. I have not had to face the same situation, but as first lieutenant and captain of a small ship in the central Mediterranean, when
862
nasty things happened in the middle of the night, I have been got on deck to deal with them. I can well imagine that Lieutenant-Commander Davidson found himself faced with a difficult problem, but I must say that, in my opinion, he was guilty of a serious error of judgment. Instead of seeing these men, and what state they were in, he signalled to St. Angelo and sent Swabey away at 7.30 in the morning.
I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time. I have examined carefully this critical period between midnight and 7.30 a.m. and questioned Swabey, and nothing that he said conflicts with the other statements I have seen. I wrote this all out and sent it to a distinguished admiral, who I know has been worried about this case and, in particular, about the point I have been hammering to-night. Here is what he wrote back to me:
"Where Davidson was wrong was in landing Swabey without giving him a chance to refute the sub-Lieutenant's charges to his face and to question him about them. This omission was highly prejudicial to Swabey and labelled him as guilty from the start."
I feel that I cannot put my feelings better or more bitterly than that, and that is the main reason, though not the only one, why I support by noble friend in this Motion.
9.58 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I have not been lobbied either. I want to spend only one moment in examining the question of what Commander Swabey has to hope for, if the efforts on his behalf this evening should prove successful. It is what we call a free pardon. It is not a pardon in the ordinary sense of that term, which denotes forgiveness for a crime which has been committed. What a free pardon, in this technical sense, means is best described in a single sentence in a text book called The Home Office by Sir Frank Newsom, who was Permanent Under-Secretary of State in the years up to 1957. He says this:
"A free pardon wipes out not only the sentence or penalty but the conviction and all its consequences, and from the time it is granted places the person pardoned in exactly the same position as if he had never been convicted."
This quaint expression, "free pardon", comes down to us from our ancestors

863
who, before the beginning of the 19th century, held so precious the notion of the infallibility of the courts that they would not publicly admit that a miscarriage of justice was a possibility. Thus a free pardon was a device whereby justice of a kind could ultimately be done to an injured convicted person without openly damaging the reputation of the courts. But now we do publicly recognise that a miscarriage of justice in the courts can take place—although, fortunately, it is a very rare event.
I raised this point in the previous debate, and the then Lord Chancellor was kind enough to deal with the point specifically. He said this:
"… the word 'pardon' may be considered perhaps in some degree inappropriate. At the same time. I do not think there is really any evidence that those who are the fortunate recipients of a free pardon do not know that it means that the conviction and all its consequences are wiped out …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 1107, March 19, 1963.]
With that I entirely agree. Of course the recipient knows what his free pardon means; and of course learned people in Whitehall and in Lincoln's Inn know what it means. But if I were to be granted a free pardon after a miscarriage of justice, what would concern me would be: what do my neighbours at home think it means? What does the milkman think it means? And what will my cousins in Australia think it means, when they come to hear of it? Therefore, I should hope that if Commander Swabey is ultimately going to receive an acquittal under the Royal Prerogative, it will be possible to say so in those terms. The reform of the criminal law is very much in the air in this Chamber at the present time, and I hope that henceforward we shall be able to dispense for ever with the expression "free pardon", which does not mean what it says.
10.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am not going to apologise to your Lordships for taking a few more minutes of your time on this case. The reputation of an officer who has served his country with great gallantry for many years is at stake, and that of a family whose service in the Navy over the last century has earned them the right to have full justice done, if it has not already been done. Therefore, I think it is only right that anyone
864
who has formed a strong view about this case should express his opinion in your Lordships' House.
This, as the noble and learned Viscount said, is not in any sense of the term a question of Party politics. If I find myself differing in this matter from the Government formed by the Party to which I belong, my conscience requires me to say that I think they have come to a wrong conclusion about this; that the conclusion which most of them formed when they were sitting on the Benches on the opposite side of the House, when they were not, so to speak, shackled by the weight of office, was the right one; and I am sorry to find that, now that they are so shackled, they have changed their view. We must, however, vote in the way that our consciences tell us is right.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I hope he will not suggest that those who are now members of the Government, and who took a different view last time, are less guided by conscience than he is. I hope he will listen to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and then he will see why some of us—although with great difficulty in this sad case—are supporting the line that has been put by my noble friend Lord Champion, and will be put by the Lord Chancellor.
LORD CHORLEY: If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack can make out a case, then I shall be the first to accept it and to change the opinion that I have already formed. All I can say at the moment is that none of the arguments that have been put forward to support this has begun to persuade me; and I am sorry that that should be the case.
I came into this Chamber on the occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, moved a similar Motion, having heard nothing whatever about this case. I listened to the debate from beginning to end. I listened to the sort of special pleading which over the last fortnight we have come to expect from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. If there had been any doubts in my mind, he would have completely removed them. It was a speech for the

