Lords Sitting of 26 October 1976

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

UNESCO: FUNDS AND OPERATIONS
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 how much was contributed to UNSECO in 1974/75 and 1975/76, and whether they approve of the purpose for which UNESCO funds are used.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, our contribution to the regular budget of UNESCO amounted to£1·9 million in 1974/75 and£2 million in 1975/76.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it right that the United Nations' Organisation, which was founded to promote peace and to which we subscribe substantial funds, should use those funds to promote guerrilla activities and warfare throughout Southern Africa?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence that that is what the funds are used for.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware of the report that was given by UNESCO officials to the Sub-Commission on Discrimination of Minorities this year, in which it was stated that several hundreds of thousands of dollars are given in support of national liberation movements which are recognised by the Organisation of African Unity and that such support comes out of UNESCO funds? Are the Government aware of that? May I also ask whether, if they are aware of it, they
262
approve and, if not, would they kindly instruct their representative at the present conference in Nairobi not to support these movements?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, aware of it. Certainly UNESCO provides assistance to liberation movements which are recognised by the OAU and which come within the sphere of humanitarian assistance for refugees.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness what efforts are being made by United Kingdom delegates to prevent abuse of UNESCO funds for political motives by certain States, since this consequently causes grave damage to its proper educational, scientific and cultural activities? May I also ask my noble friend what steps are being taken to ensure that all member States are able to participate fully in the proper work and activities of UNESCO?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore attempts by member States to raise issues which are more properly debated in the General Assembly and the Security Council. I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government believe that all member States should have the right of full and proper participation in UNESCO.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does the noble Baroness therefore approve of the appointment of a special representative of UNESCO at Dar-es-Salaam, precisely in order to co-ordinate the activities between the national liberation movements, including SWAPO, ANC and ZANU?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, certainly, if they are for educational and humanitarian purposes.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, does that mean that the money which is given to promote cultural and educational activities can be used to spend on arms and on fighting?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, that is an extremely

263
tautological argument, if I may say so. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the administrations of UNESCO or of UNRWA do anything but what is completely proper.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the question put to my noble friend by the noble Lord, is she aware that it would be most interesting to get to know, since this Organisation was set up in the 1930s, the amount of money that was spent by the previous Government over the 13 years when they had control? Would it not be interesting to know what really happened during that particular period?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have every reason to suppose that the same proportions of money was spent by both Administrations, but I am afraid that I shall have to check on that and let my noble friend know.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, do the Government approve of the way in which the funds of UNESCO have been used in connection with the representative of Israel where, on one occasion, UNESCO very much discriminated against him? Do the Government not think that that sort of behaviour is unworthy of their support?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sorry; I did not catch the beginning of the question put by the noble Baroness.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, my question was whether the Government know of the very discriminatory way in which UNESCO behaved over Israel. Do they believe that this is the way in which UNESCO should behave, and do they believe that we should be supporting UNESCO when they carry out that kind of discrimination?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have spoken and voted against the resolutions which tried to discriminate against Israel and we shall continue to do so; but we think it better to remain within UNESCO, where we can have some influence.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she has read the statement in the Press relating to educational departments and institutions in the USSR and Arab countries being used for the purpose of training assassins, hijackers and so on, and whether she is aware that UNESCO is being used for that purpose? If not, what will UNESCO do in order to prevent that kind of use being made of so-called educational establishments?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as I have said, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that UNESCO funds are being used anywhere for training terrorists.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have in my hands a UNESCO document which says that a meeting will be held in Mozambique on social structure, revolutionary change and culture in Southern Africa, and that this will bring together members of liberation movements and sociologists who have done work on colonial societies? Is the noble Baroness aware that many other factors mentioned in this paper suggest that money and considerable support is being given to guerrilla movements throughout Southern Africa? As there is some concern in different parts of the House on several issues, may we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government's diplomatic representatives in these countries will keep a close watch so that these funds are not misused in the manner in which some of us believe them to be?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, along with most Western nations, have recognised the Government of Mozambique and they cannot be considered a liberation movement. We are all delighted that they should meet with sociologists and specialists of every kind. As to change in Southern Africa, it is long overdue.
Lord JANNER: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: Order!
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we should now proceed.

RHODESIAN DETAINEES
2.43 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: 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 numbers of persons detained without trial by the illegal regime in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) and what provisions were included in the draft agreement proposed by Dr. Kissinger to Mr. Smith concerning the release of these persons.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it is difficult to obtain precise figures on the number of detainees in Rhodesia because of the regime's ban on publicity for such cases, but it has been estimated that at present there are some 850 people being detained there without trial. The release of detainees was not a prior condition for the convening of the conference. Her Majesty's Government consider that the best prospect for the release of political prisoners in Rhodesia is early agreement at Geneva.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figure of 850, which he has quoted, appears to be the number of long-term detainees who are incarcerated by means of an order signed by a Minister, and that there may be a much larger number of short-term detainees who may be at even greater risk than the ones he has mentioned? Can the Minister say what are the powers of the chairman of the meeting which is shortly to be convened in Geneva, to prevent detainees being used as a political pawn by the Smith régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the factual point, I believe, with the noble Lord, that the figure I have given in answer to his Question is of people detained without trial. There are a number of others who are convicted political prisoners, having gone through the court procedures of the illegal regime, a number or restrictees, and of course there have been a number of executions. The figure of 850 relates only to those who have been detained
266
without trial. As to the chairman's function, I am abundantly satisfied that Mr. Richard will bear in mind the importance of the point raised by the noble Lord.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us the name of any African Government which discloses the number of people that it detains without trial? Cart he also, perhaps, disclose the name of any African country in which it is as safe to dissent from Government as it is in Rhcdesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the second point, I m got cross swords with my noble friend. On the first point, there are a number or Governments in various parts of the IN odd, not all belonging to one political persuasion, who do not publish the number of people detained without trial within their borders.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while this position obtains it would be quite impossible for the nationalists to agree to the Smith regime retaining control of law and order?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly agree to this extent, that if there were a generous and constructive concession by the illegal regime at once, it would greatly help the success of this conference.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are many Christians and people of no religious conviction, people who are not Roman Catholics, who are deeply distressed by the treatment of Bishop Lamont by the Smith rè gime—treatment which has been denounced by the Vatican? If there is to be an improvement in the relationships and if the right attitude is to be created for this conference, it might be a great help if Her Majesty's Government could prevail on the Smith régime to revise its attitude towards Bishop Lamont.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very glad to repeat the assurances which I gave, I think the week before last, when we last discussed the case of Bishop Lamont. As my friend

267
the right reverend Prelate then indicated, it is part of the general inhumanity practised not only against people of eminence, such as his Grace the Bishop, but also against a great many other people in Rhodesia. We shall continue to do what we have been doing for many years, using every opportunity that comes our way to try to prevail upon the Smith regime to follow better and more humane practices.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the Minister also prevail upon leaders of guerrilla movements not to continue the appalling atrocities and cruelties that they arc inflicting upon both black and white Rhodesians?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, certainly. Atrocities are indivisible.
Lord AVEBURY: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo were attempting to secure that the political prisoners should be released as a condition of starting this conference? While that may be possible, will the Minister ask the chairman not merely to bear in mind the point that has been made this afternoon but also to rule out of order any attempt by the Smith regime to use human lives as a bargaining counter to secure the kind of concessions he wants?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. When one asks the chairman to bear these considerations in mind one means what one says: that these and other considerations will be borne in mind by the chairman in his conduct of this very difficult but very hopeful conference. I think we would all unite in expressing our confidence that he will do everything from his position in the chair to prevent anybody from using the lives of human beings as a counter in the bargaining across the conference table.

MUSEUM ADMISSION FEES
2.49 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELD: 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 there is a case for the restoration of admission fees to museums in view of the financial situation leading to one-day closures at certain museums and cuts in museum staffs.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, before replying, I would point out that this is probably the last Question which we shall have in this House from the right reverend Prelate, as I believe that next week he leaves our company; so I think we should all like to wish him well.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, one of the first acts of the present Administration in February 1974, was to honour its Election pledge to remove the requirement to charge for entry to the national museums and galleries. I should need a good deal of convincing that this step should be reversed. Quite apart from wider issues of policy and other costs of administration, the restoration of museum charges would involve additions to musiums' staff.
The Lord Bishop of WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I remind him that in the first year of the opening of the National Railway Museum in York 2 million people attended it? Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether it is not preferable to persist with museum charges, bearing in mind the reduction of museum staff and the redundancies resulting therefrom?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am, of course, aware of the tremendous success of the National Railway Museum at York, and nobody is more pleased than I am about this. This museum, however, is part of the Science Museum and cannot be considered in isolation from other national museums. Exact numbers of the visitors attracted to the museums cannot be measured, but they include many people from overseas, to the great benefit of the economy and of the City of York. The

269
rising costs of living and of travel are making it increasingly difficult for many with modest means to visit the museums and galleries, and I repeat that whatever museums which are not part of the national group may like to do, I think that it would be quite wrong at this stage to reverse the decision which was made in the Manifesto and which we have carried out.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the enormous number of people in the art world who will support the line that he has taken?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it is always a surprise to me but also a pleasure.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain why a charge is made to see the Mantegna pictures at Hampton Court, since these pictures belong to the National Gallery?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, this is another question which I do not think I can answer without reference back. However, there arc a number of places, like Stonehenge, which arc not part of the national museums and galleries, which always have charged and which will go on charging for as long as they want to do so. Should they wish to stop charging, or to carry on charging, they can do so.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the Minister aware, however, that the Mantegna pictures are part of the National Gallery collection?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, that is why I should like to have further notice of the question.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree with me that the Mantegna pictures at Hampton Court unfortunately do not belong to the National Gallery but are part of the Royal Collection?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think I was right to ask for further notice of the question!
Lord CONGLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain how it is
270
that the Department of the Environment apparently sanction the levying of visitors' fees to national monuments, to the Tower of London and to historic houses in their ownership (Stonehenge has already been mentioned by the Minister) and that apparently there is no policy to stop the levying of those charges? Indeed, I understand that a rattling good business is going on at some of these places, and I welcome it. On the one hand, the Department of the Environments allowed to levy charges while on the other the Department of Education and Science will not contemplate the levying of charges for visits to the national museums and galleries.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think I have already answered the Question. The undertaking in the Manifesto was specifically in relation to charges imposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I remember sitting opposite the noble Viscount here day after day and feeling very sorry for him because of the obvious discomfiture he was suffering as a result of trying to impose charges. We undertook to reverse the imposition of those charges. No comments were made about other museums, other places and other things. Some of them have charged before; others have not. If they want to charge they will not be stopped by me. I speak only for the nationally controlled museums and galleries.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, will the Minister take an early opportunity to look at the various museum; in the South Kensington area, for instance, where it appears that the lack of admission fees introduces quite a large lumber of elements who are not interested in art or culture but go there just to pass freely the time of day? Secondly, can the Minister say which other countries within the European Economic Community do not have any admission fees?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if the Science Museum, which is presumably the museum about which the noble Lord is speaking, or the Victoria and Albert Museum felt very strongly that they wanted to consider the imposition of charges I should not rule it out of court. I should I consult them, come to a conclusion and then put

271
it to my colleagues. But this has not happened and I do not expect it to happen. I do not think that the imposition of charges would necessarily keep out the people who give the trouble to which the noble Lord has referred, because most of them have a great deal of pocket money.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that other nations who are in a rather stronger financial position almost invariably charge for entry to their museums? In retrospect, does the noble Lord think that as Socialism is the religion of priorities, he was right to give overriding priority to the abolition of these charges in the Government's legislative programme?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I repeat what I have said. I stand by the pledge. I think that we were right to abolish charges and I do not believe that the superior financial position of certain countries to which the noble Lord has referred is due to their museum charges.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, it is a question of priorities.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, is it not time that the Manifesto was put into a museum?

IMMIGRANT'S CHILDBIRTH AT LONDON AIRPORT
2.56 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 an inquiry is to be held into the circumstances of the birth of a baby (who subsequently died), at Heathrow Airport just prior to the mother's intended transference to an aeroplane to be returned to India.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I have studied a full report on this unhappy incident. The mother, who was about eight months pregnant, was
272
brought to this country on 20th October in breach of the immigration laws. At that stage there was no sign of an imminent birth and medical advice was that she was fit to return to Bombay. The baby was born prematurely the following day and mother and child were immediately removed to hospital where the child died. I understand that it could not have survived.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my Question as to whether there will be an inquiry. How is it that a married woman, the wife of a legal resident of this country, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy was put on a plane to be returned to India, the delivery of her baby taking place without any medical assistance? Should not such an inquiry extend not only to those conditions but also to the alleged behaviour of some of the personnel who were present?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government do not consider that in this case an inquiry is appropriate. I have indicated that I have studied the papers and so has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The fact is that entry clearance is required for dependants seeking to enter this country. That is the situation quite clearly laid down by the law. Entry clearances are essential because experience has demonstrated that efforts are made to brine in women who are not the wives they are claimed to be. This in no way under-estimates the tragic nature of this episode, but I must make it clear that in my view there was no impropriety on the part of any member of the Immigration Service and that the Government see no cause for an inquiry.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while deploring the fact that anybody should present themselves for entry without complying with the regulations, is it not the case that airlines in general never carry passengers who are more than six months pregnant? How, then, was this woman, who was apparently eight months pregnant, accepted for carriage?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is one question which I am afraid I am unable to answer.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not that a further cause for inquiry? Is it not the case that, while there was a medical examination at the detention home, there was no medical attendance at all as this woman, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, was being put on to a plane in a condition which airlines generally refuse to accept?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it is certainly true that I am unable to answer the question as to why a carrier accepted this woman on to the plane, but that is not a decision for Her Majesty's Government. The Government have in fact a responsibility for answering questions on the subject of whether the Immigration Service behaved with propriety in this particular case. I must make it quite clear that any suggestion that there was calculated inhumanity, or even inadvertent inhumanity, is not a reading of this situation which, having studied the papers, I would accept.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord inquire further as to why the woman was accepted for carriage out of the United Kingdom, and can he give an absolute assurance that no pressure was brought to bear by the immigration authorities on the airline to carry the woman?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the question why this woman was brought into this country and accepted by the foreign carrier is not one, as I have indicated, that am in a position to answer this afternoon. The essential feature of this case, which has received a substantial amount of publicity, is the suggestion that there was at best some lack of humanity by members of the Immigration Service at London Airport. What I am indicating this afternoon quite clearly is that, having studied these papers, I do not accept that those allegations have any justification whatsoever. I am also saying that there is a clear legal requirement on dependants to obtain entry clearance before they arrive in the United Kingdom. This matter has been debated over a substantial period of time. It is quite clearly the law and it is highly desirable that everybody concerned should attempt to abide by it.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that probably the
274
root cause of this tragic affair was the non-declaration by the passenger concerned of her state of pregnancy?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not making any suggestion of calculated inhumanity? I am asking whether there is any suggestion that the woman was not in fact married to this man. Is there an allegation to that effect?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the position is that the woman arrived in this country, as we now know, eight months pregnant, without t an entry certificate. The Immigration Service behaved in exactly the same NN ay as they would do to any other person who had attempted to enter this country without an entry certificate. There is one other point which I must make quite clear in view of the fact that it has been touched on. It is quite clear that medical advice was taken by the Immigration Service throughout this incident.

TEES TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons with the Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.6 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No 36 (Order of Business) be dispensed with this day for the purpose of taking the Motion standing in my name forthwith.—(Lord Byers).
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I am in no way hostile to his honourable intentions in the Motion that he proposes to move later on, but I want to oppose the present Motion that we should dispense with the normal business which appeared on the Order Paper and proceed to a further Motion. I do so not because I object to debates: on the contrary, I enjoy them. I do not profess to be an orator at all, but in

275
matters of debate I gain considerable experience. However, I have no desire for "fun and games" this afternoon; nor do I suppose that any Member of your Lordships' House in the existing situation, not only economic and financial, hut political, desires to indulge in frivolity of any kind.
My reason for opposing the Motion is because in neither the Motion to be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, nor in the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is there anything constructive or likely to promote greater goodwill, either in this House or between this House and another place. All I want to say at this stage is that it occurred to me when I saw the Motion on the Order Paper that if the noble Lord, Lord Byers, with his influence—and he has undoubted influence, not only in his own Party but in your Lordships' House—had consulted the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Conservative Party in your Lordships' House, and they had both then consulted my noble friend the Leader of the House, had met together and had asked a few other Members, for example the noble Earl, Lord Home of the Hirsel, with his vast experience, and the Chief Whips of the three political Parties in the House—or two of them, whoever they are—they could have gathered round a table to consider what representations ought to be made to Her Majesty's Government and to the Prime Minister in particular (or in the first place) with a view to removing any difficulty that exists in connection with the timetable in your Lordships' House.
If this Motion is accepted and we proceed to the further Motion I should wish to take part in the debate, but I can see no great advantage or any relevance in the situation. I recall a statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thorney-croft, the chairman of the Conservative Party, some time ago in one of our debates, when he pleaded for a better understanding with Members of your Lordships' House. That does not mean that we should always agree with each other; that would be asking too much. But in a matter of this sort, concerning the timetable and difficulties and even hardships imposed on Members of your Lordships' House, by asking them to r main, sometimes through the night, for
276
the purpose of dealing with Government business, to which they naturally object because of their political philosophy, (I can understand all that), to enter into a debate of this kind at this stage when there are so many other subjects that could occupy our attention, I regard as a complete irrelevance.
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, should not proceed with his Motion to suspend the Standing Order and proceed with another subject, but that he should do as I have suggested and consult with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the Chief Whips, and any others who are acquainted with procedure, in order to try to remove this obstacle, this dispute between some Members of your Lordships' House and Her Majesty's Government. For that reason I oppose the Motion.
3.9 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I understand the sentiments and feelings of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I would only say that there are the usual channels, and they have gone through the procedures in the best spirit. I personally believe that we should have a debate. I agreed to the Motion to dispense with Standing Order No. 36, because I believe that if we have a debate we shall not be wasting time unnecessarily. I think it is the general tone of the House that this debate should come at the beginning, and for that reason I have taken this move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE PARLIAMENTARY TIMETABLE
3.10 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS rose to move, That this House declares that it cannot discharge its duties as a revising Chamber with efficiency and diligence if legislation is to be considered throughout the night or for more than ten hours in any one sitting day; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that it is vitally important that this House should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny on the floor of the House of Commons, and insists that the Parliamentary timetable be adjusted

277
accordingly. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the substantive Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. First, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that there is no intention whatsoever of indulging in frivolity or fun and games, and that all the procedures which, with his great Parliamentary experience, he knows must operate here have been gone through. Nobody could have been more forth-coming and helpful than the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip. The fact is that the overloading of the Parliamentary timetable does not start here, but at the other end of this building.
I move this Motion in the belief that it will attract support from those noble Lords who are regular attenders of the House and who have its reputation much at heart. I am concerned that under the present pressures we are in danger of not properly discharging our responsibilities. At this time of the Session in recent years the Government legislative programme or timetable produces a complete log jam. This is nothing new. But, despite the protests of previous years, the situation this Session is far worse than I have ever known it, and unless we try to check it, in my opinion it will go on getting worse year by year. The Government timetable now contains far more legislation than the House could properly digest. As I have said, this stems from another place and puts the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip here in an intolerable position. Either we have more time to sit so that these measures are dealt with properly, or the Government must reduce the Parliamentary load to enable us to deal sensibly with the remaining Business.
My Lords, let us recognise there is no magic in the date 17th November for the Opening of Parliament, although I must admit that I favour the Government dropping one or two of their measures rather than extending the Session. This House is a revising Chamber. One of its major tasks is to ensure that legislation containing incomprehensible or ambiguous provisions does not reach the Statute Book. This can only be done if Peers with knowledge of the subject are present, if there is adequate time for the study of the provisions of a Bill, and for the preparation of speeches. It also requires
278
Peers to be alert and not over-tired when scrutinising legislation. This is all the more important when much of the current legislation has been guillotined in another place.
In addition, this is a House which is not composed of full-time profess on all politicians. Many, if not most, of the noble Lords active here have other obligations outside the House in order to earn their living or to fulfil public duties. It is quite wrong that the House should be asked to sit on any day for much more than 10 hours continuously. More than this, to my mind, is not conducive to efficiency. It is not for the Government to dictate the length of the sittings. This is a matter to be regulated by the House itself. I believe there is deep unrest in all quarters of the House, not on rounds of personal convenience, not on grounds of health, but on grounds that we are not going to discharge our Parliamentary duties efficiently if we carry on as we are doing.
There is also a political consideration. To many of us it seems absurd that at a time when the pound is under the greatest pressure to which it has ever been subjected, and at a time when we have had to borrow from our creditors' interest to service the money they have been good enough to lend us, that we should spend Parliamentary time on such irrelevancies as further nationalisation and the restructuring of the dock labour system. The latter will increase our export and import costs. Some of us feel very strongly that this irrelevance is itself affecting our credibility abroad and that it is tie function of this House to say so and, if necessary, to delay this legislation, which we are perfectly entitled to do.
My Lords, I should like to emphasise that, contrary to some of the hysterical assertions from the other end of the building in recent days, it has always been contemplated that this House should have a delaying power. At the moment we are operating under the terms of the Parliament Act 1949, and that Act was brought into being by a Labour Government. Before I came to the Chamber, I looked up the Division on the Third Reading of that Bill. I was very interested to see that in the same Lobby voting on the Bill were "F. Byers" and "T. F. Peart". We both voted for the Parliament Act

279
1949 which contains the rules governing our delaying powers and other powers we have today. I well remember that Division.
We also had proposals for Lords reform in 1969. These were drafted by a sub-committee of which I was a member, and were agreed by all the Party representatives on that Committee. We specifically proposed that the Lords should be able to delay a Bill for six months from the date of the disagreement between the two Houses, and it was certainly envisaged that this power would be used. I know it was allied to a reformed House in which the Cross-Benches were expected to play a fairly decisive role, but the one thing we were all agreed on was that if this House had no power, we had no function. It is a matter for great regret that the efforts of Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell prevented this reform of the Lords from coming about. There are those in another place who would like to see not the reform, but the abolition of this House. To them I only say I do not believe that any British Government can dispense with the Second Chamber. Governments need it, and Governments use it.
My Lords, if we look back at the figures for some of the measures for last Session we find, for instance, on the Industry Bill that in this House the Government moved 95 Amendments in Committee, 32 Amendments on Report and 54 on Third Reading. I hope Mr. Eric Varley will note those figures. In the case of the Employment Protection Bill the Government moved 87 Amendments here on Third Reading. Whatever its composition and powers, I believe we need this Chamber in our constitutional system. We should not allow a situation in which we believe we are performing a useful public service to become a constitutional confrontation; it is totally unnecessary. We are working within the rules of the game. We need a sensible timetable which can be achieved, as I have said, either by dropping one or two measures, or extending the Session. If I were the Government, I would drop one or two measures in order to demonstrate to the world that we can at last get our priorities right and are not going on with irrelevancies.
The Government should recognise that the situation today is very dramatically
280
different from that which existed when the 1974 Manifestoes were drafted. Only last week the right honourable gentleman Mr. Healey said that further nationalisation can only increase the public sector borrowing requirement, and we cannot justify it. He is right. Therefore, why, in the light of that, are we going on, in one Bill, with these nationalisation measures for four major industries?
My Lords, there is another consideration, and an important one, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, drew attention only the other clay; that is, the intolerable burden our present arrangements put upon a very loyal and dedicated staff in this House. We are imposing on their willingness. I do not believe that any commercial or industrial concern would be allowed to subject their staff to such onerous duties and such very unsocial hours.
Since I tabled my Motion on Friday, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put down an Amendment to it. It rather weakens my Motion, but it may be none the worse for that. It is more aristocratic in tone; there is a noblesse oblige about it, and I want to put the noble Lord out of his misery, because I am quite prepared to accept it and to recommend it to my noble friends. My sole purpose in this debate is to serve notice on the business managers in another place that we in this House have an important function to perform. We must be allowed to perform it, free from threats or intimidation. We must work within a properly revised timetable. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House declares that it cannot discharge its duties as a revising Chamber with efficiency and diligence if legislation is to be considered throughout the night or for more than ten hours in any one sitting day; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that it is vitally important that this House should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny on the floor of the House of Commons, and insists that the Parliamentary timetable be adjusted accordingly.—(Lord Byers.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON Lord CARRINGTON rose to move, as Amendments to the above Motion,—
Line 1, leave out from ("House") to ("calls") in line 3;
Line 6, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 7 and insert ("regrets that Her Majesty's Government has failed to give effect to this principle and requests that adequate Parliamentary time be afforded for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the two Amendments which stand in my name, if your Lordships will allow, because they both hang together. I move these Amendments not because I disagree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Byers; indeed, I agree with all of it. But your Lordships have been asked to work at a pressure which makes it impossible for the Bills before this House to be adequately discussed. There comes a time when, however much we may seek to do our jobs, the load upon us is too great. We have been asked to discuss and amend and pass through all their stages five major Bills, as well as dealing with such important measures as Felixstowe, in about six or seven weeks; and as well we have to consider Amendments to various other measures which have already been through this House and which will shortly be coming up from another place.
I really do not think it is possible to do that. I hope noble Lords opposite will acquit me of the charge of springing this news on them at the last moment. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn and I have made it abundantly plain ever since the summer that what the Government were asking us to do was quite impossible, and we have said it time and time and time again.
My Lords, there are really two separate issues, the question of whether there is enough time for the House to debate the Bills, and what steps we take to amend and alter them when we do debate them. So far as we are concerned today we need consider only the first question; though perhaps I might say in passing that it seems to me quite contrary, at any rate, to the unwritten conventions of our unwritten Constitution, that a Government which is a minority Government should seek to push through both Houses of Parliament legislation of such a controversial character, legislation to which, if the view of the country is known at all, it seems to be opposed. It would surely have been more sensible for a Government supported by only 38 per cent. of those who did vote
282
to concentrate on putting the economy right, and, Lord knows! there is enough to do there. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the other night, no dispassionate observer and none of your Lordships opposite could stand up in your place and put your hand on your heart and conscientiously say chat in the very serious economic circumstances in which we are the nationalisation of aircraft and shipbuilding, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, or indeed the Education Bill, can have any positive effect other than to undermine confidence abroad. Nevertheless, we have been laced with this mass of legislation.
Perhaps I might mention just one other matter. We have also noticed—how could we not?—statements about confrontation made by various Ministers. They seem, if I may say so, both premature and a little hysterical. The House of Commons have not even discussed our Amendments to any of these Bills, so how can confrontation arise? And even the Prime Minister seems to hive moved into a world of fantasy. Liste ling to his remarks, repeated on the radio this morning, I was mildly surprised that he did not blame the run on the pound on the House of Lords, engineered, of course, by myself, who is well known to have been the leader of the conspiracy against the miners, helped this time by all the Liberal Party and all the Cross Benchers. Of such are fairy stories made. We shall not be deflected by this sort of stuff from doing our constitutional job.
There are those who say that, since the House of Lords is composed as it is, why bother? Just treat it as if it did not exist; if it says anything just ignore it, and make speeches about abolition and its "self-appointed task" and confrontation—things of that kind. Well, I suppose there has not been anybody o z any side of this House—and not always, I think, with the wholehearted approval of all your Lordships—who has more consistently advocated the reform of this House than I have. Indeed a great many of us, eight or nine years ago, voted for it, and, as the noble Lord, Lord flyers, said, but for Mr. Foot we would have had it.
Several noble Lords: And Mr. Powell.
Lord CARRINGTON: And Mr. Powell.
Lord PEART: Mr. Powell and a lot of other Tories.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I must say quite frankly that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does not know what he is talking about when he blames Mr. Foot and Mr. Powell, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, does. I was in the other place at the time; I know exactly what happened. If there had been a reasonable scheme, a scheme which would have appealed to the majority of the Members of another place, it might have been agreed.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the vast majority of your Lordships thought it was a reasonable scheme, and it passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons; Mr. Foot opposed it; so I cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is getting so excited. He has already had one turn and he is going to have another turn later. Mr. Foot opposed it, and but for him and for Mr. Powell and a few others we should be reformed. Mr. Foot actually had a lot of Parliamentary fun, but I do not think he did anybody much of a service. So we are not reformed.
It so happens that because the Government have got themselves into a terrible and incompetent muddle over their programme, because they have gravely miscalculated the amount of time needed to get these Bills through the Commons, we are in the mess we are in. Even in the Commons these Bills have not been properly discussed; they have been guillotined. Large chunks of the Bills have never been discussed at all. Unless the second Chamber does something about it, these Bills will, without any Parliamentary examination, go on the Statute Book.
I must honestly say that I am astonished at those in another place and elsewhere who seem to think that there is something malign or improper or unconstitutional or anti-democratic about those of us who suggest that Bills which have not been properly examined in another place should be properly examined here and that proper time should be given to do it. It is a curious doctrine to suggest that the Government must get their own way regardless of what Parliament says, or what Parliament does not say because it has not been given the opportunity to say
284
it, to declare in effect that what the Government want they are going to have. My Lords, Parliament is still sovereign, and I can think of no precedent in my time in this House for the way in which we have been asked to treat these Bills.
The two most contentious Bills that I remember have been the Industrial Relations Bill and the London Government Bill. On the London Government Bill, which was introduced by a Conservative Government, two days were spent on Second Reading, 11 days on Committee spread over four weeks, in which there were 61 Divisions, most of them Divisions on the advice of noble Lords opposite. Four days were spent on Report, spread over two weeks, in which there were another 33 Divisions. The passage of the whole Bill through your Lordships' House took three months. On the Industrial Relations Bill 18 days were spent in Committee, spread over April, May and June; nine days were spent on Report, and the whole Bill took just under four months to go through your Lordships' House. The comparison between the time afforded then and now needs no under-lining. Surely noble Lords would not claim that the Bills we now have before us are of less importance, for if they are why are the Government so anxious to get them through? I must tell your Lordships that I think that the attitude of the Opposition and of the Liberal Party has been wholly reasonable. We have sat late every night. We have worked hard and we have worked long.
It may not be wholly realised by those outside this House exactly what a Committee stage and a Report stage entail. It is bad, but it is not so bad for the Government, because they, after all, have the whole of the Civil Service behind them, preparing briefs, devising Amendments or answers to Amendments, a most efficient and most substantial bureaucracy. We in the Opposition have nothing of the kind. We have to do these things ourselves. We write our own speeches; we devise our own Amendments; we learn our own facts. I think that even the Government have a difficulty, and I make no complaint about this because I realise their problems just as well as they do, particularly those of the Ministers who are answering for Departments in which they themselves do not serve. I remember once when I was First Lord of the

285
Admiralty having to pilot through this House the Shops and Offices Bill for which I was hardly well qualified, and it was very hard work. But the result has been—and I make no personal criticism in this—that some of the answers really have been inadequate. When those answers are inadequate it inevitably means that the Amendments will be put down again on the Report stage, and yet more time will he spent and be needed.
There is one other issue which I think we should consider, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned this, and that is the question of the staff of this House. The Reporters who have to take down the debates, the staff of the refreshment room, the Doorkeepers, and countless others are under very great strain. I would therefore say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the right and proper thing to do is to allow more time for discussion. If it means that the Opening of Parliament has to be postponed, then so be it. But I, for one, cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who has just arrived from another place—and we have welcomed him—to be the Leader of your Lordships' House, wishes to preside over a House which his Government refuse to allow to function properly.
I have moved my Amendment to Lord Byers's Motion as I said, not because I disagree with his purpose but largely because I prefer my own words. In this House we have very few rules and we do not bind ourselves, broadly speaking, with standing orders. I believe that to accept the first sentence of Lord Byers's Motion would be to take us on the road to having compulsory adjournments at certain hours and would put the House in the future in a straitjacket. Of course we should not sit more than ten hours, but there have always been occasions when the House has found it necessary to do so. They should be, and indeed apart from this spill-over have been, very infrequent. In my Amendment I seek to delete that part of the Motion and to ask your Lordships to agree with me that it is regrettable that the Government have failed to give effect to the principle that we should examine in detail legislation much of which has been denied discussion and scrutiny, and to ask that proper time be afforded to us. I beg to move.
Moved, as Amendments to the above Motion,—
Line 1, leave out from ""House") to ("calls") in line 3;
Line 6, leave out from ("Commons") to end of line 7 and insert ("regrets that Her Majesty's Government has failed to give effect to this principle and requests that adequate parliamentary time be afforded for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation.")—Lord Carrington.)
3.33 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am tempted to get involved in making a debating speech. May I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that while there are some parts of his speech with which I agree there are some with which I do not. He was rather wrong and hi: rd on the Commons in relation to the time they have spent on Bills which have come to this House. I have all the figures. They debated the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill in another place on the Floor of the House for 46 hours and 13 minutes, and in Standing Committee for 141 hours; the Health Services Bill, on the Floor of the House 23 hours and 46 minutes, and in Standing Committee 74 hours and 11 minutes; the Education Bill, on the Floor of the House 40 hours 7 minutes and in Standing Committee 30 hours.
I may say to the noble Lord, when he talks about a guillotine, that I remember that it was a Conservative Administration which quite recently guillotined one of the most important Bills this Parliament has discussed. I refer to the Bill which paved the way for our entry into the European Community. I believe it was a constitutional outrage to put a guillotine on a measure like that. So the guillotine has been used by several Governments. Indeed, the Liberal Party itself has not been clean—if I may use that word—in this regard. I see nothing wrong myself, as a former Leader of the House in having a time-table procedure which has been accepted by all Parties. Therefore I believe that that type of argument is not one that really can be taken quite seriously.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we must have proper discussion. Parliament is sovereign. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and

287
indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I believed in a reformed House of Lords. I said this. Indeed, I was then partner to the discussions which went on with the major Parties at that time. I regret that we did not have it. It is true that certain individuals took a certain line of activity, distinguished Conservatives and distinguished members of my Party, for various reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, they took a certain line and there was force in their arguments. I am only sorry that we did not have a reformed House.
So I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, that I believe strongly in a Second Chamber. I should not wish to be in a Chamber if I thought it was not going to serve an important part in the working of our Constitution. I mean that sincerely, as I think noble Lords on both sides who know me well would agree. But I do not want to make it too personal. We are having major arguments. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was rather hard on the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had arguments of that kind, but not on a procedure Motion of this type. I have heard them and I do not want to get involved in that type of argument. I know that hard things have been said today, and indeed a number of hard things have been said outside the House in the last few days as well. At this point in the Session there are bound to be hard words on both sides. Nevertheless, I shall not be deterred from beginning with the points on which I believe we can agree. That, I have always been told, is the way in which this House works. It is also the way in which I hope it will work in the future. We shall not make life any easier for ourselves by pouring fuel on the fire.
I can assure noble Lords opposite that I accept a great deal of what they have said. We have been working under considerable strain. A noble Lord said on my first day here, when I made a contribution, that I had jumped into the deep end, and it is a very deep lake that I have fallen into. We have been working under considerable strain; I accept that, and the noble Lord is right. We have been working late in the evening night after night and have been asked to make real personal sacrifices. Noble Lords opposite
288
will understand that the sacrifices are not confined to them.
I am glad that the noble Lord paid tribute to some of my colleagues, because he, too, as he said, had experience of this when he was once in Government. My noble friends behind me, and particularly the noble Lords on the Front Bench beside me, have also borne a heavy burden. I should like to pay a tribute to them for the unflagging way in which they have carried on through thick and thin, debating Bills which quite often are right outside their Departmental responsibility. It just happens that I am lucky: I am conducting an agricultural Bill, a subject which it used to be my responsibility to deal with. But it is difficult for them, and I think we all understand that. Again I pay tribute to the hard work of the staff—the Clerks, Hansard, the people who look after the refreshment departments, and I know it does impose a burden on them. I pay tribute to their work.
I think noble Lords on both sides have always borne in mind the House's constitutional duty to give thorough consideration to Bills, and especially Bills which have been guillotined in another place. I accept this. The noble Lord has in no way frustrated the House. He and his colleagues have been anxious to see that these Bills are adequately scrutinised. I know that on the Bill dealing with tied cottages we have had full debates and full scrutiny; and this is right. I cannot complain—I must be frank with those who may criticise unfairly—and I hope that this attitude will continue.
We have had long debates on many of these issues and it is right that we should. I hope, as I have said to my noble friends, that the House will go on giving full and detailed consideration to the measures that are before us. Of course, I do not agree with everything the House has decided. There are passionately held opinions on the Benches opposite and noble Lords are entitled to express their views vigorously and with passion and eloquence. And certainly it is right that we on these Benches must have this policial debate within the framework of the system which we treasure and defend. We are sure to differ about the significance of some of the Amendments which have been carried against the Government. For my part, I think that some of the Amendments