865
prosecution, if ever I have heard one in all the time I have been a magistrate and practised in courts of law.
When I heard that this matter was to come forward again, I decided that I should be here, because probably some arguments in favour of this disastrous decision which was given might be forthcoming. The previous debate caused a great deal of disquiet. I remember very well people who had read the account of the debate coming to me during the weeks following and saying that they were very disturbed that this could have happened. Before I came to your Lordships' House to-night I was at a meeting in the Middle Temple and explained to some of my legal friends that I must leave because this debate was coming on. They remembered the case at once, and I think, without any exception, expressed the same sort of view. If that is the view which is held by the community, and not only by the general community but by lawyers in the Temple, surely it is right, and the Government ought to agree that a further inquiry into it should take place.
I heard that my noble friend Lord Champion had changed his mind. That was the first intimation I had had that the Government were going to fall in behind the last Government. I then expected that the noble Lord would tell me the reasons why he had changed his mind, because those reasons might be reasons which would cause me to change my mind. All he did was to say that he had considered the case very carefully and changed his mind. In courts of appeal—and, to an extent, the noble Lord has been in the position of a member of the court of appeal in this case—it is the absolute rule that you should give the reasons why you are disagreeing from the judgment from the court below. I should have thought that the noble Lord would have explained why he had changed has mind.
I quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was in a difficult position, having moved this Motion on a previous occasion. I find it very difficult indeed to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has changed his mind, because after the last debate I discussed it with him on at least two occasions, and in some detail. At that time his mind was decisively made up that there had been a miscarriage of justice in this case, and,
866
indeed, he said that he hoped further evidence would be forthcoming which would enable us to bring this case before your Lordships again. In fact it has been brought to-night. It is very difficult to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, has in fact changed his mind.
Surely the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is right when he says that this is really a lining up of the political authorities behind the officers in Whitehall. It is for us to see that justice is done. Fiat justitia, even if the ceiling falls at the Admiralty or in other offices in Whitehall! I thought it was typical of the way in which this case has been conducted by the prosecution against this unfortunate officer that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to some incident which is apparently in the evidence, and on which he asked us to accept his ipse dixit that if this was true that was an end to the matter—he has been asking us, not only on this side but on the other side of the House, to accept his ipse dixit over the last three weeks, and in repeated Divisions in the Division Lobby we have shown that we were not prepared to accept it—an ipse dixit as to the gravity of the case which was denied flatly by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the time in a letter quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, in which that noble Earl said that this was "minimal". One of them cannot be right. It was either this grave matter, about which the noble and learned Viscount was telling us, or it was minimal in the view of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who considered it contemporaneously and was not put up to act the part of the prosecutor, as happened in this case.
My Lords, I am quite sure that if this case had come before my court of quarter sessions in Westmorland, on the facts put before your Lordships' House this afternoon, we should have had no difficulty whatever in allowing the appeal. I am sure that would have been so in almost any civil court of appeal. This was a naval court of appeal, and I have no doubt that it is in those circumstances that the noble and gallant Viscount said they feel that the interest of the Services require that these decisions should be upheld. But surely it is much more important—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I would just remind him that the Courts-Martial Appeal Court does not consist of officers: it consists of High Court Judges, and on this occasion the then Lord Chief Justice was presiding.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not talking about the Courts-Martial Appeal Court but about the naval court. I will come to the Appeal Court in a moment. Surely it is much more important that, both in the Services and out of the Services, people should feel that justice has been done; and I have indicated that there is a grave feeling throughout the community that in this particular case justice has not been done.
The Courts-Martial Appeal Court is concerned with the question of corroboration, but in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which deals with the civil types of crime in this country, there is no case which resembles this in which it has been held that corroboration occurred in such a case. I spent half an hour in the Library before I came into your Lordships' Chamber to-night. I spent half an hour with Archbold—the practitioners' book—on this particular point. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that Swabey did not deny it. The general rule is that non-denial of an alleged offence when formally charged is not corroboration. It is quite true that there may be exceptions to that, but that is the general rule.
I was not present, and did not hear the judgments in the Courts-Martial Appeal Court proceedings, which were presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard. I have, however, frequently had cases of corroboration to consider in my court, and I have read, I think, almost every case which has ever been before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and all I can say is that there is no case on all fours with this one. I cannot challenge the decision which was come to by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, but it is a very strange case of corroboration, and certainly goes beyond any that I can find in the Law Reports.
It is an absolutely cardinal rule of English criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case against the prisoner, and has to prove it beyond any reason-
868
able doubt; and if there is any case in which that has not been made clear the Court of Criminal Appeal will certainly quash the conviction. In this case the prosecution relied on two essential witnesses. There were only two witnesses in this case whose evidence was absolutely essential, the sub-lieutenant who made the charge and the taxi-driver; and these witnesses flatly contradicted each other. They were the two witnesses for the prosecution. I cannot imagine a case in the civil courts in which a judge does not put to the jury that, if they find the two principal witnesses for the prosecution flatly contradicting each other, they should think long and carefully before convicting. Where there is anything more than reasonable doubt, the accused man is entitled to it.
I suggest that, on the facts which have been brought out to-night, and all the speeches which have been made, there is a grave doubt whether this man was properly convicted, and that, in these circumstances, the demand that a new tribunal should be set up, to go into this question and decide whether the first decision was a correct one, has been amply made out.
10.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am in the same position as several others of your Lordships in that I, by chance, was present at the whole of the debate which took place two years ago—not by choice but purely by chance. I happened to be here, realised that I was listening to something in the position of a jury, and I felt it was my duty to remain, at great inconvenience, to a late hour to hear every word that was said. And at the end of that time I, for one, voted that there should be an inquiry. I have felt that I had to come to-day once again to listen to all that was said in this matter, and I must confess that I still remain exceedingly unhappy about this matter and so far am of the opinion that one should vote for an inquiry.
I listened with great appreciation to what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said on the reasons why he changed his mind. I know he did not go into great explanation of it, which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked that he should do, but all the same I felt he did it out of conviction, and that for me is sufficient.