289
which are called revision could be described in a different way, and I will mention one in particular.
I find it rather ironical or amusing that on a major Bill dealing with the agricultural industry the first Amendment should he to exclude the dairy industry and then later to exclude forestry, a major section of the industry. If that is not what would call a wrecking Amendment, I do not know what is. I do not see, for example, how one can take a Bill on agricultural tied cottages and remove more than half the agricultural industry from its scope without questions being raised. I do not doubt the motive of noble Lords opposite; I believe that they want to change the Bill radically and improve it from their point of view. On the other hand, some other people may argue—I am not—that their motives are different.
I also find that the Opposition has developed an addiction to the Division Lobby. Noble Lords opposite have defeated the Government 169 times in the last two years. Taking the average of Conservative Administrations, we should normally need 28 years to run up a total like that. While I would not argue with the right of noble Lords opposite to carry out their constitutional duty, I think it should be for all of us, through consultation and co-operation, to find the best way to carry out that duty in the time available. We should be seeking to ease this burden on the House wherever we can, and I stress that. So let us find ways of carrying this burden of legislation as sensibly as we can.
Having said that, I must comment briefly on the Motion and the Amendment before the House. I already detect a feeling that one cannot and should not lay down hard and fast rules about how long the House should sit and I believe that there is broad agreement on that. We do not want to have any cut-off points like those in another place because of the opportunities for abuse and filibustering which they create. We do not have a Speaker or elaborate rules of order and I am sure that we do not want them. The other House is a different place. We are much more interested, I think, in ensuring that the House can discharge its duties as a revising Chamber efficiently and well.
290
A period of heavy legislation like this is, after all, not unknown. One need only go back to 1947, for example, during the nationalisation Bills of that period, to find the House sitting night after night until 11 p.m.; or to 1971, when the Conservatives were in power, to see the House sitting regularly after midnight. Probably Opposition Members expressed the same views then as have bee expressed by noble Lords today. In 1972 there was another period of Sittings regularly until late at night and one on a Friday when the House sat until after 6 p.m. Admittedly we must go rather further back to find a time when the Liberals were in Government; the old House of Lords in October 1909 was behaving just like it is now, sitting until midnight every night.
I know that statistics can prow, anything. My object is only to show that the strain we have undergone in recent weeks is not so exceptional as some noble Lords would have us believe. Although we should be looking for improvements in our procedure, I ask the House to consider what would he the effect of agreeing with the Liberal Motion. It would still be possible to sit until after one o'clock in the morning every day, and we should have trespassed against it only three times this Session. I assure noble Lords that, contrary to what has been suggested in certain quarters, we have no intention of regular all-night Sittings, which I at once agree would have a very harmful effect on the standard of our debate and the value of our revision. This has never been our intention and when noble Lords have consulted me on this point I think I have been able to satisfy them at once.
Much has been made of the suggestion that we should extend the Session. I should point out that we have already extended it; the opening is at least a fortnight later than is customary. Moreover, the conduct of business in this House depends basically on good and without good will business becomes very difficult under any timetable. I recognise, however, that there have been many representations about the programme, that these have been reinforced by noble Lords opposite, and that they may well be repeated. I can therefore assure the House that I do not ignore them, and in any discussions I have following this debate I shall keep the interests of the House firmly to the fore.

291
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the main part of his Amendment because, contrary to what he argues, I think Her Majesty's Government have certainly not failed to provide adequate time for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation. The major Bills were given some of the fullest and longest discussion ever in the Commons and there has been no out-back of debate here. We have had detailed Committee stages and will no doubt have detailed Report stages as well. I agree that we should try to give adequate time for discussion, and I shall do so, but it is more important that we should be looking for ways to meet the spirit of the Motion and the Amendment than that we should increase the source of conflict between us. I believe that this debate will have served its purpose without a Division and I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, will see fit to withdraw the Motion and the Amendment.
3.47 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, the Motion with the Amendment proposed by my noble friend and Leader Lord Carrington, which I cordially support, is expressed in terms of moderation. I understand that last year the House warned the Government that it was unreasonable to swamp us with legislation in the last month or two of the Session and that we could not fulfil our role efficiently if it happened again. The Government, I understood, said that that would not recur, but in spite of that warning it has been incomparably worse this Session.
A number of intensely controversial Bills have been imposed upon us during not the last few months but the last few weeks of the Session, and most of those Bills, in the opinion of many noble Lords, have no relevance whatever to our pressing immediate economic problems. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, just said about the priorities with which we are faced; I thought that his remarks were not relevant to this debate but were relevant to the measures that are being imposed on us at the present time. Confronted with this situation, what have your Lordships done? We came back two weeks earlier, we have sat long hours and
292
our efforts have been concentrated on a careful examination and improvement in detail of the Bills before us. I have heard no filibustering when I have been in the Chamber.
What thanks do we receive from Ministers in the other place? Allegations in some quarters have been made that we have been guilty of the sacrilege of making any Amendments to Socialist measures passed by small majorities in the other place. There have even been threats that if we continue with these efforts we risk abolition. Do the Government not recognise that the main role of this House is a positive and inescapable duty to examine, amend and try to correct defects in the legislative measures which come up to us? So far from exceeding our powers by undertaking this function, we should, if we were to allow the complicated and in some cases hastily drafted legislation that has come before us to pass without criticism, be guilty of utterly failing in our constitutional duty. As a silent Back-Bencher, I should like to pay tribute to the very able noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for the way in which they have carried out their tasks during the very tiring past weeks with good temper and conscientious thoroughness. I gladly concede that Ministers, too, have played their part with courtesy, patience and consideration. They cannot have had an easy time either and they have my respectful sympathy. The time factor has made it an almost impossible joint task.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, just now gave us a very bizarre statistic and perhaps a rather melancholy one. He said that the Government had been beaten 169 times in the past two years. I do not know where he unearthed that figure, but it is very interesting. I hasten to say that I am attributing no blame whatever to the usual channels. I am sure that they have done their very best to make things work.
In particular, I am convinced that excessive hours and all-night Sittings are a recipe for inefficient and ineffective work. I never remember, when I was in another place, any worthwhile discussion of intricate clauses taking place much after midnight. All-night Sittings are an invention of the devil, if that is a Parliamentary expression.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount managed to keep me up all night on the Finance Bill on a number of occasions.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, if everybody had gone home, that Bill would have gone through like lightning! The treatment we have received this Session from the Government on our timetable is utterly unreasonable. I nearly permitted myself to say "outrageous", but in this House we choose our words with studied moderation and I am speaking today more in sorrow than in anger. It is our bounden duty to warn the Government, as the Motion and the Amendment do, that we cannot fulfil our constitutional functions if we are treated with such a lack of under-standing and consideration.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House is greatly liked and respected in all parts of the House. He will know, because he is a wise and percipient person, that if your Lordships are treated reasonably we are an easy lot to manage and are responsible, patient and responsive. As he is a former Minister of Agriculture, I had been going to make a comparison, but I will tell it to the noble Lord afterwards, for I am afraid that, if I do so now, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will accuse me of flippancy. I do not want that. I trust that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will represent the reasonable but strongly held views held in many parts of the House to his right honourable friends with force and with that persuasiveness for which he is so rightly admired. In the long term, the answer to this problem can be expressed in two words, "less legislation".
3.55 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in a speech of studied moderation, my noble friend the Leader of the House has appealed to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, to withdraw both the Motion and the Amendments. I shall, in the language of the late lamented Herbert Asquith, wait and see. We have no authority in such matters; that authority is vested in the over-whelming, built-in Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. There have been criticisms of Her Majesty's Government, some subtly suggested, but the
294
whole point of both speeches that we have heard from the Opposition was to undermine Her Majesty's Government. Let there be no hesitation on the part of anybody on this side of the House in accepting that point of view.
I want to make one point clear beyond all possibility of doubt. Nothing that I have said in any debate in this House indicates that I seek its abolition. I doubt whether there is anything in our Constitution, written or unwritten, which vests authority in your Lordships' House. Indeed, no such claim was ever made except by the Conservative Party itself many years ago. This was when Arthur Balfour, the intellectual and scholarly Prime Minister in the early fart of the century, declared that—and it is on the record—whether the Conservative Party were in Government or Opposition, it was they who controlled the destinies of this country. That was said then, and there are many Conservative Members of this House who still believe that.
Anyhow, they have the authority. On no single occasion in the past few months when engaged in debate—that is what we call it, though it is confrontation, for there is no question of debate when we know that at the end of the discussion, the Opposition will win—have we been able to change the Opposition's mind. The same thing could happen this afternoon or evening, if the appeal that my noble friend Lord Peart has made to the other side fails, as that is likely—for what other purpose have they? A few years ago, they engaged in a policy of union bashing. That no longer applies. They are now seeking to flirt with the trade unions. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and others are an indication of what they would like to happen. Now it is not union bashing but Government bashing, and we had it this afternoon.
All the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is asking for—and it is not so very much—is the withdrawal of the obnoxious legislation that has been passed in another place. That would satisfy t le noble Lord, Lord Byers. In other words, he is quite prepared to accept the Government so long as they carry through legislation that suits the Liberal Party. That is what he said. The same applies to the Conservative Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he would be quite

295
satisfied if the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill were withdrawn. He would prefer that to an extension which would enable discussions to proceed.
There are other items of legislation that are objectionable—repugnant even—to those on the other side. They have said so and still believe so, and, in spite of the moderation shown by my noble friend the Leader of the House, they will continue to say so. Nothing that was said by my noble friend will satisfy those on the other side.
Let me make it clear to Members of your Lordships' House that what I am asking for is what I mentioned in the course of a very short debate when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, moved his original Motion. That is if we are to resolve our problems, whatever they are—even our political problems—at any rate in the foreseeable future and, indeed, for some time longer if need be, it is essential to act together. I do not ask for a coalition because coalitions cannot be imposed suddenly upon the community, and certainly not on political Parties as they now are. But I ask for understanding.
Perhaps I may mention a speech which I made in your Lordships' House when Mr. Heath was Prime Minister. I remarked at a time when it was obvious that problems were in our path which seemed almost impossible of solution that he should have addressed himself to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Wilson as he then was, and to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, and in conjunction with the CBI and the TUC he should have diagnosed the complaint which was affecting our country financially and economically and, having diagnosed it, should have sought a solution—not a coalition but an understanding which would have created confidence in the country. When there was a change of Government and Mr. Wilson found himself at the head of the State I appealed that he should approach Mr. Heath and the Leader of the Liberal Party and so on, as well as the TUC and the CBI, precisely in the language I used on a previous occasion, in order to bring about an understanding. I mention this, not to depart from my political philosophy—not at all. I have strong convictions, sincerely held, whatever others may think. I do
296
not see a possible solution of our problems without such understanding and the creation of confidence. There is no hope of creating confidence, either here or over-seas, unless it is understood that those in authority in this country, in the political arena, get together and talk things over with understanding, even if it means, for the time being, setting aside the political shibboleths that have been current for far too long.
I do not wish to prolong the debate and have only one or two further points to make. I do not believe that this debate will make the slightest difference. If my noble friend the Leader of the House thinks so, I must remind your Lordships that he is new to this place. I wish him well, although I have reasons for wishing otherwise sometimes. I have known him a long, long time. I will not go into details. I leave him, when he writes his autobiography, to refer to them. I will bear what he writes with my customary fortitude. But he is not the politician he is claimed to he—a subtle politician—if he believes that an appeal to the other side has the slightest effect; not at all!
I do not charge them with filibustering; indeed, if I may be permitted to say so, I admire some of the young elements on the Opposition Front Bench: the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and some of the others. There is also the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I admire them: they are young, they are putting up a show, trying to teach their elders—and that is not very difficult, after all. I can understand their anger, straining at the leash because they hope for an Election and they hope to find themselves geographically placed otherwise than at present. I can understand them; I admire them; I listen to them. But no filibustering, no, not at all; just probing and probing, and indeed having postmortems and inquests at the very beginning, even before the corpse has arrived. I have watched this situation time and again, on innumerable occasions, until it became a bore and I had to leave the assembly. I could not stand it any longer.
They were moving Amendment after Amendment, and then withdrawing them, again and again. If they had indulged in a little thought, more investigation,

297
more scrutiny—that is what is being asked for this afternoon, more scrutiny—then they would not have moved the Amendments at all. At any rate it was their intention to withdraw them. Far more Amendments have been withdrawn than have been carried in your Lordships' House on any legislation under review. We know that. I am getting tired of being in an assembly—although there is nothing personal about this; there are people of remarkable intelligence in your Lordships' House, people for whom one has an affection after a time when one gets to know them; there is no malice at all in it—where one is on the losing side all the time. If only one could once be on the winning side!
Time and again it did not matter. It was said that we do not turn up, that we stay away. I, too, complain about that, although sometimes I do not stay here late at nights; unless you pay me overtime I have no intention of doing that. But there are too few of us here occasionally. Many have been pitchforked into this place, and having been pitchforked into it have pitchforked themselves out. We hardly see them at all—and even if we see them it does not matter very much. That is the position. What is said? We do not appear in sufficient numbers, said the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. How clever it was! What an observation to make. How clever! If only we appeared, he said—
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I never said anything of the kind.
Lord SHINWELL: Perhaps the noble Lord will say what he did say—or perhaps he will tell us some other time. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is very clever and very able; no doubt about that. But here I use the language of the famous Lord Salisbury about somebody for whom I had the highest respect, but I will not mention his name: it was said that he was "too clever by half". That is part of our political history. What is the use of coming here anyhow? We know that we are going to be defeated. I admire the activities of our Chief Whip. How hard she works, how industrious she is, and how charming she is at the same time! But does that make any difference? One comes here, one takes part in debates,
298
one argues, one is eloquent and one believes oneself to be right; but at the end of the debate the overwhelm is majority on the other side, who do not even listen to the debate, suddenly appear There are hordes of them. From whence they come I have not the slightest idea. I have not the least doubt that many of them are here today because they have been told to come.
Lord BYERS: My Lords. does the noble Lord remember what he said on the Business Motion, about fun and games and frivolity?
Lord SHINWELL: Yes, my Lords, but I do not see the relevance of that now. It is not a question of fun and games. I am quite serious in what I say; I am very serious indeed. I am serious because I do not want anything to go wrong in your Lordships' House, except to reduce the numbers on the other side. Is there any thing wrong with that? Why even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has suggested that—and, by the way, how many times has he said, truly said, as he said this afternoon, that he has sought to reform your Lordships' House and to make suggestions. Perhaps he might be a little more practical and some day produce a Motion which is rather more detailed; perhaps we might support him. But nothing short of reducing the number of hereditary Peers in the Howe on the Conservative side will make the slightest difference. It is an imbalance which cannot be sustained.
My Lords, I shall not proceed any further other than to say this. I do not believe that this debate has been of the slightest help—not at all. We will go on as usual; there will be a bashing of the Government, and the Government will proceed with their legislation. I know what they could do in another place. What they could do is this. Instead of legislation proceeding as it does—Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and all the rest—they ought to submit legislation to Committees for them to consider and scrutinise in the first place. That is what they ought to do. If they proceeded along Committee lines they would save a lot of lime, and so should we. However, there it is. We shall just have to put up with what is happening, and say what we think is right.

299
That I have sought to do; and if anybody thinks there is malice in what was said he is mistaken. But I do understand what the other side are driving at, and object to it.
4.11 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, if we were business executives and not a Legislature we should find ourselves subject to a directive from our colleagues not to attempt to conduct negotiations or enter into agreements while we were suffering from jet-lag, sleeplessness or general travel weariness. That is because boards of directors, who are not divided into a Government and an Opposition permanently finding fault with one another, are prepared to base their regulations upon common sense, and it is generally agreed that tired men do not conduct their business as efficiently as men who are fresh and have had a good night's sleep. Now, if you make an ill-advised business agreement you can usually buy your way out of it; everything has its price. But we here, as a Legislature, are engaged on very much more delicate business. Every time we make a law, either directly or indirectly we compel every one of Her Majesty's subjects, either to do something which left to their own devices they spontaneously would not, or not to do something which left to their own devices they spontaneously would. This is a very serious matter, and ought to be entered into in a very serious frame of mind.
It sometimes requires a double prick, as it were, to drive a point home, and the first time I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsharn, remind your Lordships' House that in the period he was reviewing we had put through 3,000 pages, I think it was, of new legislation and 10,000 pages of subordinate legislation, I did not react to it as sharply as I might. But when I heard him repeat it the other evening in his now famous lecture on television, the point struck home and I suddenly realised that your Lordships' Legislature is engaged on precisely the same task as Tristram Shandy when writing his autobiography; namely, that it took him longer to write out the events than the time in which they occurred, and so he was falling steadfastly behindhand. Your Lordships'
300
attempts to put on the Statute Book all the opinions which are ventilated as to what might be nice in an ideal world are taking longer than the rate at which the world is changing, calling for more and more legislation conceived in the same way. So we are suffering from an excess of legislation at a time when we ought to have our minds on other things. Here we are, living beyond our means on borrowed time and borrowed money, both of which are running out, and instead of putting our minds to what matters they are engaged in an entirely excessive amount of low-priority legislation which I am quite convinced in my own mind nobody wants.
My Lords, I speak from the Cross-Benches. All seven Benches were full at Question Time today—so full that they were full to overflowing and some of my noble friends were beginning to elbow supporters of the Government Party out into the gangways. But I hope that we shall expand our influence, which we maintain to the small hours of the morning. There has been a Cross-Bench presence up to as late an hour as you please to specify at any time when we were suffering from excessive legislation. This is not moved by Party passion, but by the desire to discharge our duties, in terms of the writs we have received, by coming here and listening—and they also serve who only sit and listen. I was here till three o'clock this morning. I was home by half-past three. By four o'clock I had found a double yellow line on which to park my car, and thereafter I set my alarm clock for eight o'clock so that I could move my car again before picking up a£6 fine, which I should not have been allowed to charge as an allowable expense for attending your Lordships' House. There followed a morning's work, and I am going to do my best in what remains of today.
To what purpose, my Lords? Here, if I may, I must address a word by way of reproof to the Government Party, some-what on the lines of Hamlet, who said to his mother,
"… look here, upon this picture, and on this …".
Let me show them their portrait in my mirror. What does all this low-priority legislation do for us? In my view, it serves but one purpose: to paper over the cracks in the coalition that governs us.

301
I do not care whether you call the paper the Social Contract or the emperor's clothes, the cracks are there. In a sense I support both the Motions which are before your Lordships' House. If I had to choose between (as I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, called it) the aristocratic tone as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and what I would call plain speech, which is the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would back plain speech against aristocratic tone any day. But since the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is prepared to pull his punches and go along with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I will do the same and support the Motion and the Amendment which the noble Lord proposes.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he spoke, I think understood very much the feeling of the House. He nearly agreed with everything that my noble friend Lord Carrington said to him; he very nearly agreed with everything the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said to him. I think it is a great pleasure to know that we now have a Leader of your Lordships' House who is as sensitive to the wishes of your Lordships. All I hope is that he can translate those wishes to his colleagues in the Cabinet, and especially to the Prime Minister.
Clive, when accused of bribery, is reported to have replied,
"Gentlemen, I am astonished at my own moderation".
I think that this remark could with all justification have been said by every single Liberal, every single Tory and most Cross-Bench Peers in your Lordships House. The legislation which is being hurled at us night after night is anathema to all of us on this side of the House, and it could be described thus: legislation to provide privileged fiefdoms for some of Her Majesty's Government's most influential supporters; legislation to abolish educational centres of excellence; legislation to deprive the Health Service of much needed funds and people of the freedom of choice; legislation to inflict on the agricultural industry disadvantages not applicable to other industries; legislation for the forced sale of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries to the State on terms
302
which are dubiously near, in come cases, to that of confiscation.
I do not think that the members of Her Majesty's Government in another place realise how much we dislike these measures. If they did, they would see how apt my quotation of Clive was. We have not wrecked any Public Bills; we have not threatened to stand form on any of our Amendments. As every noble Lord who has spoken so far has said, we have done our public duty—as has also been said, this public duty given to us by a Labour Government. Nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, have we unnecessarily prolonged the discussions. We have not, as was done by the present Party in power when it was in Opposition, forced six or seven Divisions over one dinner hour on one night. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, mentioned "Division addiction"; I presume he is saying that it is catching.
All that my noble friends and I are asking is that Her Majesty's Government should respect the Constitution and not overload us with work, and when we work according to that Constitution not squeal, "Foul!" if they do not like what we are doing. They can always, after all, change it in another place and if they do not like that, they can go and ask the opinion of the people who are our lords an I masters. Above all, as a revising Chamber this is obviously necessary for both Parties in power. How long was spent on the Industrial Relations Act? How long was spent on the London Government Act? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has told us. Much longer was spent on t hem than on Bills we are now discussing. Let us have a reformed Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made the point so well for this. It must be a reformed Chamber which can carry Amendments against a Conservative Government when it is in power. The arguments then about Peers versus people would no lor ger carry weight because the composition could be justified.
But, my Lords, until that reform has happened I sincerely hope that your Lordships will do your duties to the best of your abilities, each and every one of us. Will not the Labour Party introduce a sensible reform? If the Labour Party will not do this, then will my noble friend Lord Carrington urge it even more

303
loudly and more prolongedly on his friends and our Party to make sure that we have a sensible, sound and wisely constituted revising Chamber.
4.22 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I find myself in almost complete agreement with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Measures which have been guillotined in another place and which come to this House should be looked at line by line and clause by clause. That is the fundamental duty of a second Chamber which regards its function as that of a revising Chamber. It should discharge that duty. My complaint against this House is that it does it with thoroughness only when there is a Labour Government.
I was very glad indeed that the Leader of the House mentioned the Common Market. That was a constitutional outrage and the price for it has not yet been paid. We have not yet paid the first instalment of it. What it meant was that when the Bill was guillotined in another place, forced through unamended, and was placed on the Statute Book, the people of this country missed the opportunity to learn what it was all about from the debates that should have taken place in another place and in this House. The full realisation of what the Common Market means has not yet penetrated the political thinking of the British people. My charge against the Conservative Party opposite is therefore the old one of, in one word, hypocrisy. Today they have said many things with which I agree, but when we judge what they say by what they do, there is a world of difference. That is the charge against them.
For my part I say to the Government something very simple. The Leader of the House, and indeed the Cabinet, should know what this place is about. They should not expect any different behaviour from that which has happened. When there is a great majority and the popular will is plain for all to see the Tory Party, as always, is either at your feet or at your throat. In the early stages it will be at your feet. Nothing is too much for you—"Yes, old boy"—all the collaboration in the world. But when the wind changes and the majorities are narrow, then off
304
comes the sheeps' clothing and you find out that the wolf has teeth.
If one wanted another example in addition to the Common Market, one could look at what happened last Friday, on a Private Members' Bill. The noble Lord on this side of the House "boxed" it a bit by giving the Tories opposite an excuse for doing what they did, for voting it down. But I thought that this was a judicially-minded Chamber, a Chamber which took full account of the legal processes. There was a Select Committee of the House which made a recommendation. That however made no difference, and because this smacked of something the Tory Party did not like—nationalisation, they said—so off with its head.
I have been a critic of the present Prime Minister; my attitude towards the Prime Minister may perhaps he likened to the attitude of my noble friend Lord Shinwell to the Leader of the House—we wish him well, but not too much if I may say so. But after listening to the Prime Minister's broadcast last night, let me say that he has my 100 per cent. support. And one needs support when times are not as good as they might be. Of course, the Government should recognise what is afoot and should behave accordingly: never threaten, never warn, just promise. The Government should extend the sittings; they should go all through the motions; they should give the Party opposite all the rope in the world, because that is the only way in which they will hang themselves. If necessary, they should introduce the Felixstowe Docks Bill as a Government measure and, if it is slung out, then use the Parliament Act to enforce it.
The Prime Minister was asked last night: "Who governs this country?" Somebody said, "The TUC." "No", he said, "We govern". Very well, let the Government govern, and govern in the face of the Opposition opposite. What does it mean? Nothing. On the day the House reassembled I—a minority of one—ventured to get to my feet just to put on the record what the economic crisis was all about. I pointed out the situation of the Rhine Army which is now costing not a penny less than£1,200 million a year. For practical purposes its military use is not worth tuppence.

305
An American general said it was "pathetic". Why did he say that? He said that because it is armed with atomic tactical weapons that have a range of 12 miles. They are obsolescent and under American control. It has always been so. If ever war comes then within two hours we are in the bag. Would noble Lords please note that since the end of the last war £58,000 million has been spent in defence; and if an American general says that is pathetic, I in my barrack room way would say, "You couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding"—but that after£58,000 million has been spent.
The comparison is made with the reserves of Germany. That is what your noble policies have done for this poor benighted country. We won two wars. Noble Lords will perhaps remember the popular song "We Won the War". Whatever for? Look at the defeated. Germany and Japan have not done so badly. But look at us. The cause of our economic crisis is because the people of this country have never been brought face to face with the truth. It is not because we do not work too hard. The Prime Minister last night spelt out the Rhine Army, the reserve currency, and of course our Middle East policy. All those trips to Israel have to be paid for, and they are paid for by runs on sterling by those who now hate our guts. That is what we have done. It is within our control; but we shall not control it until we face up to it, and we have not faced up to it.
I will now venture another prophecy. Noble Lords have behaved as they have over the Common Market and over the Felixstowe Docks Bill. What they are doing—I probably will not live to see it but it will come—is to lay the foundation in Britain for the largest, strongest Communist Party in Europe. Let the economic crisis worsen because of the phoney policies here, and what results from them? A Conservative Government might fall through; but the bill comes to be paid, and then the scales drop from people's eyes just like that. Noble Lords will see what happens. As to their vaunted so-called power to come down here and vote down this Administration night after night, they will see what it is worth.
I congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on his speech; he is a reasonable man. But he can be quite sure of
306
one thing. The Amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is going to be carried, and its effect is to regret the Government's action. Of course, if they do not put you into shackles, the reason is because they fear they might inherit the shackles too; and so they leave it. We should go back to the Prime Minister and say: "If that is the game they war t to play, play it. Go to the people of 'Wales and Scotland and say to them that they cannot have devolution, that you are very sorry but devolution will have to be put off because the Tory Party are having political fun and games." That is what politics is about. If they wart to play the games that they have played, let them play them—but make sure that they pay the bill.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I put one point to him. He said the reason why the Felixstowe Docks Bill was rejected by the House was because the Tory Party dislike nationalisation. Would the noble Lord not agree, on reflection, that something between 85 and 90 per cent. of the people of this country also dislike it?
Lord WIGG: It may well be; but I must say to the noble Lord that he really oughtto try to understand howademocracy works. Once a Government ale elected they are not expected to trim their sails to every wind that blows. They do what they believe to be right as long s control of the House of Commons is in their hands, and at the end of the day the electorate will take a decision But I do not happen to believe what the noble Lord said. Of course, as the situation is presented by the media—the impartial BBC and our impartial Press—what chance have the people of this country to under-stand objectively what it is all about?
4.32 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the debate in which we are engaged is on a procedural Motion with constitutional overtones, so I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others in controversy about controversy, if I may put it that way. I will return to the noble Lord's point about the imbalance and constitution of this Home later. If we had listened to one speech this afternoon which is more outstanding than

307
any other, I believe it was that of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who in effect said: "What on earth does this House and Parliament look like, at the centre of a great economic storm, fiddling around with matters of second-rate importance?" I am, of course, paraphrasing, but that is very much what the noble Earl said.
We must surely consider first the standing of this House and of Parliament in the eyes of the people. If there is one feature of recent weeks which is less agreeable than any other, it is the decline of the normally co-operative atmosphere in this House. During the Felixstowe debate last Friday I was struck by some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who, although he was accused at one point of "wriggling", at any rate included in his speech this useful passage that I am about to quote. He said he regretted that particular Bill had come before your Lordships for its Third Reading—
"in a particularly charged period politically when there has been a great deal of discussion against nationalisation and nationalisation proposals."—[Official Report, 22/10/76; col.1734.]
He continued:
"It has partly resulted from the pressure of the overspill and the fact that we are all operating under time pressures which are not to the benefit of sober discussion and debate."
I believe that statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, whose moderation we all respect and whose personality we all admire, will command the general assent of this House.
A rather similar point was made in the very moderate speech made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he said in effect that if, for example, in another place a cut-off point for debate is established, that immediately invites filibustering. I believe he was on to an absolutely right point and one which is relevant to our own proceedings here. For the difficulty that we are up against, and about which we are now protesting, is that so early a date has been fixed for the next Session. I grant that it is later than usual, but it is an early date against the background of the Business still before us. An early date has been fixed for the next Session, against which there is so heavy a backlog, which—and, my Lords, one must say this with honesty and modesty—amounts, or at least may be
308
thought to amount, to an attempt to bulldoze this House.
The "bulldozing" that many of us have felt—and as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said, our debates in this House have been attended by Cross-Benchers throughout the night—does not apply simply to Members of these Benches or of the Liberal Benches but certainly also to the Cross-Benchers. The fact is that this sense of pressure has been, one might almost say, "blessed" by some words less temperate than might otherwise have been expected from respected members of the Cabinet such as the Prime Minister and Mr. Varley. I ignore the vituperations of some rather lesser Members with all their silly gibes about Rolls-Royces and things. But we have had words from the Prime Minister and another member of the Cabinet which reinforce the sense of pressure under which this House has been labouring. May I say—it is an old saying—that "threatened folk live long".
We are all aware of the limitations of both Parliament Acts. I personally do not complain about them. I am reminded of the words which were attributed to the late Lord Beveridge at a time when he was either still a senior civil servant or had just recently retired. He said that as a senior civil servant he had possessed considerable influence, and he added: "If you have influence, why do you need power?". This House has very considerable influence, and if it is the case—and one certainly understands it to be the case—that noble Lords opposite feel themselves in such a numerical minority that there is no point in coming anyway because they will lose the vote, the simple fact is that this House has very considerable influence in a whole number of ways. Perhaps the first of them is this: it is a place where ideas may be tossed out, and although they are invariably incomprehensible to the Front Bench of either Party they are well under-stood by civil servants. Since in the Civil Service No. 2 is always waiting for a good idea to bring in when he replaces No. 1, these ideas are mopped up by the Civil Service and are in fact seeds that are sown in very fertile ground. How often, indeed, have we not seen an idea launched in a debate here reappear perhaps within months as the genuine, spontaneous thought of the Government of the day?

309
Then there is the very considerable work that is done by Select Committees of this House, whose Reports are quoted in the other place. Indeed, they are sought after. We have even found that fundamental research, of which the other place is incapable, is among the burdens borne by this House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, sitting on the Cross-Benches now. The Select Committee over which he presides is a very good example. I hope it will not embarrass him—though I embarrass him often enough in his Committee—when I say that he has been invited to preside over a Select Committee doing what amounts to original research on the whole problem of commodity prices and their possible stabilisation. The suggestion conies from the late Prime Minister himself, Sir Harold Wilson. It has been laid upon this House, and a number of noble Lords from both Parties and from the Cross-Benches are taking part in that work. It is work which could not conceivably be done by another place.
There is a whole apparatus of Select Committees working in this House, which are busy as bees without sight of the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, who graces the Woolsack at this moment, presides with distinction and charm over no fewer than 80 Members of your Lord-ships' House, who work on the scrutiny of European legislation, and the Reports stemming from that Committee are not only quoted, cited and argued about in the European Parliament; they are cited in another place as well. It may well be, indeed, that the House of Lords has something to show Parliament as a whole, and perhaps even another place, about how business might be transacted. There is a system here of sifting and examining secondary legislation. Perhaps the Committees of both Houses, which are looking at the procedures and practices of Parliament, might consider, also, the possible sifting and scrutiny of delegated legislation at home by a like system.
But whether or not that be so, the manning of these Committees is an arduous task for any Member who spends time on them, and attempts to get through the amount of paper that has to be read, let alone understood, and who has to consider before each meeting when evidence is heard what questions can most shrewdly,
310
tactfully and usefully be put. There is very considerable work involved. It is difficult enough to man these Committees as they are, but under the burden of the contested and contentious legislation going through this House, keeping us up late at night, it is very difficult and very burdensome indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady White, who had been sitting in this House till a quarter-past three this morning, was again presiding with her familiar grace and deftness over one of these Select Committees only a few hours later—at eleven o'clock. Since many of us are either of pensionable age, or still earning our livings, or both—and most noble Lords in this House earn their livings and do not live in style on private incomes—these are very serious burdens.
On the matter of contentious legislation, so far as I am aware the Salisbury-Addison agreement has been upheld to the letter. Just to remind noble Lords who may not immediately recall what that amounted to, may I say that when the Labour Government came in will a vast majority in 1945 the Tory Opposition, though out-numbering the Government Benches considerably, came to an agreement to the effect that it would never destroy legislation coming from the other House that was based on the fulfilment of an Election pledge, and I do not believe we have ever voted down a Bill on Second Reading. If we have, then I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of any single occasion.
But what happens when we pt down to the Committee stage is very often another story; and here may I say in parenthesis that what I am going; to say should be balanced by a compliment. The noble Lords who have manned the Government Front Bench nigh after night have done so with unfailing courtesy and good humour. Unfortunately, those noble Lords whom I have tormented are not sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, but I think they will accept it as sincere when I say that they have taken our sometimes rather playful arguments with very good humour, and they haw batted steadily and well. But, my goodness! they have stonewalled and when the Government of the day, despite all the support of the Civil Service machine behind them, stonewall so completely against serious Amendments, seriously argued by persons who have given up their

311
time to come here, sometimes at some cost, it makes a poor impression.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, spoke several times last week with great vigour, great eloquence and superb knowledge, on certain Amendments. He had had to work at his bank throughout the day; he came here and stayed up the whole night; he had to go back to his bank at eight o'clock that morning, and he was on his feet in this House two days later after only six hours' sleep in between. It was a sacrifice by him to come and make those serious speeches which were not properly answered, although they were worthy of very serious answers. When serious Amendments—if I may put this in the nicest possible way to the Government—which are argued cogently by persons who have practical knowledge and give up time to come and make their speeches, are not properly answered, a different situation obtains. This is where the strain under which we have been operating has begun to tell.
If the Government show no "give", if they agree only to give lip service to the revising function of this Chamber and do not admit that any revision is necessary, desirable or acceptable, then that is where the charge of hypocrisy will properly lie. When there is no "give", when we are exposed to the reading of Civil Service briefs that do not answer the Amendments one is reminded of the Scots Minister who came to be considered for a call to a particular parish, and the sermon taster in that parish commented: "He read his sermon. He did not read it very well, and it was not worth reading." Very often, that is how we are forced to react to some of the replies from the Government Front Bench, although, I say again, the noble Lords manning the Front Bench do so with grace, with kindness, with good humour and with tact. But their answers sometimes elicit a poor response, because they are such poor answers. Therefore, when we are up against a timetable which really amounts to a guillotine, if the answers are not satisfactory reason goes out of the window, brain gives way to brawn, argument gives way to numbers and the worst comes out of us all.
I said earlier that I would return to the frustration which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and others expressed about the
312
absurdity of the numerical composition of this House. Personally, I always regret that the Party opposite has not created far more Life Peers to man those Benches, so that there could be some equality of numbers in this House. But I must also say that it is disappointing when noble Lords, who have made a name for themselves in industry, commerce, business or the City, are brought to this House, ennobled and immediately take their place on those Benches, and then we do not see them again. That is a disappointment, because the House should be enriched by their arguments; and very often their arguments would provide better replies to the Amendments put forward from this side than the briefs read out from the Front Bench.
All this talk about confrontation is really beside the point and need not be pursued. What we must get quite clear is that if this is accepted as a revising Chamber, then answers put forward to serious questions must be real answers. I think it was Samuel Butler who said:
"Learned nonsense has a deeper sound than easy sense and goes for more profound."
The Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is reasonable. I think that the Amendment accepted by him and put down by my noble friend Lord Carrington is more reasonable still. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Party opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who is now on the Front Bench and to whom we are indebted, and whose kindness and friendliness are such a pleasure to us all, will carry to the business managers of the other place the message which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, gave them. It is to serve notice on the business managers there that they must do better in future.
Now that Mr. Michael Foot is a gentleman of distinction in the Cabinet, and now that Mr. Enoch Powell has retired to the outer marches, perhaps the opportunity might come to return to the proposals for reform which were supported so well by my noble friend Lord Carrington. Our job is not to push a Party position; it is to make the House work, to make Parliament work, and to see it give a lead to the nation.
4.50 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, it is a sad sign of our times that at the end of