869
At the same time, I am gravely disquieted, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others were, that many others of the Government Bench are not here to-night and as to the reasons why they are not here. But let that be as it may.
There was one remark that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to make which caused me even further worry, and it was this. He said, if I heard aright, that we should not go forward with the inquiry in fairness to others who took part in the case. Is that a good reason why there should not be an inquiry? If I go into the Lobby on this issue, I shall not be judging the integrity of those who took part in the case. I am quite convinced they all acted in a way they thought right and proper. I do not see why, if we go into the Lobby in favour of an inquiry, it is unfair to those who took part in the case. No, my Lords, I think this would be a wholly wrong reason for our not supporting an inquiry. I await with the greatest interest the words of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and if he can adduce new reasons why there should not be an inquiry, I, for one, would be very glad but as things stand at the moment I see no other course but to support an inquiry.
10.17 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rises to speak, there is something I feel I should say to your Lordships' House. It will take only a few moments to say it. When I had the honour to succeed my noble friend Lord Carrington at the Admiralty in October some two years ago, this case was brought, and brought quite forcibly, to my attention, by, among others, my noble friend Lord Salisbury. As a result it became my duty to read the transcript of the
870
evidence given at the court martial and the associated documents in this case. I believe I had occasion to read those documents some three times.
All I wish to add to this discussion is that, as a result, I came to the same conclusion quite independently—and, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, quite unshackled—as had my noble friend Lord Carrington, and as had my successor at the Admiralty, the present Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy. I felt, in view of this long discussion, that I should, as it were, give my testimony to that effect.
10.19 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I was for four years First Lord of the Admiralty, and I think one of the very first things I had to do as First Lord was to read this case. I knew nothing whatever about it. Since then I have read it on a number of occasions. On all those occasions I came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the court-martial; but I am no lawyer and as my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, said, I asked him when Attorney General to look at this case and give me his advice. His advice I greatly value, and I greatly resent what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said this evening about my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. I greatly respected his advice and welcomed it. As Lord Dilhorne has said, he came to the same conclusion as I did. Since then, we had a debate two years ago and we have had a debate to-day; and I may say that nothing I heard on that occasion, or have heard on this occasion, has altered my mind about the rightness of that court-martial.
10.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, whether we have had any dinner or not, I am quite sure that we shall not grudge a moment of any time that may be necessary to take up this case. I come into it entirely new. I was aware that there had been some debate on this matter in your Lordships' House. But, coming into it entirely new, I was simply asked to read the papers and say what I thought.
Throughout my professional life I have always spent a fair amount of my spare time, gratuitously of course, in looking at cases in which people have said that they have been wrongly treated, mainly of course by the courts. I still correspond, or until recently corresponded, with more than one vexatious litigant; that is to say, somebody against whom the Attorney General had obtained an order as a vexatious litigant. Of course, such persons, if one succeeds in helping them, are rather more liable to spread it around that there is a "buckshee Q.C." who is willing to help for nothing. But, as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Justice, one also, of course, received sets of papers from people who complained that they had been wrongly treated; and one did one's best for them. I should not have hesitated for a moment to say so if, on reading these papers I thought that the previous Government had acted discreditably; and I had, and of course have, no possible axe to grind in any way whatsoever.
The fact that the Admiralty had gone on saying the same thing for a long time did not impress me, because, while I have the highest opinion of civil servants it is, I am afraid, a characteristic that, once having taken a view, they may go on sticking to it. That is the precise reason why Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation for the creation of a Parliamentary Commissioner. So that fact did not influence me. I just read the papers. Particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, I think I shall have to deal with the matter in a little detail, as I gather a number of your Lordships would wish me to do.
Summarising the matter shortly, what it comes to is this. This Lieutenant-Commander, having, in 1950, in Malta,
872
been charged with (1) indecent assault, (2) committing an act of gross indecency, (3) an attempted act of gross indecency, (4) conduct unbecoming the character of an officer, and (5) conduct to the prejudice of good order and Naval discipline, was convicted only on the fourth charge and acquitted on all the others. The Judge Advocate-General always reads the whole of the transcript, in order to see whether there is any ground on which he should quash the conviction, either because it is wrong in law, or because the wrong procedure has been followed, or because it is unsatisfactory. On this occasion, the conviction was quashed as being unsatisfactory, because the Judge Advocate-General did not think it right or satisfactory that Lieutenant-Commander Swabey should have been convicted on the fourth change when the witnesses to support that charge were, in substance, the same as the witnesses to the other charges. He said that evidently the court did not accept the evidence on those charges, and it was not satisfactory to accept, on the fourth charge, the evidence of witnesses whom they have not believed on the other charges. The conviction was therefore quashed.
Then, as your Lordships know, six years later, Lieutenant-Commander Swabey went back to Malta in charge of the "Redoubt", and he asked some junior officers out to dinner. It is right to make it plain that he did not simply ask the youngest of them. It was a general invitation, which Sub-Lieutenant Havers accepted and the others declined. Moreover, later in the evening they ran across another officer, one whom Lieutenant-Commander Swabey had known, and he asked him to dinner. So, on the face of it, it does not look as if he was trying to get this young man all by himself.
Apart from the conversations with the man they met, they spent together the time from about six o'clock till about eleven in the evening. They went ashore about five minutes to six, and according to Sub-Lieutenant Havers they went into one or two bars; and he complained (I mention this, because there seems to be some mystery about it; but everybody can judge for himself) that Lieutenant-Commander Swabey put his hand on his