313
October we have to indulge in a debate of this kind, particularly when the pound and currency in many parts of the world is in such a parlous position. Nevertheless, I believe that this debate is necessary and that on the whole it has been useful, and in the few minutes that are available to me I hope I can keep up the standard. Some will ask whether this has been a counter-productive debate. It has been pointed out that the composition of this Chamber means that, whatever happens, the inbuilt majority on this side will carry the day. This is true. I have spent 18 years in your Lordships' House and have been a fairly regular attender and participator. I have never been what one might call a Tory hack. In fact, I have rebelled against my Party on more than one occasion. My noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned the London Government Act. I carried then the only Amendment against my Party. If it happened now I should do the same again because I happen to believe that that was the right decision.
The real bone of contention is that in this Session we are dealing with more than one controversial Bill. It is quite true that during, our period of office there were the London Government and the Industrial Relations Acts. Both Bills were highly controversial and figures have been quoted as to how much time was spent on these measures in Committee, on Report and so on. Figures can be quoted on many occasions and in many circumstances, but the point is that, whereas in those Sessions there was one, or there were possibly two, highly controversial pieces of legislation, in this Session there are five, if not six.
At this hour I shall not seek to go into any detail whatever or say anything whatever about these Bills. My feeling is that we should discuss all of the Bills and that the Government should adhere to their programme. I do not believe that the Government should drop any of the Bills. I do not say that because I like the Bills. I do not; I object in various ways to all of them. However, I make this appeal to the Government. Although we have had a long Session I believe that it should be prolonged because, as has been pointed out, we are a revising Chamber. Revision can he a lengthy process and there is still much to be revised in these Bills.
314
I sincerely hope that when the noble Lord the Leader of the House, whom I have known for a number of years and for whom we all have such respect, reports back to his honourable and right honourable friends in the other place he will report back the views which have been expressed in this Chamber. I end with the hope that further time will be given during this Session for these maters to be properly, constructively and the heatedly debated.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, may I make one brief point? We have heard a great deal about—
4.55 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I think it is the wish of the House that we should come to a conclusion. It has been a very useful debate. I gather from what was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he has got the message and I hope he will find that it is possible to adjust the timetable to a more reasonable tempo. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, intends to press his Amendment to my Motion I shall be very happy to support it and to ask my colleagues to do the same.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker. I feel sure that he would have been on my side, but then; we are. If I may say so, the Leader of the House made a very conciliatory speech. I think that both he and the noble Baroness the Chief Whip understand perfectly well the difficulties of the House. I hope that nothing I have said is in any way taken as being a personal reflect] on upon either of them because that was the last thing that I intended. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that he was there on in at the deep end. Well, so he was, Jut he is still swimming and he is still swimming very courteously. For that we on this side of the House are very grateful.
I think that the sense of the House is perfectly obvious. Nevertheless, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is enable to accept my Amendment to the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I understand the reason, for it is difficult to accept an Amendment which regrets his own actions. But the

315
fact remains that if we pass this Amendment it will make things a little easier for the Government in their dealings with another place, because at least they will be able to tell their colleagues there of the real feelings in this House about the timetable.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, the original Motion was in the terms set out on the Order Paper, since when Amendments have been moved:
In line 1, to leave out from ("House") to ("calls") in line 3;
and
In line 6, to leave out from ("Commons") to the end of line 7 and insert ("regrets that Her Majesty's Government has failed to give effect to this principle and requests that adequate parliamentary time be afforded for the discussion and scrutiny of legislation.").
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendments shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 160; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amherst, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monson, L.

Amory, V.

Furness, V.

Morris, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gage, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Amulree, L.

Garner, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Atholl, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Auckland, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Banks, L.

Gray, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Barrington, V.

Grey, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Birdwood, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Platt, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reading, M.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hampton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bradford, E.

Hankey, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Brock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Broughshane, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Sackville, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Carrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Salisbury, Bp.

Cathcart, E.

Hunt, L.

Sandford, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jessel, L.

Savile, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Seear, B.

Clwyd, L.

Kimberley, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Coleraine, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Sharples, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Simon, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Leathers, V.

Stamp, L.

Cross, V.

Lloyd, L.

Strang, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

McNair, L.

Terrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Marley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Elles, B.

Melville, V.

Vickers, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Middleton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Molson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Falmouth, V.

Monck, V.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Arwyn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Stedman, B.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Maelor, L.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Wall, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Oram, L.

White, B.

Fulton, L.

Pannell, L.

Wigg, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Parry, L.

Willis, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendments agreed to accordingly.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976,

Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976,

Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Act 1976,

Armed Forces Act 1976,

Resale Prices Act 1976,

Trinidad and Tobago Republic Act 1976,

Coity Wallia Commons Act 1976,

Methodist Church Act 1976.

ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons with the Amendments.

EDUCATION BILL
5.10 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Clause 2 [Submission of proposals for giving effect to comprehensive principle]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 42, after ("specify") insert ("not being less than 12 months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be to the convenience of the House if we consider Amendments Nos.5 and 6 together. They are both concerned with the length of time which a local authority or school may be granted in which to prepare or revise plans for comprehensive reorganisation. On Committee we had a brisk and useful debate on the matter of imposing on the Secretary of State a minimum period of time which she must allow to a local education authority to prepare plans in the first instance under subsection (2). Our debate took place at about 11 o'clock at night, late enough for us to be anxious to get on, but not so late that weariness had reduced our ability to do so. It was therefore brief.
Two Amendments were considered together: a Liberal Amendment requiring the Secretary of State to allow a reasonable period for the preparation of plans, and our own specifiying a period of a minimum of 18 months. The noble Baroness said to the Liberals it was settled law that all actions of the Secretary of State had to be reasonable. To us the noble Baroness said that six months to 12 months—or I think in fact up to 12 months—would be more reasonable than the 18 months we proposed. In the event your Lordships, having recently had a case of unreasonable conduct by a Secretary of State brought to your notice, opted in a Division for the longer period of 18 months.
That is the period allowed for the preparation of a plan by the local education authority for submission to the Secretary of State at the command of the Secretary of State under Clause 2(1). Under Clause 2(2) there is a requirement that the local education authority should consult with the governors or managers of any affected voluntary school in their area before finalising their" plan, and to forward to the Secretary of State, should the managers or governors so request, plans that the managers or governors have themselves drawn up to meet the case of their school.
The Secretary of State may, and quite probably will, therefore, be faced by not one but two or more conflicting plans. Your Lordships will appreciate that the governors or managers will not request the local education authority to forward their plan to the Secretary of State unless the plan of the local education authority in their view is unsatisfactory. It is not necessarily the case that there will be only one alternative plan, because there will not necessarily be only one voluntary school involved. Each of the several other plans will necessarily be in conflict with the local education authority and may possibly also be in conflict with each other. The Secretary of State will have to rule upon each of the plans, and if it seems fit to him he will reject them, severally or jointly, under subsection (3).
Therefore, there is a variety of circumstances in which the Secretary of State may see fit to throw back plans drawn up by either a local education
320
authority or the governors of a voluntary school. To take a third case, it may happen that the governors of the voluntary school in the area make no such request, but that the local education authority plan, none the less, makes insufficient provision for their school. Your Lordships will observe from the drafting of subsection (2) that it is open to a local education authority to submit a plan after consultation with voluntary schools, unaccompanied by any submission from the voluntary schools.
My Lords, under Clause 3(3) it is open to the Secretary of State to set aside these plans, and to call for alternative plans for a voluntary school that is affected by them, but for which they do not adequately provide. I wish later to return briefly to that situation, but at this stage I refer your Lordships to page 2, lines 40 to 43, which empower the Secretary of State in these circumstances to require the managers or governors of the school to prepare and submit to him, within such time as he may specify, proposals for that purpose.
This requirement is going to fall on the governors out of a clear sky. They will have been consulted by the local education authority, they will have acceded to its plan, and they will consider themselves to be right with the world, and to have no further duty in the matter but to comply with the request of the local education authority to carry out the plan in due time. They then will receive this injunction to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State plans of their own, and to do so in such a time as the Secretary of State may suggest is reasonable. For reasons to which I shall allude later, we feel the minimum period in these circumstances would be 12 months.
That takes care of the voluntary schools being asked for the first time to prepare and submit plans of their own. Let us now revert to cases under subsection (4), where we are concerned not with new proposals, but the reviewing and redrawing of old proposals. That there will be instances of such circumstances arising I am confident. Comprehensive reorganisation is a complex and, indeed, a controversial matter, and has a lasting effect on both the schools and the children in them, so it must be got right. Let us not forget also that comprehensive reorganisation

321
has a considerable effect on the career structures and lives of the staff in the schools.
The Bill as now drawn up lays down a procedure to be followed when either the plans of the local education authority or those of the governors of a school are referred back by the Secretary of State. The Bill states quite baldly in Clause 2(4) on page 3 that they shall prepare and submit to him further proposals within such time as he may specify. It seems to us that the reluctance of Her Majesty's Government to accept the minimum time requirement imposed by our Amendment on Committee was so great, and the suggestion that a reorganisation plan for an entire area could be hatched, fledged and flown in as little as 12 months as suggested in column 1472 seemed to us unrealistic, that there is every symptom that the Government have the intention to press this forward at an unrealistic and therefore damaging speed.
The only defence against such an aggressive attitude coming into the open once the original plan is submitted under the protection of our 18 months Amendment is at present a very flimsy and devastatingly slow and costly one of a recourse to the law, and a rerun of the recent case about the interpretation of the word "reasonably". That recourse is in itself unreasonable and, in the light of the Government's attitude, we feel it necessary to extend the protection of this Bill to the process of planning beyond the stages embodied in Clause 2(1) and (2). If the Secretary of State is to turn upon some hapless voluntary school, a very small and weak institution in comparison with a Secretary of State flanked by Ministers and serviced by a vast Department and, indeed, in comparison with the local authority with its own bureaucracy, that, too, must be given time to give proper thought, care and above all, consultation before it commits itself to a plan that may become binding.
My Lords, there is an anomaly which occurred to me in my studies when preparing this Amendment. I said, when I was discussing the case of a voluntary school, that I wished to refer again to the position it would find itself in if required under Clause 2(3) to prepare for the first time plans for its own future. The position then would be that a local education
322
authority had submitted a plan and not had it rejected, that the voluntary school had been asked for a plan which might merely be an extension of it, but which might be in conflict with it. It is an oddity of the procedure set out in this clause, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain it, that it permits an authority's plan to be then shelved, and if there is to be a reference back of the authority's plan, it takes place separately, not under Clause 2(3) but under Clause 2(4). A voluntary school will already have set about planning under Clause 2(3) when the local education authority will come along to consult it again under the rerun of Clause 2(2) procedure precipitated under the implication of Clause 2(4).
I should be much obliged if the noble Lord, when he comes to rep y, would explain that. It seems to me that it could well result in a resubmission of the local education authority plans being: required at an even later stage when it became clear that the acceptable plays of the voluntary school did not match the unacceptable plans of the local authority. This would seem to be an ungainly procedure. I suspect the noble Lord has something else in mind, but it is not clear from the drafting of the Bill. Whatever the circumstances in which the new or revised plans are required, time for consultation is of importance. Such affairs are often matters of great civic concern to the community as well as to the specifically parental concern of those whose children are at the schools in question. Where a local education authority's plans, including provisions for a voluntary school which the governors have found acceptable, have been thrown out, the governors will at least have the support of 2. friendly authority in their search for a new formula.
In such circumstances, Amendment No. 6 allows a minimum of only six months in which to come up with an alternative. Where it is a voluntary school's plan only that is called for, as can be the case from scratch, under subsection (3) procedure, we regard 12 months as the recessary minimum. If your Lordships will consider the complexity and controversiality of the matters coming under review at the planning stage and the magnitude of the effect of the final decisions upon the institutions and the pattern of life of the community immediately affected, I do not see how you

323
can regard these periods as being in any way too long a time. We have to remember that in practical terms it is not only a question of bricks and mortar, playing fields and changing rooms, timetables and dinner accommodation; it is also a question of careers and contracts of employment for the staff, adjustment of the burdens upon the rates, provision of transport, and in many cases the hearing of planning applications as well.
My own feeling is that in setting the minimum time limits in these cases we may have set them too short. If the noble Lord agrees with me, then he will have no cause to resist these Amendments. If he does resist them, then he is providing us with evidence that the Government intend to allow less time than this for the planning process, and in our view that is entirely inadequate provision and is in itself evidence of the necessity for the Amendment. I beg to move.
5.22 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I must confess to a certain mild dose of impatience over these two Amendments, which seem to me to illustrate very well the persistence and at the same time the ambivalence of the Opposition's approach to the Bill. May I take first Amendment No. 5, which would require the Secretary of State to give the governors of voluntary schools not less than 12 months to submit their proposals. In Committee the Opposition put down Amendments designed to take voluntary schools out of the Bill altogether. They were sternly rebuked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who pointed out that this was the last thing that the Churches wanted; so the Opposition withdrew in some confusion. Now they return with this Amendment, designed simply to delay the whole process of reorganisation of voluntary schools, of which, may I say, some 80 per cent. are Church schools. Does the Opposition realise that all the Roman Catholic schools and all but a handful of the Church of England schools have already accepted the comprehensive principle? What, then, is the point of this delaying tactic except as a naked delaying tactic? This Amendment is intended simply to delay the reorganisation of a handful of non-denominational voluntary grammar schools.
324
Amendment No. 6 is even harder for a simple man to understand. In Committee the Opposition carried an Amendment requiring the Secretary of State to give local authorities not less than 18 months for submission of their proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, told us, at Col.1474, that this was needed to ensure that
"people shall be able to collect themselves;"
that he wanted to defend
"schools which are being peppered with grapeshot from Transport House."
My Lords, it was late; I say no more.
Having got their 18 months on the first round, the Opposition want six months more on the second round for the submission of revised proposals. They tell us that the local authorities, harried to distraction by the unreasonable demands of central Government, need two years in all before they can be ready with a second set of proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who has served both as a Minister and as a member of a local authority, knows full well that in a fraction of two years the local authorities are perfectly capable of preparing proposals, consulting on them, and submitting them to the Secretary of State.
This Amendment is almost an insult to the local authorities. I am using strong words because in other Amendments the Opposition have sought to add to the burdens of these same local authorities by imposing on them new statutory requirements about parental appeals and about the publication of information about their schools. Yesterday, outside the House, the noble Lord, Lord Elton said, I think to a newspaper, in a moment of selfrevelation, "There are a lot of people in the Lords who speak rubbish". My Lords, who am Ito differ from him? These Amendments show what splendid sense he was talking. He knows, the House knows, that these are wrecking Amendments and are meant to be wrecking Amendments.
The noble Lord asked me a specific question about subsection (4). I think he has misunderstood the subsection. The voluntary aided school plan, to be acceptable, would have to fit into that of the local education authority, and it is highly improbable that an acceptable plan could be put forward by the voluntary school if at the same time the LEAs plan

325
was unacceptable. I really believe these Amendments to be, if not wrecking Amendments, delaying Amendments, and I cannot for one moment recommend the House to accept them.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord "going to town", if I may put it that way, when he referred to an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage with regard to voluntary aided schools. It is a fact that I moved an Amendment which would have deleted voluntary aided schools from this miserable Bill, but when I moved it I started off with these words:
"There is no desire, as far as I know, on the part of any of the voluntary schools to see this Amendment to the Bill."
I explained that that was provided there could be some improvements made to the Bill on their behalf. I went on to explain that I was using that Amendment as a peg on which to hang a series of questions which I then put to the noble Lord. It is not the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—who, unfortunately, is not here today—then took me to task for this at all. He bore out what I said when I moved that Amendment, namely, that he did not wish to see the Church voluntary schools excluded from the Bill, and it was my impression that he listened with interest to the debate which ensued, which certainly cleared up certain points.
The position of the voluntary aided schools, despite the questions I asked on that occasion and the answers I received, still remains difficult under this Bill, and particularly so with regard to Clause 2. It is never easy for an authority to reach agreement with its voluntary schools about reorgnisation, if for no other reason because many of the voluntary schools are small; many of them are three-form entry or less. Unless the authority is prepared to try to change these very good schools which have large sixth forms into mini-comprehensives, as the Inner London Education Authority has been making a habit of trying to do, it is extremely difficult to know how such schools can accept non-selective intakes without radically changing the sort of schools that they are. My noble friend Lord Eccles gave a particularly clear example of this yesterday when he referred to a voluntary aided
326
school in South London which had a thriving sixth form of, I think I remember him saying, some 200, but under proposals which Inner London wished to put forward, would become a mini-comprehensive with a sixth form of only about 60.
I ask the noble Lord to take on board that this is a problem, and that it may need time to work out between the voluntary school concerned and the authority. In addition to that, the latest projection of the child population figures for the whole country show a dramatic fall, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, of 1½ to 2 million children over the next 12 years or so. With a falling school population, another problem is that an authority is always bound to be tempted to ensure, when reorganising, that if an) schools have to be closed they will not be their own schools. It is a perfectly natural thing for any local authority to want to ensure that their county schools are preserved. Therefore I am putting it to the noble Lord that it will be necessary for a period of time to be allowed for voluntary schools to consult with their local education authority when proposals are demanded by the Secretary of State under Clause 2. I would have thought that a period of 12 months could not be seen as a totally delaying or wrecking tactic but as a reasonable period of time, as my noble friend has tried to say.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, a reasonable period of time is what is already contained in the Bill under the law. What we are objecting to is the period of 12 months as a minimum.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, there is no reasonable period of time written into the Bill. The noble Lord is looking at the wrong subsection. Let me turn now to subsection (4) of this clause, the six month period for consultation when proposals have been rejected End the Secretary of State demands further proposals. Here again, I should not have thought that this would be an or unreasonable period of time. Once again there is no reasonable period of time written into subsection (4).
I have already had occasion on previous debates on this Bill to criticise due intentions of the Government for the procedure which is contained in Clause 2(4). It was

327
in my view, as originally worded, a dictatorial procedure, because the noble Lord will remember that the wording of it was that the Secretary of State could specify conditions and could force the local education authority to adhere to those conditions. I put it to the noble Lord that I thought that this was an intolerable situation for a local authority.
How Ministers can get up from the Government Front Bench and suggest to the Opposition Front Bench that we are laying extra burdens on local education authorities, when this Bill is destroying in a way that has never been seen before, so far as I know, the partnership between local and central Government, defeats me. However, that aside, I should have thought that the Government could have agreed that a period of time not exceeding six months should have been allowed for consultations at that particular stage, even though I do not think that the consultations by that stage are going to be very genuine because it is the Government's intention that the proposals will be dictated as approved by the Secretary of State.
With those few words I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Elton to decide what to do with this Amendment. But I hope that we shall hear no more from the Government Front Bench about ambivalent attitudes from the Opposition side with regard to voluntary schools, and I hope we shall hear no more from the Government Front Bench, from the Minister of the Arts, about wrecking Amendments, when all we are trying to do is put reasonable periods of time into this miserable Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Belstead has dealt so effecttively with most of what the noble Lord opposite has said that it is scarcely necessary for me to say more. The remark I made outside this House about your Lordships was taken at one remove from context there, and has been taken at another remove from here. I in fact said that some noble Lords do on occasion speak rubbish, and I am afraid that the noble Lord opposite would bear this out if he only quotes me as an example. I went on to say that your Lordships as a whole were a wise and excellent body of men, but that did not get into the column.
328
I would leave it there. I think that the noble Lord has used rather strong words—words like "insult", and "tedium"—which I would rather not use so early in the night. They may after all accelerate the pace of exacerbation as we draw towards midnight. It is our intention to keep this cool.
Our feeling about the way this clause should be adminsitered is clear. It is quite clear that we are not convinced from what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have already said, that it is going to be administered as it should be. But we should try to preserve an element of decorum about our exchanges, and I fear that if we were to put this very modest requirement into the Bill it would inevitably be seen by the noble Lord and his friends, both here and elsewhere, as being another wrongful exercise of a rightful privilege. I do not think it would be, but in the interests of good relations I would rather concentrate our fire on more important things and merely see that ombudsmen and others keep a very close eye on how this Bill is run. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and if the Secretary of State does so require, he shall inform the local authority of his detailed reasons for finding the proposals unsatisfactory.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment takes the place of one which I moved in your Lordships' House at Committee stage. There were then various detailed objections to it besides possibly the main ones of principle. I hope I have managed to deal with the detailed objections by redrafting the Amendment. However, its purpose is exactly the same. It is that when the Secretary of State shall disapprove of a scheme put to him by the local education authority he shall not at that stage just return it, nor shall he have the right to dictate in exactly what form the local education authority should return the amended scheme, but he should have an absolute duty to explain what it was that was wrong. That is very different from saying what should be done. If you say what the defects of the plan were, it is not equivalent

329
to saying that you instruct the local education authority to solve them in a particular way. In fact, if you limit yourself to saying what the defects were you give the local education authority the maximum amount of discretion in drawing up new plans and finding new and different ways to circumvent the difficulties which they have.
We have decided in this Bill, certainly at this stage, that we are not having a situation where the Secretary of State in fact tells the local education authorities exactly what they should do, but I think it is for the help of everyone concerned that we should write in this duty for the Secretary of State to inform the local education authorities what the faults are. I know that one of the answers we shall he given is that this of course always happens, and I believe that to a certain extent that is true. As we said in rather loud voices on a previous occasion, there are such things as telephones and they are used, and there is such a thing as the mail and that is used too; but it is important that we get on record at that particular stage that if inadequate plans have been put forward it shall be publicly stated exactly what is wrong—not what should be done, because that is central dictation, but what is wrong and therefore the faults which the local education authority has to overcome in its original plan before it can put forward a new plan. I hope that this is a constructive Amendment to make the whole process rather more clear to the general public at large, to help people make up their minds and make decisions at this particular stage of the process. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I welcome the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. When he moved a similar Amendment during Committee stage, I explained certain legal defects which he has now corrected. On that occasion I also pointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary in the light of the then Clause 2(4). That subsection, as originally worded, enabled the Secretary of State to require fresh proposals to fulfil such conditions as she may specify with respect to any matter in the previous proposals which she considered unsatisfactory. Clause 2(4) assumed that the Secretary of State would tell proposers what in her view was wrong with the
330
original proposals and require them to avoid that error on the second attempt.
If the Bill were still as originally drafted I should have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that his new Amendment, whilst no longer defective, was still unnecessary. However, during Committee stage your Lordships carried an Amendment to remove part of Clause 2(4) from the Bill, so the Secretary of State is now prevented from stating the reasons why proposals submitted under Clause 2 are unsatisfactory and requiring further proposals to avoid those unsatisfactory features. In order to show how conciliatory, helpful, moderate and flexible we are on these Benches, may I say that as the Bill now stands this Amendment improves Clause 2 and is therefore acceptable to the Government. Having said that, I must reserve the Government's position to consider the wording of Clause 2 when the Bill returns to another place, but in this House I am happy to accept it.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I simply cannot understand why the Government cannot write into Clause 2 a requirement that proposals submitted or transmitted by LEAs should have to conform with the general principle of Clause 1. If that were written into the clause—that proposals under Clause 2 must conform with the general principle of Clause 1—and if this Liberal Amendment were accepted, then by the time local authorities came to the end of the procedures under Clause 2 they would be bound to have produced proposals which would then lead to the Section 13 procedure under Clause 3.
There would be a world of difference between that sort of procedure—which I should not like because this is not my Bill; it is a miserable and horrible Bill—and having the procedure which I know perfectly well is what the Government want to insert in the Bill again when it goes back to the House of Commons; namely, the old wording of subsection (4) which was that the Secretary of State could stipulate exactly what the local authority had to put in any revised proposals. Have the Government really moved to the position where they are convinced that the Secretary of State should dictate to LEAs the details of how authorities are to provide their own

331
educational services? If that is the Government's view, they have moved a very long way since Circular 10/65, which spelt out a variety of ways in which authorities could reorganise.
I welcome the Amendment for another reason. I cannot resist spelling out in a little more detail, to remind your Lordships of how unpleasant it was, the original wording of the subsection, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred in passing. Under the subsection as originally worded the Secretary of State could stipulate exactly what an authority was to propose under what we should call the second round, and of course that would put a local authority in an impossible position. They would have been dictated to by the Secretary of State so that when they came to consult under subsection (4) they would have been unable to explain that the proposals were the best they could devise, because the proposals would not be their own. The local authority would therefore be unable to recommend their acceptance to people because the proposals would clearly be at variance with what the authority originally thought would be the right policy for their schools.
I put this to the Government earlier and I am bound to tell them that it has been put to me by representatives of local authorities that the old wording of Clause 2(4) placed authorities in a very difficult position when they came to consult with parents, teachers, governors of schools and the general public in the way with which many noble Lords are familiar, when the chairman of an education committee, usually the chairman of the schools committee and the chief education officer or one of his representatives go to a variety of meetings. I therefore hope that the Government will think again on this issue. Here they have what I should have thought was a reasonable Amendment from the Liberal Front Bench. If they could tie that in with a requirement that proposals sub-mitted or transmitted by authorities should conform with the general principle of Clause 1, that would, in my view, do the trick under this clause, without having to do what I deprecate so strongly, namely, spell out in detail what the Government believe an authority should propose.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 2(1) he may find that it states exactly what he is asking for:
"If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that progress or further progress in giving effect to the principle stated in section 1 above"—
That was the point the noble Lord was particularly making—
"is required in the area or any part of the area of any local education authority, he may require the authority to prepare …".
It seems to me that that meets the noble Lord's case. I believe that it is totally unfair to suggest that if a local authority, a voluntary school or any body has to submit a scheme for the approval of the Secretary of State it should be regarded as detailed dictatorship to tell that authority in what respects the proposals put up fall short of what the Secretary of State would approve. Clearly, this could be used I suppose as a means of dictating. On the other hand, it is done everywhere wherever people have to put up schemes for approval; the approving body is almost always obliged to give reasons why the approval cannot be given. I think the noble Lord is on an entirely wrong tack. I am not saying that it is a tack which is in any sense a wrecking one, but it is not what this is about.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene because if I make a speech the noble Lord will not have the right to reply. He seems to be defending exactly what the Amendment says, because it states that the Secretary of State may inform the local authority what the grounds for rejection are. There is no question about that. Specifying what the solution to the problem has to be is what the objection is about, and that is a different matter.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I agree entirely, my Lords, that I am defending the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was, as I understood it, complaining that by giving reasons the Secretary of State was dictating. First, I do not agree with that, and secondly, I do not fully understand it. Perhaps I have misunderstood Lord Belstead, but if he is content with the Amendment, we are.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I hope that we may

333
have complete understanding about this. The clause as previously drafted entitled the Secretary of State to tell an authority virtually what they were to do and then to resubmit what he had told them to do, whereupon he would sit in judgment on them under Section 13. That seemed to us to be a very unusual procedure, to say the least, in that one should tell somebody what to do and then sit in judgment on one's own decision as to what should be done. As amended, I think that our people would find it entirely reasonable. If the Secretary of State finds the proposals submitted not acceptable—for whatever reason there may be, and there may be many—he will indicate why they are not acceptable, which is again reasonable. The authority will then resubmit their proposals for approval. That will enable the authority at least to submit plans which they believe meet the criticisms that have been made, but they are their plans. As previously drafted they would not have been their plans. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it possible to leave the clause as amended and accept the Amendment, which I think would be helpful to my people.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I elucidate and confirm what has been said: that is, that we do not object to the Amendment and that we defend it very much in the terms that the noble Lord has done? My noble friend Lord Belstead was adding a rider to the effect that when this goes down the corridor and the noble Baroness's reservation is noted about the wording being considered in another place, they should not too keenly consider reinserting what was here before, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, that was undemocratic, unusual and unacceptable. This is not, and I hope that if we were at cross purposes we no longer are.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, there still seems to be some slight confusion, particularly on the Government Front Bench, about the difference between the Secretary of State's duty to diagnose and transmit the diagnosis of a problem, and her duty, if it should so exist, actually to prescribe how it should be dealt with. However, I think that there is a genuine difference and, if a change is made in the other place, we may come to discuss this matter a great
334
deal more fully. In the meantime, it is a very rare pleasure to have put forward an Amendment that appears to be welcome on all four sides of the House, if I count the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, on his own as a whole side.
Clause 3 [Approval and implementation of proposals submitted under s. 2]:
5.51 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed in Committee and, at the end of a debate, it was still not clear to me and to other noble Lords—I remember that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn spoke on it—exactly what was the effect of Clause 3. To understand the importance of Clause 3, I hope I may remind your Lordships of the provisions of Clause 2. To establish a m w school or to close, enlarge or significantly change the character of an existing school, it is necessary for a local education authority or a voluntary school to publish notices under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. There is then a two-month period allowed for objections by any local government elector and a final decision is given by the Secretary of State. It has always been accepted that this democratic process should be preceded by a period of consultation between the local education authority and governors, teachers, parents and the general public.
I know that Clause 2 does not deal with Section 13 proposals. However, it is dealing with proposals that will become Section 13 proposals and it is right that the House should take into account that Clause 2 provides for none of those democratic procedures. It is not the authority or the voluntary schools who initiate the procedure under Clause 2 to establish, close, enlarge or significantly change the character of schools. Under Clause 2(1) this will be done at the requirement and behest of the secretary of State. No notices are to be published. There is to be no statutory right of objection, although, curiously enough, there was a statutory right of objection under

335
Section 11 of the 1944 Education Act which dealt with the proposal of general plans in the same way as this clause does. Nor was there any recognition of the need for consultation written into the clause until we wrote in the 18-month period for that purpose by an Amendment in Committee.
I therefore contend that Clause 2 does not represent a democratic procedure. Indeed, in the final analysis, if an authority or a voluntary school refuses to conform to the requirements of the Secretary of State, clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lord Alexander of Potterhill, has pointed out, it was the intention of the Government under the original wording to enforce compliance. However, as the Bill stands, we now have the excellent Liberal Amendment written into the Bill which gives a very much better procedure which I hope will be accepted in another place.
It might appear to your Lordships that there is little left to do after the procedures of Clause 2 have been completed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said, one is tempted to believe that, if the Government are to have their way, the Secretary of State will be both the architect and the arbiter of the proposals when they come to Clause 3. None the less, I must be fair and record that the Government have all along, both in another place and in this House, made it clear that the proposals of Clause 2 are envisaged only as a "sketch map" for reorganisation. Those are the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in Committee. Clearly, if such a sketch map is to be converted into detailed proposals under Section 13, school by school, it is still important that we should be certain that the democratic procedures of Section 13 will really be followed under Clause 3. It is the purpose of this Amendment to be assured on this point.
May I say immediately that I am aware of a point that the noble Baroness has made to me in a letter which she wrote, that Section 13(5) prohibits any alterations to schools for which proposals are required under Section 13. In other words, one cannot alter a school unless one has gone through the Section 13 procedure. But what I do not find clear is whether the wording of this clause really conveys that
336
meaning into law, for it says that where any proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State by an authority or a voluntary school, being proposals that are to be wholly or partly carried into effect within five years,
"the Secretary of State may direct that those proposals (or any of them) shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority under"
Section 13 of the Education Act 1944.
I believe that two points arise from this wording. The first now gives me no very great worry and we raised it in Committee. Apparently the Secretary of State has discretion—for the word "may" is used—as to whether he will select the sketch maps to be subject to the Section 13 procedure. Following the debate in Committee and correspondence with the Minister, I understand that if "may" became "shall" it would mean that all the sketch map proposals under Clause 2 would, if they were to be implemented within five years, automatically have to go through the Section 13 procedure, though this might not be the wish of the authorities or the Secretary of State. I accept that, but there is a second point which I feel is far more obscure and perhaps more contentious. If the Secretary of State does pick out certain sketch map proposals for reorganisation, he may direct that they shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him under Section 13.
What does that wording mean? Those proposals have not been submitted under Section 13. None of the democratic procedures with which I have wearied your Lordships has been observed under Clause 2. There has been no publication of notices, no opportunity for objections, possibly no consultation. I contend that those words could mean that the Secretary of State would treat the proposals as if the Section 13 procedure had been gone through and all that would remain for him would be to give a decision. If that construction can be placed upon the words,
"as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944",
I am bound to say that that is contrary to what we have been assured by the Government and that those words would be in essence a licence to bypass the Section 13 procedure.
The Amendment has therefore been put down again purely to try to ascertain the exact effect of Clause 3(1). I am in no way trying to overturn what I believe to be the intention of the Government. As I understand it, the Government are definite in their belief that Clause 3 provides for a full Section 13 procedure. I hope that they will be able to confirm that their intention is borne out by the wording of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am absolutely happy with this probing Amendment. I believe that there was some misunder-standing before and I am grateful for the opportunity of clearing it up. The noble Lord has asked his question very clearly. He has asked whether the operation of Section 13 procedure means that that procedure can be skipped. The answer is that it does not. It means that the procedure begins and is then gone right through. I can give him an absolute assurance that, under these arrangements under the Bill, which is were the application of Section 13 is new, the whole consultation procedure, the publication and all the rest of it, is legally necessary when the procedure begins.
Clause 3(1) envisages that if short-term proposals are satisfactory to the Secretary of State they will be subject to the Section 13 procedure. There can be no question of the Secretary of State giving formal approval to proposals that would then have to be implemented by the proposers without the proposals having been through the Section 13 procedures. I believe that this was the point that was worrying the noble Lord. Such approval would be illegal under this Bill, as it would be under the provisions of the 1944 Education Act.
It is true that Clause 3(1) confers a power rather than imposes a duty, but, as I indicated during the Committee stage, it would be inconceivable that the Secretary of State would call for proposals but not direct that they undergo Section 13 procedure if they satisfied the necessary criteria and were, in her opinion, prima facie satisfactory. How else could the proposals she had called for be implemented? The answer is that they could not. So we do not consider that this this Amendment to Clause 3(1) would safeguard anything. It would result in the pointless Section 13 consideration—as the
338
noble Lord admitted at the beginning of his speech—being brought into operation, and in quite unnecessary effort and equally unnecessary delay and expense. I hope that after what I have said, it will be felt that there is no difference between us on this matter and that the noble Lord will be satisfied and will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he welcomed the opportunity to elucidate. He has elucdated one half of the problem very clearly. I apologise if I have not followed him to rough the other. But what exercises me is this: I still cannot quite define in my mind the junction between the procedures c f Clause 2 and Clause 3. As I see it, all proposals which are treated in Clause 3(1) are proposals which have already been taken through Clause 2. This is how it was explained to us at the Committee stage. We were told that Clause 2 proposals were to be outline proposals, and frequently they were referred to as the sketch-map proposals, but a sketch map is not something which one puts through a Section 13 procedure.
I wonder, therefore, whether what we are to have are Clause 2 proposals, which are woolly and imprecise aspirations studied with a few concrete, voluntary school-type proposals like lumps in tapoca, and only the lumps go through the Clause 3 to Section 13, because they are the only precisely drawn plans, whereas the others are aspirations as to how general problems are to be handled. If so, the remainder of Clause 2 plan escapes that clause. It relates presumably to busing and banding and matters such as that which do not require ministerial sanction under other legislation.
But if this is the case, why is it necessary under the Bill to submit plans in that grey area to the Secretary of State anyway? It would seem that without an Amendment she has the power only to reject and none to accept. I am puzzled by this, because I try to visualise a plan through Clause 2 into Clause 3, emerging at the end as a block of buildings, and I cannot quite get the tie up. I am sure that the noble Baroness has anticipated this point, because I tried to express this difficulty previously, though perhaps no more successfully than now. Bui I shall be grateful if she can tell me how it is