873
knee. Here, I will read from the evidence. Sub-Lieutenant Havers said:
"He stood very close to me and leaned against me. I was sat on a stool, the highest stool in the bar, and he was leaning against me with his crutch on my knee with his hands in his pockets fiddling with himself.
(Q) What were your reactions to this?
I moved away … I didn't like what he was doing …"
Then they went to another club where, the Sub-Lieutenant said:
"… he again rested his hand on my knee occasionally but not for very long …"
Then they met this other officer and they had dinner.
Continuing his evidence, Havers said that during dinner
"I felt his leg touch mine a lot; and rubbing and moving up and down against my leg",
Havers then moved away. Asked what happened in the taxi, he said:
"Lieutenant-Commander Swabey … was sitting very close to me and his knee was rubbing up and down against mine.
(Q) What did you do?
(A) I moved away and then later just before we reached the ship he put his hand on my leg and moved it up and down in a stroking movement.
(Q) Which side of the taxi were you sitting?
(A) On the left hand side.
(Q) In the back?
(A) Yes, Sir.
(Q) … which hand did he use?
(A) His left, I should say.
(Q) … will you try and demonstrate to the court exactly what he did with his left hand? (The witness sat down and moved his hand up and down along the top part and underneath the top part of his thigh.)
(Q) What did you do as a result of that?
(A) I hit him … I swung my left fist at his face … He gave a grunt and removed his hand … I then said ' You are a homosexual'"—
and later the witness put a well-known nautical adjective in front of that.
Lieutenant-Commander Swabey says that of course a man may touch another man accidentally, as we all know happens, but that, subject to that, the whole of this story is completely and utterly untrue no such actions took place in the
874
Café or at dinner; he was asleep in the taxi; nothing of the kind happened in the taxi; no allegation was made against him in the taxi; he was not hit at all. This is therefore a case in which many things depend entirely on which of the two men is telling the truth. The court-martial convicted; the Judge Advocate-General saw no reason to quash the conviction. As the Lieutenant-Commander was entitled to do, he petitioned the Admiralty, who took no action on that. He then appealed to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, who refused leave to appeal. Ever since then complaints have been made.
The first complaint made was of a misdirection as to corroboration. It was alleged to be corroboration that, when asked about this, he said, in effect, could it not be hushed up; was it necessary for it to go any further; that if it went on there would only be a court-martial. His general conduct from the time they got back to the ship was also said to be corroboration. On that the law is not very complicated. It is that in such a case it is not necessary that there should be corroboration, but it is dangerous to convict without, and the court or a jury—because the law is the same in every case—ought to be warned that it is dangerous to convict without corroboration, though if they are sure, they can.
Further, what is capable of amounting to corroboration is a question of law. If the conduct in question is in law capable of amounting to corroboration, then whether or not it does on the facts is a matter for the court or jury to decide. The Courts-Martial Appeal Court, with the then Lord Chief Justice presiding, read the summing-up of the Judge Advocate-General and they said that it was a perfectly good summing-up of the law of corroboration. I do not want to read it all, but it makes the position quite clear. He said:
"It is, however, for you to decide whether, in fact, you accept this evidence or any part of it and, indeed, whether in your view it amounts to corroboration or not. The facts are for you. I can only advise. I must point out, however, that the accused has on oath given an innocent explanation in general of these actions in question. He has said, in effect, that they were his indignant reactions to Havers' allegations. You must therefore disbelieve his statement if you accept this evidence as corroboration. …

875
"Again, it is my duty to advise you that it is very dangerous for you to convict without corroboration should you not consider, bearing in mind what I have said and pointed out, that the evidence can be considered as corroborative. It is very dangerous for you to convict without corroboration but you can, if you are absolutely satisfied with the evidence and appreciate how easy such a charge is to bring and how difficult to refute."
He ended by saying:
"To convict of an indecent assault in this case you must be satisfied (a) that an assault took place, not just that something occurred which made Havers react; (b) that it was the accused who committed such an assault; (c) that there was no consent on the part of Havers; (d) that the accused didn't genuinely think that Havers wouldn't have minded; (e) that the assault was combined with circumstances of indecency; and (f) that the accused had an indecent intention in his mind at the time of committing the alleged offence.
"Again I must remind you that if you don't accept those parts of the evidence that I have endeavoured to point to you as amounting to corroboration, I must again remind you of the danger of convicting on uncorroborated evidence.
"Finally on this charge if you are satisfied hat there was an assault but if you are not satisfied that there were circumstances of indecency accompanying it, it is open for you to convict upon a charge of common assault, and if you consider that no offence at all took place then it would be open to you, and perhaps your pleasure, to record a finding of Not Guilty and to add that you honourably acquit the accused.
"In conclusion, may I recall to your minds that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt, and that if there is any reasonable doubt in your mind, you must give the accused the benefit of it and acquit him."
The Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which of course consists of High Court Judges—and, as I said, the former Lord Chief Justice was in fact presiding—said that there was nothing wrong with that as a direction to the court of the law applicable.
The next complaint was that there was no preliminary investigation. I am bound to say that this is not a complaint which can be made in law. Except as to ratings, there is no need, according to Queen's Regulations, for a preliminary investigation. The reason, of course, is that with ratings the Captain may decide to deal with the case himself, when he has heard the preliminary evidence, whereas with an officer that cannot be done, and he must be court-martialled.
876
But he does receive a copy of the charge sheet, the circumstantial letter (which, of course, takes the place of the opening speech for the prosecution); a list of the officers from whom the court may be drawn, a list of the witnesses for the prosecution and a summary of the evidence which they are to give.
Then the next complaint was that the prosecuting officer was senior in rank to the Judge Advocate. The Judge Advocate had done a number of courts-martial before. This, also, was a ground of appeal to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, and they said:
"What did he do wrong because, whether he was junior or not to the prosecuting officer, what followed from it?"
When they went into it they found that, at the opening of the trial, there had been a clash between the prosecution and the defence. The defence submitted that the first charge—the one of indecency—ought to be taken first. The defending officer was the most experienced man there. He had been in the Judge Advocate's office; he was now in private practice in Malta; he had done a great many courts-martial, and he had a great reputation for getting people off. He had in fact appeared for Lieutenant-Commander Swabey at his first court-martial; and he was very experienced. He strongly submitted that the first charge ought to be taken first. The prosecuting officer said, "Not at all because the whole thing is very much mixed up together. The second charge"—that of being drunk on board—"is, after all, connected with the first charge, because if a man has these inclinations he might very well normally control himself, but when he is on a 'pub crawl' and has had a good deal to drink his control might relax; and, therefore, it is very mixed up with the thing."
The third charge—that of conduct unbecoming an officer—consisted of his saying to an able seaman about the sublieutenant, "I think he is pissed. He thinks he is being chased. I think he has got a persecution complex". It was said by the prosecuting officer, "This being said to an able seaman about the sub-lieutenant, it is all about the same matter". Thereupon, the junior Judge Advocate ruled in favour of the defence and decided that the first charge was to be taken first. So the Courts-Martial