339
that one can refer to Clause 2 as sketch-map plans only and then in Clause 3(1) all the plans that come for Section 13 are referred to as plans that have already gone through Clause 2, specifically in the first two lines of the clause. Perhaps the noble Baroness can elucidate this point.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment at which we are now looking is one that will require the Secretary of State to direct that all the short-term proposals that are submitted under Clause 2 on the sketch-map procedure—whether they are to establish, to enlarge, or to change the character of the school or what-have-you, or even to cease to maintain schools—should all undergo Section 13 procedures, even if at first sight they appear to be unacceptable. It is quite unnecessary. If a proposal in a sketch map appears to be unacceptable, then surely the sensible thing is to send it back to the authority, saying why the Secretary of State feels it is unacceptable, and not to go through all the Section 13 procedure until the proposal is one that is likely to be accepted—
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if I may intervene it may reduce the length of this exchange. I see the force of what the noble Baroness says. She may feel, and she may strictly speaking be right, that I am not in order in asking her this question although it is analogous to the Amendment, but this is the last occasion on which we can have an explanation. It seems to me that the Bill provides for a sketch plan to be prepared under Clause 2 procedures, which we discussed at great length. Under Clause 3 everything has to go in order to get into bricks and mortar. We are told that everything in Clause 3 will go through a Section 13 procedure, and that is not of the nature of a sketch plan. Therefore I am asking the noble Baroness whether this requires an enormous amount of detail to be written into the plans which go through Clause 2, because they have to be the same plans which are taken through Clause 3. I will not go further on this point if the noble Baroness is not able to enlighten me. Perhaps she would like to write to me about it, but it seems to me that we are discussing a fairly complicated procedure—at least it appears more complicated to me than it does to the noble Lord, Lord
340
Donaldson of Kingsbridge; that I can see by his expression. But I am a sinful man, and there are many such, and perhaps the noble Baroness can help us.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, under the sketch-map procedure, if the plans come back with the general approval of the Secretary of State, they are then firmed up and are submitted as firm proposals, and then, when accepted, go through the Section 13 procedure. I will look in Hansard to see what we have all said, and if I can put the matter more clearly to the noble Lord I will write to him again.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as I moved the Amendment may I, in with-drawing it, speak for a moment? I have one worry. I think that this is by way of being a complicated clause and as people talk about it so things come to mind. What is now worrying me is the wording of line 36 where Clause 3 provides that
"the Secretary of State may direct that those proposals"—
that means sketch-map proposals from Clause 2—
"(or any of them) shall be treated as if they had been submitted to him by the local education authority"
under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. The point I should like to put to the Government—and we still have a Third Reading to come—is that clearly the proposals from Clause 2 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be treated as though they had been submitted to him under Section 13 because they are general sketch-map proposals on reorganisation, as the noble Baroness has pointed out to us in Committee on the Bill.
Section 13 proposals are a very different creature. They are individual proposals for individual schools, to enlarge them, or to establish them, or to change their character. All I am saying is this: I wonder whether the wording of line 36 is an accurate reflection of what the Government mean. I will not say any more on that, but I ask that the Government have one more look at the wording. I am not trying to persuade them to a different way of thinking. All I am trying to do is to say, is the Bill drafted accurately? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 45, after ("Education") insert ("(Miscellaneous Provisions)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, just as it is proper on a formal occasion to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, as Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, so it is correct on formal occasions to refer to the Education Act 1953 as the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. I omitted to do this in drafting the words which now appear in the Bill, and therefore I beg leave to insert the words as shown in the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the Government will always be happy to accept any Amendment of the noble Lord's drafting, and I am happy to accept the Amendment in this case.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if it is the will of the House, I think that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Report stage.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to register the strongest protest—I do not think that one does that in this House, but I will have a go—about cutting out this piece of the Education Bill. It seems typical of democratic procedures that we wasted two hours debating whether we should speak at shorter length. We could have usefully spent that two hours on this Bill. There seems to be some informal arrangement that consideration of the Bill was to cease at six o'clock. This was not noted on the Order Paper, and one can only assume that it was an arrangement between the two Front Benches. It is not even mentioned on our unofficial Whip. But we are defrauded of at least one and a half hours of the Education Bill.
We are supposed to reach another stage of the Education Bill on Friday morning. This cannot now be so, and I feel it is most deplorable in the case of a very important Bill of this kind. We so rarely get the opportunity to debate education. We debate almost everything else in this House, but very rarely education. There are many of us who feel very strongly about this, and I deplore the
342
fact that we have been cheated out of 1½ hours of discussion on this very valuable Bill.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think it is worth saying that I hope we are not being cheated of any time at all. Of course, these arrangements arc made between the usual channels, but I cannot believe that the usual channels would think that we should curtail the debate on this Bill, and I was not under the impression that they had. But it would he very helpful to us and our Front Bench to know when it is proposed to take the next stage; and I do not doubt that the remedy which the noble Baroness seeks would assist us in this matter also.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps I can help there. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend has said, but of course at the moment there is a great pressure on the timetable. It was agreed, I think, that three hours would be given to the Report stage of the Education Bill today, but that the Docks Bill would start at 6 o'clock, which must come on now and be completed today. Earlier today your Lordships agreed to pass a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, with an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the debate on which of course took until 5 o'clock, so that has, I am afraid, rather curtailed some of the time we were to spend on the Report stage of this particular Bill. But I think we have made some progress, and I can assure my noble friend that what she has said will be noted. Further consideration on this Bill, it is proposed, should be on Friday; and I may say that the fact that the Dock Work Regulation Bill was to come on at 6 o'clock was given in the advance notice of business when it was agreed between the usual channels. I hope that goes some way towards satisfying my noble friend.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to give us an assurance that we are not going to have the Third Reading as well on Friday?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords; Friday will be given over to completing the Report stage.
Consideration on Report adjourned.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
6.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jacques.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Descriptions of work which may, and those which may not be classified as dock work]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 26, line 17, at end insert ("either by structure or contract").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 3 of this Bill is divided into two Parts: Part I which lists work which may be classified under this Bill together with a number of definitions. and Part II which is work to he excluded from classification. Paragraph 10 of the Schedule provides a certain category of work in Part II. It defines work which shall he excluded from classification. It is:
"The work of persons employed in a retail, wholesale, manufacturing or other business, at premises"—
which, if I may paraphrase, are premises principally belonging to the person running the business, or work carried on in relation to which the owners are an associated company.
It is this definition of an associated company that I seek to clarify by means of my Amendment. I am anxious that the definition should be rather more easily understood than is presently the case. I believe it would be appropriate for the words that I have tabled to be added at the end of line 17. The words are:
"either by structure or contract".
Thus, if my Amendment is accepted, the last part of the paragraph would read:
"… or a company which in relation to the owners is an associated company either by structure or contract".
344
I think this is an important point because it would give scope for associated companies to be more fully defined, and will therefore, I think, be useful. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The Amendment is presumably intended to extend the meaning of "associated company" to include one which has any kind of contract with the owners of the business who own or produce the goods in question. The noble Lord is seeking in this way to exclude from classification work at third-party warehouses which have contracts with their clients to store goods on their behalf. The Government cannot accept that cargo-handling work at third-party warehouses should be automatically ex—cluded from the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment would also seem likely to exclude from classification a great deal of ordinary stevedoring work, and probably any cargo-handling work except where the contract by the firm handling the goods was not with the owner but with an intermediary, such as a forwarder. While this may frequently be the arrangement, it is certainly not so in all cases, and could in any case be changed by the parties if they found it desirable to avoid classification.
I must say that I would regard this as a wrecking Amendment, even though the noble Lord may not have intended it as such. May I put it in simple language? If the person who owned the goods had a contract with the port employer, then it would mean that the handling of those goods at the port could not be classified because there was an association by contract. This is certainly an Amendment which the Government could under no circumstances accept.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: The noble Lord, in rejecting this Amendment, is I think taking no account of the small man and the smaller business. For example, in food and other commodities protection is given to the enormous chains that have their own exclusive warehouses but the many other smaller companies, or divers companies, which may draw from different warehouses, are in no similar way protected, and it will merely add additional cost and expense to the middle-sized company, the middle-sized firm and the middle-sized distributor. I think the

345
Government might give some consideration to them, because the big chains, with their exclusively-owned warehouses, can bring the muscle in and tell the Government it is not on, but the small businessman suffers all the time.
Lord JACQUES: This has nothing to do with the size of the firm. The whole question here is whether, in addition to the goods belonging to the company or an associated company, it should also cover the goods which belong, not to an associated company but to a company with whom the principal company has a contract.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, although disappointed. I must say I am flattered to think that my Amendment should be classed as a wrecking Amendment, because, as the noble Lord rightly surmised, that was far from my intention. One of the purposes of tabling this Amendment was to try to extract from the Government their idea of what is an associated company. Is it a company simply owned by the parent company? Is it a company in business in some way with the principal company? I thought that my Amendment would give the Government an opportunity to expand on that point and I hope that the noble Lord is able to do that.
As for the second phrase in my Amendment, namely, the words "or contract I agree that as defined by the noble Lord this would widen the scope quite considerably. I can, however, confirm to the noble Lord that the thought that was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith when she was talking about the smaller company was that it was most certainly my intention to try to provide some easement for these kind of people and that was one of the reasons why the Amendment was tabled. But the definition of an "associated company" is an important point and while I am pondering upon what to do with this Amendment perhaps the noble Lord could help me there?
Lord JACQUES: The definition is in Clause 15(3), page 19.
Lord TREFGARNE: I shall not weary the Committee while I look that up and ponder on it. I will take the noble Lord's
346
word for it, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
6.22 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 26, line 17, at end insert—
("10A. The work of persons employed in a business on premises occupied for the purposes of business where the terms and conditions of employment are mainly or exclusively the subject of a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the concept, and I might call it the expression, of loading and unloading cargo and the handling of cargo. We believe, and indeed I think noble Lords will accept, that the Committee has found these two concepts have been more than a little difficult to define. We believe that these varying, different definitions could result in some work which is being done currently, and indeed properly at dockside areas and in dock areas, where this work should be under-taken by members of any particular trade union and it should be classified and regarded as dock work, under the Bill becoming work reserved for registered dock workers.
We hope, and we firmly believe, that the Government do not wish the provisions of the Bill that we are discussing to promote any form of strife or dispute or demarcation arguments between one set of employees and another, nor indeed do the Government hope that the. Bill will act as an irritant between employers and employees. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to recognise that there are existing agreements between employers and employees, and we hope that the Amendment may go some way, indeed a long way, towards preventing a ay possibilities of inter-union disputes. In the course of our last debate at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that 8 per cent. of disputes, I think it was in the last 12 months, were caused by disputes between one set of employees and another. We feel that 8 per cent. is certainly a figure that is too high, but that other disputes should be prevented rather than cured, and we are fearful that, if this Amendment is not put into the Bill, disputes could arise fairly easily.
Noble Lords have pointed out at earlier discussions on the Bill that it seeks to remove casual employment and that it seeks to remove a certain category of workers and employees who have been named as "cowboys". Maybe that language is a trifle florid but noble Lords will understand what we are seeking. The Bill seeks to remove "cowboys" from the areas around dockland and harbours and ports. That is why we commend this Amendment and stress again that where there is a collective agreement between one or more employers and one or more set of employees—there may be more than one trade union, there may be several of them—it would be unwise and inadvisable to overturn it. That is why we should like to see this Amendment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The consequences of this Amendment as it stands would be that in any case where there was a collective agreement with a recognised trade union the work in question could not be classified as dock work—even if the union and the management were both anxious that it should be so classified. It would, for example, prevent classification of the work of the tally clerks at Liverpool. The tally clerks at Liverpool are working in very close association with registered dockers. It is the wish of both the employers and the employees that this work should be classified, but this Amendment would prevent classification.
In discussing an earlier Amendment I also mentioned that on the North-East coast fish bobbers at all ports except at Hull are registered dockers, and the Hull fish bobbers claim that this is entirely due to an accident of history and they want the work classified. They have a very strong case for the work being classified, but this Amendment would prevent that classification. Consequently, we hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will see his way clear to withdraw this Amendment.
6.27 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his response to my noble friend's Amendment; but is it really fair to suggest that for the sake of classification, arrangements which have
348
been in force in some places for very many years should be upset? I know that in Southampton a number of jobs are done by dockers by agreement with other employers and unions. Surely, as the Bill stands, there will be a case for classification—with all the trauma that that is likely to bring.
If one takes the case that the noble Lord has cited, at Hull, if those workers are currently excluded from having their work classified as dock work, instead of going through the rigmarole of classifying the work throughout all the ports, surely a collective agreement as is provided for in this Amendment could be entered into and then they would have the same status? If such an arrangement, as suggested by my noble friend in moving the Amendment, is good enough for all parties, why do we need to make a law which will upset it?
I am told that at Southampton there has been a great deal of harmony over the years in agreeing different types of work. Certainly a trade union leader and road haulage official told me about ten days ago that they thought that the Bill was quite stupid in this respect, and quite unnecessary because with good will and good intention on both sides everybody could be satisfied. Surely that is all my noble friend Lord Lyell is seeking, an area in which people of good intention can be satisfied without having to resort to the law.
Lord JACQUES: But that is not the effect of the Amendment. The effect is that where both the employers and employees wish for classification, it could not happen in a case where there is a collective agreement if this Amendment were passed. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement. They want the work to be classified and they want to come within the Scheme. The employers do not object, but if this Amendment were carried they would be excluded. In our opinion that is an intolerable position.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Either I have not made myself clear or I have quite misunderstood what the noble Lord has said. Surely, if the tally clerks have a collective agreement they have got what they want.
Lord JACQUES: No.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: And by coming within the Scheme, it is the same thing but called by a different name.
Lord JACQUES: No.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Then could the noble Lord tell me what real, and not the imagined, difference, would occur in the case of the tally clerks so they could get what they do not have under their collective agreement?
Lord JACQUES: There are many collective agreements associated with dock work covering non-classified work, where the workers are quite happy with the agreements. But the agreement is quite different from the terms and conditions that would operate if they were registered dockers. There are advantages and disadvantages. There are certain advantages in not being classified and being subject to a collective agreement which they have had for years, and to be able to belong to the union they want to belong to. All those things count. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement, but there could be further advantages to the staff if they were registered dockers, and the employers wish them to join the Scheme. I imagine that what has happened here is that most of the employees are already registered and covered. But there is a sector, the tally clerks, who want to be covered and the employers want them to be, even though they have a separate collective agreement.
Viscount SIMON: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I think the Government are absolutely right on this matter and I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has not quite appreciated the point. Part II of this Schedule, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, covers work excluded from classification. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about tally clerks at Liverpool, but it would apply to ordinary dockers in the ports of London, Southampton or elsewhere. They all have collective agreements and therefore would be excluded. It must be appreciated that Part II refers to work excluded from classification. Part I covers work that is subject to classification, but it does not follow that it will always be classified.
350
If you include it in Part II it is excluded from classification. That is the point which the noble Lord is making. As regards the difficulties that have been mentioned, I wonder whether they not be met by Amendment No. 107. That might help the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, if the Government can be persuaded to accept it.
6.34 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I must apologise for not having been here at the beginning of this discussion. As I see it, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is saying that this Amendment is unreasonable because there may be some workers in a particular occupation who will get advantage by having their jobs classified as dock work and would be prevented from seeing that happen because of this Amendment. I seek the indulgence of my own Front Bench as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it seems to me that this Amendment is talking about the state of affairs that will result when the Bill becomes law. Then, people who are working in a certain business or on certain premises and have a collective agreement with a recognised trade union will, by means of this Amendment, be able to remain with that trade union and with that particular type of work without its being classified as dock work.
It seems to me that there is nothing within this Amendment—and here I must ask the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to prevent the workers, if they so wish, seeking to have another collective agreement with their employers. In my experience, collective agreements are not rigid things which never change. As I see it, the Bill would not prevent a group of workers from having discussior s with their employers and negotiating, if they wish, on whatever grounds there may be, to have themselves switched over. It would seem to me, therefore, that the particular clause is more a holding of the status quo at the time the Bill becomes law, rather than a long-term thing which would stop changes ever happening in the future. Perhaps I have gained the wrong impression.
Lord JACQUES: I would not agree with that interpretation. My interpretation of this Amendment is that at any time if

351
the workers doing certain work have a collective agreement, their work could not be classified.
Lord SANDFORD: First of all, may I say that I am afraid the exigencies of our business has meant that the Front Bench team is having to be changed in mid-play. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and other members of the Committee will bear with me if we have to go a little more slowly when I am taking part. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has not registered the intention as expressed by my noble friend Lord Lyell. I thought he had made it abundantly clear that this Amendment—which after all is more or less on a par with what is set out in paragraph 10—seeks to do no more than secure that everything was left well alone when the arrangements that obtained were based upon a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is really no answer to that to say that there are collective agreements which, if this Amendment were passed, would prevent those concerned from having their work classified as dock work, because, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, all they would have to do then would be to cancel their collective agreement as the first of a series of steps to get their work on to a different basis. Once the collective agreement is there, the proposed new paragraph would not bite. We should find it helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would give an indication of the Government's attitude towards the intention expressed by my noble friend; namely, would they not agree that where work was being done that was based on a collective agreement with a recognised trade union it is better to leave well alone? That is the purpose of this Amendment. What my noble friend will do concerning this Amendment at this stage will be a matter for him to decide, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help us on that point.
Lord WIGODER: May I rise for the first, last and only time in the course of this long series of debates to support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I venture to suggest that this Amendment would have an effect which is far wider than is
352
intended. What it would do, in fact, would be to make an already rather meaningless clause totally meaningless. It would mean that in no conceivable circumstances could work ever be classified if a collective agreement was in force, and even if a new collective agreement came into force it would be caught by the terms of the Amendment. The only time work could be classified, if this Amendment were accepted, would be if there were no collective agreement in force at all. That, with respect, is surely a recipe for industrial anarchy.
Lord JACQUES: In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would say that we can go a very long way with him. In fact, under Clause 8 if the Board have under consideration the classification of work, a trade union recognised by an employer as from the end of decasualisation in 1967 can veto the proposal.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord said that the date is the end of decasualisation, and we shall be coming to that later. But I should like to thank him for some of his answers, particularly when he said that the Government go a long way with my noble friend Lord Sandford. As the noble Lord said, there are defects in the Amendment and it prevents classification. He quoted the example of the tally clerks at Liverpool who, I presume, do not belong to the docks section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, because if they did there would be no difficulty. I understand that the tally clerks in the Port of London belong to that union, but I suppose that different ports have different customs. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that there would be advantages to the employees in belonging to a union of their choice. I hope that there would also be advantages to an employer in allowing his employees to belong to a union of their choice, and this is what the Amendment seeks to preserve.
I take the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. They are probably valid points, but not so valid as our good points. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, accepted the fact that we are setting out in a constructive spirit. I appreciate that the effect of the

353
Amendment will be to prevent classification when the work force wishes it, but we are of the opinion that when there is a collective agreement between an employer and employees or a trade union it should be upheld. The noble Lord's reply had considerable merit, and I should like to take this opportunity of withdrawing the Amendment and will consider it for a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 26, line 18, leave out paragraph 11 and insert—
("11. Driving any vehicle whose normal use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any dock labour scheme area; supervision of loading or unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load;")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is particularly concerned with the transport section of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the road haulage industry, and it would replace paragraph 11 of Schedule 3. Its purpose is to permit drivers of transport and other vehicles, whose normal use is mainly on public roads, to drive their vehicles right inside the dock area if they so desire. Noble Lords will be aware that the roll-on/roll-off ports, together with the road haulage industry, are particularly concerned about this paragraph. It does not make it clear that the driving of normal commercial road vehicles within the port area is not dock work and would not necessarily be classified as such. We are a little worried that the Bill as drafted would allow registered dock workers, who may not have heavy goods vehicle licences or the necessary experience, to drive such vehicles whether they are fixed axle lorries or have trailers. We believe that there is a risk that operators of road transport vehicles might not want to use the larger ports, and might seek to use non-Scheme ports or the smallest ports. This appears to be a fairly minor Amendment, but we should be grateful for guidance on the Government's thinking from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: This Amendment is very similar to Amendments which were considered during the Committee stage in another place, and which were negatived on a Division. In the debate which took
354
place in the other place the Secretary of State made it clear that it was certainly not envisaged that the driving of such vehicles within dock estates should in general be classified as dock work. He explained that there were, however, some cases where it might be considered appropriate to classify such work; for example, there could be cases where, as a matter of practice, convenience or efficiency, vehicles were left in cock parks by their drivers and driven on board by dockers. Another case was that of cars or lorries for export or import. The fears expressed in some quarter; that the effect of the Bill as drafted will be to lead to a general take-over of driving lorries within dock estates by registered dock workers, are unjustified. It is the, Government's views that the various tests to be applied under the Bill, before work is classified as dock work, are adequate to ensure that the work of driving vehicles normally used on public roads will be recommended for classification only in those exceptional circumstances when it would be appropriate to do so.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this Amendment, which is sound. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained very carefully that classification would be sought only in special cases. This seems to be introducing a great complication, unless these special cases are all itemised. Is it not better to accept this Amendment, which excludes from classification the driving of any vehicle within the port limits?—because there is nothing to prevent someone from employing Registered dock workers to do unclassified work, and it is still possible, in the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned, when by custom, or whatever it may be, dockers are employed to drive a vehicle on to a ship, for them to do so.
6.50 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not going to answer the noble Viscount, I shall have to try to prompt him into a reply. This is a good Amendment, because it will satisfy one set of workers as against another. Those members of the road haulage industry who are engaged in going to and from the docks are extremely worried. No amount of assurances in the other place have satisfied them.