877
Appeal Court said, "We cannot see how the fact that he was junior in rank to the prosecuting officer"—which does not infrequently happen—"prejudiced the accused, because the only point in the case on which he had to rule he decided in the accused's favour; and in law there is nothing wrong with his summing-up", which they said was a very good summing-up. So there is not, so far as I can see, anything at all in that point.
Then there was the point about the taxi driver. First of all, I should say that, both in criminal cases and in civil cases, it is usually thought a great advantage if a witness you are thinking of calling is called by the other side, the reason for that being that, if you call a witness yourself, you are bound by what he says; you cannot cross-examine him. On the other hand, if he is called by the other side you are in the more favourable position of being able to cross-examine him. Because of that, it is usually regarded as part of the duty of the prosecution to call all the relevant witnesses themselves, because that is an advantage to the accused.
But the taxi driver was one of those witnesses who says "No" to everything. Of course, he could not speak any English, he did not recognise either of them, he said that nothing untoward occurred at any time at all, he did not hear anything said in the taxi—of course, he could not have understood it in any case, because he did not speak English—and he did not hear any blow being struck. He looked round once, and one of them seemed to have his foot out and appeared to be "nodding off", sort of thing, but he could not recognise them. That was odd because, quite properly, Lieutenant-Commander Swabey, not knowing at the time that the taxi driver was to be called by the prosecution, had, with another officer, gone to see him to find what evidence he could give. In spite of that, and although recalled by the court, the taxi driver still said he could not remember anybody. But, of course, it was entirely for the court to decide what the effect of his evidence was.
There are only two other complaints which have been made. The first is that the court-martial was obviously prejudiced by knowing about the previous
878
court-martial, and the second is that Lieutenant-Commander Swabey was prejudiced by the court-martial's not knowing about the previous court-martial. These points have been taken at different times. There was a very long notice of appeal when the matter went to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. At that stage he was complaining that he was prejudiced because
"the verdict of the court is only comprehensible if regard is had to the existence of prejudice. My trial was prejudiced because the Judge Advocate and the prosecutor certainly, and members of the court probably, knew, either in full or in a garbled version, of the facts in a previous trial on January 6, 1950, at the same station, Malta, when I had been acquitted by court-martial",
and so on.
The case before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court was presented on his behalf by Sir Peter Rawlinson, who later was Solicitor General, and there is no more experienced counsel. The court said that there was no evidence that the members of the court knew. He was represented at his trial by a very experienced counsel. He did not object to any member of the court. He had the opportunity to do so. There is no evidence that any member of the court knew about it.
After the Courts-Martial Appeal Court proceedings he then contended the alternative—namely, that he had been prejudiced by the court-martial's not knowing about the previous conviction. This is the only point in the case which troubles me at all. It may be right to say that if the court-martial did not know about the previous court-martial they may have thought his subsequent conduct was odd, which conduct they may have thought explicable if they had known that he had been previously court-martialled and acquitted. Moreover—and more important—might it not be that this young Sub-Lieutenant, who was 22, knew about the previous court-martial and that, if he did, he would expect that homosexual advances were going to be made and misunderstand what was done?
It may be, of course, that the prosecution could not mention the previous court-martial; but the defence could. It may be that the defending officer made a mistake in not bringing it out himself.

879
But the difficulty to my mind is this. First of all, this was a very experienced defending officer, and if I wonder whether he came to the right conclusion I must always bear in mind that counsel who is in the case usually knows best. But in all litigation, whether criminal or civil, counsel have a very responsible task and are always having to make decisions. It is only one of the tasks which arise in a great many criminal cases to ask: "Would I be better advised to bring out my client's bad character, or not? Would it pay to do so?" All the time the question arises: "Here is a witness. On this particular point he is going to help me; but I understand that on the other point he is going to help the prosecution"—or the plaintiff in a civil case. "Am I going to be wise to call him or not?" Counsel has to decide one way or the other. With every witness in the box he has continually to choose what questions he is to ask and what not. One question too many may be fatal. We cannot possibly have every case re-tried simply because, in the light of after events, it may be that a court would have come to a different conclusion if counsel had taken a different course.
If I am not keeping your Lordships too late, I will mention an example, a case with which I was not concerned professionally. It was one of those cases which I looked into afterwards to see whether justice had been done—and in this case, I do not think it was. It was a case in which a young man had been charged with having beaten up somebody on a common and robbed him of a wallet. The witness for the prosecution was simply the man who was attacked. He had attended an identification parade of people who all looked alike; and, as soon as he saw them, he went straight up to the accused and said: "That is the man." It was perfectly obvious in court that he sincerely believed this. I believe that the young man who was accused had nothing to do with it at all; that at the time he was at home with his mother, his brother and his brother's fiancée. Some of them were called at the trial; but the jury did not believe them. I believe them because I have had the opportunity since of cross-
880
examining them individually and collectively at home. I have seen letters written by the young man to his mother from prison and letters written by the brother and the family and so on.
The real difficulty was this. The young man, when an adolescent of 14, had been convicted of receiving some property knowing it to have been stolen. He had gone into the Army and had an absolutely first-class character. The identification did not take place at the identification parade at all. The identification was in fact established from police photographs. In a case like this the police show the victim photographs of a number of men with convictions, and the danger is that one never quite knows what the policeman may say about a particular photograph. So the identification parade was not really as it appeared to be in court.
This often happens and you are in this dilemma. What are you to do? If you submit that the evidence of the identification parade is very much weakened by the fact that the person who was going to identify had already identified a photograph, you let the jury know that the accused has a previous conviction. That is the dilemma. It depends on the case. Some counsel do it one way and some another. In that case I am satisfied that the jury came to a wrong conclusion, and he was not that man at all. But what can you do? I paid for an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal—the Home Office will not do anything unless you have been to the Court—but there was no ground of appeal. I petitioned the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, but he was unable to assist. I petitioned the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who took a lot of trouble about it. But at the end he said that under our law somebody has to decide when it is a question of which of two people is telling the truth and we know of no better method than a jury, which sees the two people and decides. The jury in this case may have been right or wrong.
My Lords, that is what it really comes to in the case we are now considering. There has been a considerable number of such cases, where something happens and there are only two men alive who

881
know the truth. In this instance, one is Lieutenant-Commander Swabey and the other is Sub-Lieutenant Havers. If two committees inquired into it, one might believe one man, and the other might believe the other, because, unfortunately, this is a question which only the jury can decide. They have to say which of the two is telling the truth.
Most people do not have relatives who are, quite rightly, as persistent as Lieutenant-Commander Swabey's family, and do not know noble Lords who are Members of this House. In the ordinary case, there being no committees of inquiry, one of three courses might be taken. There could be a free pardon, but that could properly be granted only where the Crown was satisfied that the person concerned was innocent. Nobody knows here, and nobody can tell. Lieutenant-Commander Swabey may be innocent or guilty. It is unlikely, is it not, that going for the first time to take command of a ship, he would indulge in conduct of this kind on the first evening. Then it is equally unlikely, is it not, that this young Sub-Lieutenant, for no motive at all—because he had never met Swabey before—should invent, and subsequently commit perjury by giving evidence of, things which never happened at all? What a dreadful thing to do against a brother officer. It is one of those very difficult cases where one says that in a sense it is very difficult to believe either of them. I am sure that this court-martial did not want to convict, because in such circumstances I think it is the experience of us all that courts-martial tend to lean over backwards rather than convict. But they have to do what they think is right.
The second thing that could happen is that, under the Act, the Minister of Defence for the Navy, as he is now called, could refer the case back to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, first, if there was some outstanding point of law—which there is not—or secondly, because he thought it expedient to do so because new evidence had come to light. Parliament has placed this duty and this decision entirely on the Minister. It is not a matter for me; under the Act it is a matter for him. Your Lordships know the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who first considered this case. Your Lordships know the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and
882
the present Minister, my right honourable friend Mr. Mayhew. All of them have taken the same view. That is entirely a matter for them.
What is most undesirable is that, where we have proceedings of a criminal nature in the law courts and the accused has all his legal rights, and there is nothing wrong with the trial and the case goes as far as the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, or, with leave, to come to the House of Lords, either House of Parliament should then appoint a Committee to decide whether the House of Lords was wrong. Of course, we can abolish courts, but if we have a system of law courts, always providing for a right of appeal, and if all has been done in accordance with law and a man has had all his rights of appeal, it would be quite wrong for either House—because if this House can do it, the other place can—to appoint a committee to decide whether or not the highest court that could decide the matter was wrong. This is particularly so, I would suggest, in a case which in the end, as in the beginning, depends entirely on which of two men is telling the truth. There is no reason to suppose that one committee or two committees or three committees, hearing the evidence of the two men concerned six years after the event, would be any more likely to arrive at the truth as to which of the two was telling the truth than was the court-martial.
On these grounds, I feel bound to say that there was nothing wrong with what happened. There was no misdirection. There was no defect in the proceedings. It is possible that the defending officer, in the light of after events, might have been wiser to have taken a course other than he did, though nobody can tell whether the result would have been the same or not. Apart from that, this is a case, of which there are many, where a jury or court-martial has the responsibility of deciding which of two people is telling the truth, because that is the only way we know of deciding something of this kind. Any committee could do nothing without seeing the two officers, and in the end they would be faced with the same decision as the court-martial: Is this man just denying that he did this when in fact he did, or is this young officer completely inventing something

883
that never happened at all? For these reasons, I ask your Lordships to oppose this Motion.
10.56 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, at this late hour of the night, I do not wish to go over all the points again. All this Motion is asking for is that
"Her Majesty's Government should set up an independent Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the case and to advise whether, in their opinion, there has been a miscarriage of justice."
After what I have heard this evening during the debate from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, from his noble and learned predecessor and from the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and his conversion, I feel more than ever that such an inquiry is necessary and I cannot be deterred by the fact that the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, will go into the Lobby against me.
There is one thing I would like to say before I finish. First of all, because I am afraid that it involves quoting once again from what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said on the previous occasion, and he has already objected to my not having given him notice when I quoted him on the previous occasion, I must give the noble and learned Viscount notice now, although undoubtedly short notice, that I am going to quote another five lines from his speech. He said:
"I can see no warranty for the suggestion that the prosecution went out of its way to press the case, to secure a conviction. I can see no justification for that kind of allegation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247, col. 1103, February 26. 1963.]
I wonder whether he would have said that had he known this—and, before I tell your Lordships what it is I would say that I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has such a high opinion of Mr. Grech, because it is something that Mr. Grech told me that I want to tell your Lordships. I have been in communication with him two days ago—I happen to know him personally, and I have as high an opinion of him as the Lord Chancellor has. He has told me—and he is perfectly willing to go before any independent Commission of Inquiry and to say it—that on the day after this alleged offence happened, after Lieutenant-Commander Davidson had been over to Lacaris to see him, Commander Fisher, who as your Lordships know, prosecuted in the case, rang up Mr. Grech and said: "You will be hearing to-morrow morning from somebody you defended a little time ago in Malta, and he is not going to get away with it this time". That particular thing was said, and heard to be said, just before the trial in the precincts of the court.
I am sorry, but I want to ask the House to divide. I assure your Lordships that I should not do so if I shared the noble and gallant Viscount's opinion, that to do so would undermine the discipline in the Army; but I think that that is something it is not likely to do.
11.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

Colwyn, L.

Perth, E.

Arran, E.

Croft, L.

Rea, L.

Attlee, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Russell of Liverpool, L. [Teller.]

Boothby, L.

Greenway, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Headfort, M.

Savile, L.

Byers, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Merrival, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Clwyd, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blyton, L.

Falkland, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brocket, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Merthyr, L.

Carrington, L.

Henderson, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Champion, L.

Henley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Cowley, E.

Hobson, L. [Teller.]

Sorensen, L.

Denham, E.

Holford, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

PRAYER BOOK (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE
11.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I think that, for reasons of fatigue if for no other reason, your Lordships will wish to give a hasty passage to this very short Measure which, I can assure your Lordships, will make not the slightest difference to anything which any of your Lordships will observe in the Church of England, but will enable us in the Church to present for the Royal Assent certain Canons which have been passed by large and decisive majorities in various Assemblies of our Church. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Prayer Book (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Leicester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [H.L.]
DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
POOLE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SAINT LAURENCE, CATFORD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ROCHESTER BRIDGE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.