355
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he has just said, that the Secretary of State made it clear that he did not envisage that this work would become registered as dock work but that there might be some cases where classification may be sought. The members of the truck driving industry feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are the poor relation. They see themselves as highly skilled men, in that the vast majority of them have to hold an HGV Class 1 licence. You do not pick up such a licence by sending £1 to the Post Office; it can cost a man or his employer £300 or £400 to get that licence.
Perhaps I may quote from the August 1976 issue of Headlight, the independent journal of road transport:
"We can only judge what the dockers will do from their record in the past. Such as at Chobham Farm container depot, in East London. Once the dockers moved in, they soon elbowed out the people who were already working there".
These men may arrive at a dock having driven a long distance over many hours. I have known of drivers waiting outside a dock to get in for as long as two days, for a variety of reasons, without enjoying any kind of facilities bar the street. Why should these men work under the threat that one day their job will be taken away from them and given to somebody else, or that they may be required to join either another union or another section of a particular union?
This Bill is so incompetent. It holds out promises to a wide variety of people, so much so that along the South Coast there are already moves by the docker section of the Transport and General Workers' Union to persuade the drivers within that union that they should register, albeit in an unofficial capacity, as drivers who regularly do work in and around the port area. They will be issued with a card. Those firms which send a truck into the dock with a driver who does not hold a card may find that it is a little difficult to get their work done. That is the kind of suggestion the Bill is already creating. That there may be vehicles left in a pound and therefore unaccompanied is not germane to the argument because an unaccompanied vehicle, whether it is a new motor car, a new land rover, a new lorry, a private motor car being shipped to Le Havre for collection by somebody who flies over, or a loaded
356
lorry, has then passed, surely, into other hands. Different rules will apply because then it is under the guardianship, as it were, of a shipping company.
If the arguments are correct which the Government advanced when we discussed Amendment No. 88, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, and were trying to decide when goods became cargo, it may be that that would be the case, but what happens in the case of a rigid vehicle or an articulated vehicle that is accompanied? Why should there be any reason to suggest that the law should provide that on a private road or in a private part of a dock that vehicle could be, might be, may be driven by a docker who may or may not have (my contention is that he will not have) the requisite qualifications? Nor, indeed, is he likely to be covered by insurance. These are the kind of cases which the haulage industry feel could he upset by the Bill.
The drivers are responsible at all times not only for the safety of the vehicle but also for the safety of the load. This is not to say that loads are not well looked after, particularly in ferry boats, in terms of lashing down vehicles. At this point it might be appropriate to pay a tribute to those workers on board the ferries who so well looked after commercial vehicles and their loads during the recent gales. Nobody would deny that they did a good job. Nevertheless, why should they move wagons on or off a boat? We have spoken a good deal about roll-on/roll-off. This is only the current expedient for moving goods about; later on there could be another one, although I do not know what it might be. I do not believe that it is fair that there should remain in a Bill a clause whereby this group of people may have their jobs taken away.
At col.621 of our Second Reading debate I asked what would be the situation with drivers coming from Common Market countries if the provisions now contained in the Bill obtained. I know full well what happens in practice. Whether the vehicles are usually, by custom, or by a collective agreement driven by dock workers, no foreign driver that I have spoken to or heard of will ever allow his vehicle to be moved by any person other than himself. I asked at

357
that time whether the Bill impinged upon our commitment to the relieving EEC regulations. A good deal more traffic will be moving across the Channel and, it may be, across the oceans. The development of the movement of goods in whole wagons, whether they are rigid, whether they are the train type vehicle or whether they are the tractor-trailer type vehicle, means that more drivers will be employed, and they are not going to give up one part of their job to another group of people. It is not right that there should he any gap in the Bill that would enable one group to ease out another.
Unless the Minister can give very much better reasons for refusing the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lye11, I think that my noble friends will have to test how the entire Committee feels about it.
The Duke of ATHOLL: If the Amendment were written into the Bill rather than paragraph 11 which is already contained in it, would it preclude dockers from doing the jobs they already do which the noble Lord instanced that the Secretary of State had given as examples in another place? As I read the Bill, it means that driving these vehicles not only on public roads but also on private roads within the ports could be done by transport workers who are not dockers. Presumably if it has been the normal practice so far it could also be done by dockers. Is this reading of the Amendment correct or would it prevent dockers from doing this work? I think this is an important point.
Lord JACQUES: If the work was not classified it would not prevent dockers from doing it but they would not have a right to claim it as their work.
The Duke of ATHOLL: But if it had been the normal practice for them to do it up till now presumably they would be perfectly entitled to continue to do it?
Lord JACQUES: I think the noble Duke is now supporting my case of rejecting this Amendment. Let me tell the Committee what the position is. Work within a dock site driving lorries we say would not normally be classifiable because it would not get over the tests which are laid down in Clause 8 and Schedule 4. Let us look at the tests which they have to get over. It is a two-stage procedure in Schedule 4. First,
358
the Board has to consider whether there is a prima facie case and in order to do that they have to take three things into account: first, whether the work is in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers; secondly, whether the work needs the training, aptitude and experience of a registered dock worker; thirdly, whether the work is for the time being wholly or mainly done by workers employed as casual labour. They have to take those things into account, and having done so they come to a decision as to whether or not there is a prima facie case.
During the course of that any parties can make representations anti if they decide that there is a prima facie case they have to start afresh with a second procedure. They have then to inform the parties that they have decided there is a prima facie case and in conseatence they propose to give further consideration to the matter. They have to allow time for further representations and when the second procedure is completed they have to decide whether it is sensible having regard to the efficiency and the effect upon industrial relations, to classify this work. In my view ordinary driving would never get over those tests. We have gone out of our way to prevent it from got ting over those tests. Consequently we say that without this Amendment ordinary lorry drivers need not fear for their jobs. It is only in very exceptional cases, such as those which I have mentioned, where by normal practice they take their lorries into the car park and leave then for the dockers to drive them on to the ship. We do not think that the normal drivers have anything to fear, and if I may say so I do not think that the Transper ort and General Workers' Union would be very unhappy if drivers were threatened in that way because I imagine that they have far more drivers than dockers in their membership.
Lord LYELL: If I may intervene briefly, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is very close to admitting that this Amendment is valid, in that I think I heard him say that should this Amendment be written into the Bill, in the exceptional cases that he me mentioned much earlier on, where registered dock workers do indeed drive such vehicles within the dock areas, they could continue to do so. Is that the position?
Lord JACQUES: I think I made the position clear. I said that if the work was not classified the registered dock worker could do it but he could not claim the right to do it. Even though he had been doing it he could not claim the right to do it because as a result of this Amendment it would be unclassifiable. We are considering Part II of Schedule 3, which lays down that work which is not classifiable. Noble Lords opposite are trying to make this not classifiable so therefore even if the dock worker is doing it at the moment I am saying that he could continue to do it, but he would not have the right to continue to do it.
Lord LYELL: This is the whole purpose of the Amendment. We agree that where by custom and practice—I think that is mentioned earlier in the Bill although we should need to have it defined more clearly—registered dock workers do indeed drive these vehicles, there is mutual agreement between the owners of the vehicles and the dockers that this should be allowed. I thank the noble Lord for clearing up that point but I think my noble friend has something more to say.
Lord MOTTISTONE: It seems to me that the real point of this is where the balance of advantage is to be left. It is all a matter of privilege of one set of workers against another, and as at present written the Bill gives the opportunity of privilege to the dockers; the Amendment gives the retention of privilege by the ordinary transport driver under what might be called a "disputed area situation" regarding a vehicle being driven in a dock scheme area. It would seem that, on the whole, knowing the sensibilities of the long-distance drivers as well as appreciating something of the sensibilities of the dock workers, it is fairer on balance that a vehicle which is normally used on the main roads should not be one to which the dockers have any special rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that of course under agreed situations there is nothing to prevent the dockers from driving these vehicles, but the issue arises on the special rights. It seems to me to be very reasonable that they should not have special rights with regard to long distance lorries, the main purpose of which is to drive on the public roads. Therefore, I do not quite see why the
360
noble Lord is pressing his case, because on the whole one would have thought that once this Bill is through and the dock workers are in a position to exploit what they can from it, then surely they are going to do that. We know from past experience that this is what they do and therefore we want to safeguard as much as we can other types of worker where there is any possibility of conflict, particularly where, as in this case, there is opportunity for the dock workers to do whatever is necessary without having a statutory right to do it. I think that is really the point at issue.
Lord JACQUES: I should like to put it another way. I believe that both sides of the Committee have the same objective. We both want to have the best possible industrial relations; we do not want rows between one group of workers and another. It is our experience that we shall get that situation if there is flexibility but we shall not get it if we have rigidity. The Amendment seeks to give rigidity whereas the Bill as it stands is seeking flexibility. Noble Lords are saying that it shall not be classifiable; we are saying that it shall be classifiable in only the most exceptional circumstances. But we are leaving the door open because we know that there are those exceptional circumstances. Consequently, I would suggest that we have the same objectives but that the method we are using is more likely to get the results.
7.10 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has not answered my question about the effects in regard to the European Community. I want to know the answer to that, and having asked the question a long time ago I think I deserve an answer. However, on his main point the noble Lord says—
Lord JACQUES: I should like the noble Lord to repeat his question on the European Community because I am afraid I completely missed it.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I shall find a way of raising the matter at the next stage, because if the noble Lord has missed it now, I feel confident that he will not be able to answer it. It is written down. The question can be found at col.621 of Hansard for the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 30th September 1976. Perhaps in due course he could let me know the answer.
Lord JACQUES: I certainly will.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: His main argument is that the drivers need have no fears because the Government are absolutely sure that this work will not. be taken over and that it will be only in the most exceptional circumstances that a classification will be sought; and there are all the safeguards that he has outlined. That may well be so in the warmth and comfort of an October evening in your Lordships' House. However, on the dockside when someone has driven 300 miles with 32 tons up it is not such a comfort.
I assure noble Lords in this Committee that notwithstanding assurances of that kind, which are a repetition of those given in the other place, the employees of the haulage industry have fears—the whole record vis-à-vis dock work and other work gives them the grounds for those fears. Given one little chink, they feel that the dockers will he right through and that their jobs will be in jeopardy. Already the two sides are facing up for a fight about it. Remove the basis of the fight and there will not be one—everyone will be happy. It may be argued, "Why should the haulage drivers be given this privilege of exclusion?", to which I suppose they might counter, "Why, indeed, do the dockers have their privilege, which they have had for years and which is now being extended? For God's sake! give us our little bit and then we shall know where we are". Surely that is what this is about. It is not about flexibility or a difference of opinion; it is to ensure that one branch of the transport industry knows exactly where it is, with no "ifs", "ands", or "buts", no exceptions, no special cases and no long drawn out procedures. It is their work; let them keep it.
Lord SANDFORD: I beg the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to heed the word of my noble friend Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right. It is not a question of flexibility; it is a question of making the position as clear as we possibly can to those concerned about where they stand. There is no doubt at all that the assurances that have been given so far on this Bill have done nothing whatever to allay the fears of an attempt at a takeover in this area. As drafted, there is no doubt at all that the Bill is open to a widespread take-over by the dockers of all or any driving
362
of transport vehicles on the private roads inside the docks. That is one loophole which must be closed. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, saving, as he has repeatedly, that there will be only a few reasonably special cases when he has not given us one example. It would be helpful if he could give us such an example.
Lord JACQUES: I gave two examples in my first reply to the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: I will read it. We must have many more than that, because many more occur to me as possibilities, and we should like to know them. We have received an answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about using dockers for unclassified work. That has been useful and helpful. It is. probably true that our Amendment could be modified, leaving the intention intact, so that vehicles which are themselves cargo and are waiting in a pound, whether they are cars or transport vehicles, could continue to be driven by dockers as of right, if that is the position al present. I beg the noble Lord to take the point of my noble friend, Lord Lucas, that in this particular instance, whatever may be the merits of flexibility elsewhere in legislation, it will not be a merit in this case, and we want this Schedule and this paragraph to be as precise as possible. I hope also that in answering my noble friend's point by correspondence the noble Lord will realise that it must go on the record, because a number of other interests will be able to read it only if it is in Hansard. I hope that my noble friend, Lord Lucas, will raise the matter again.
Lord JACQUES: A good dealer as been said by both sides. Things have teen said which ought to be considered quietly and carefully. May I suggest that at this stage the Amendment be withdrawn to give the Opposition an opportunity to see just what we have said and to decide whether they should carry on with the Amendment or a similar one at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Lucas, who gave a very clear explanation of the problems of the road haulage industry as we see them. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may think that he gave the examples when he replied after I had moved this Amendment. Am I right in

363
thinking that he mentioned, as examples, the tug masters and the cars and lorries being driven from the pound by the dock-side on to the ship? We believe that this might come under the classification of loading or unloading cargo. Nevertheless we shall look at it. We wondered whether that was a particularly good example.
However, there is one query on which the noble Lord may be able to help me at this stage. He was looking at Clause 8(4) of the Bill, where it is pointed out that:
"The Board may … determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation …"
The noble Lord then mentioned the three criteria. The first criterion would be substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers. That would clearly not be the case here. Secondly, the persons employed on this particular work of driving these very large and often complicated vehicles on the public roads or within the dock area, or manoeuvering them on to a ship, do indeed need special skills and training which are not the same as or similar to those of registered dock workers. I think that the noble Lord would agree that the skills are different. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, said that often such a skill may cost as much as£300 or£400 in time, training and fees to acquire. Certainly I do not envisage—and I do not think that the Committee would envisage—such work being done by casual labour.
The noble Lord mentioned that this was the first hurdle or obstacle to classification, and that there would be another. I am not quite sure what the other hurdle would be. The one thing that has worried me—and it has probably worried the Committee—throughout our discussion on this Amendment is that the noble Lord said that registered dock workers would not have the right to drive vehicles within the dock areas, even where such work is agreed and is carried on under custom and practice at the moment. Is that flexible? The noble Lord may believe that our Amendment will lead to rigidity, but we believe very strongly that where the noble Lord says the dockers claim a right to do something which they do not have at the moment and which is not covered in custom and practice, there is a danger of a similar rigidity. It is a very real fear. However, the matter has been
364
much more eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We are grateful for the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has made. We should like to withdraw the Amendment at this stage and come up with something similar at a later stage which we hope may meet our particular point. So I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.20 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 26, line 21, at end insert—
("12. Maintenance of vehicles and their equipment.")
The noble Lord said: This is a follow up to the previous Amendment. We felt that the maintenance of particular vehicles and equipment should be done by the lorry drivers themselves where there is a need for such routine maintenance, as I would call it, to be done. I think that all the arguments we have used in the previous Amendment, so far as particular skills and training are concerned, fit this particular Amendment, too. Therefore, I think I need say no more. I beg to move the Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replies, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that as drafted this Amendment appears to include the maintenance of any vehicles and their equipment. I think the noble Lord must mean vehicles whose normal use is mainly on public roads; but as drafted, it is not so. Of course, there are vehicles used entirely within the port estate by stevedores and others. I do not think the noble Lord means to suggest that this should be the work of registered dockers.
Lord LYELL: That is indeed the case.
Lord JACQUES: I submit that this Amendment is not necessary. The Government Amendment on Report stage in the other place amended paragraph 5 to read as follows:
"… containers, crates, boxes, pallets or other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo".
Those words cannot be interpreted as covering vehicle maintenance and repair. We think we have fully satisfied the undertaking which we gave in the other place.
Lord LYELL: We felt that this Amendment was necessary in that we wished to ensure, beyond peradventure I think is the phrase, that such work would not be classified. If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would permit it, we wanted certitude and rigidity in this particular case. Nevertheless, I am prepared to look at what he has said, because probably there could be a case where repairing vehicles is excluded from paragraph 5 under work which may be classified; but we would like it written in that where specialist skills are needed to repair vehicles this will not be classified, because of the reasons I gave when I was speaking to Amendment No. 98, as far as special skills were needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may remember that at an earlier stage in our proceedings, during the last session of the Committee stage, I was speaking about executing minor repairs to containers. I believe special skills are definitely needed there for welding, and other such skills which would not be applicable to dockers. These skills are needed in Amendment No. 99. Nevertheless, I believe there might be a gap here and, subject to what my noble friends might want, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, withdraws the Amendment, could the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, tell me this: Under Schedule 3, Part I, paragraph 5—the one he has just quoted "other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo"—can "other articles" really be held to include something like a fork lift truck or, indeed, a tugmaster? The trouble is that one thing leads to another. While my noble friend Lord Lyell, and I think most of us, really had in mind the maintenance and emergency repair of a road vehicle and its trailer or other gear, it gives rise to other automotive engineering works which would normally be carried out, for example, by a fork lift truck or a tugmaster. I do not think it really is protected under the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, quotes as "any other article". I was really thinking more in terms of a porter's trolley or a four-wheeled hand-drawn trolley as "any other article", not a piece of mechanised equipment.
Lord JACQUES: I always thought the Opposition were against lines of demarcation. We have a case here where we
366
are trying to get away from lines of demarcation, to allow the dock worker to make a minor repair instead of holding up the whole job while he sends for the engineer.
First of all, we are dealing with Part I, Schedule 3, work which will be classified. This excludes minor repairs—
"to containers, crates, boxes, pallets, or other articles used"—
and I think that when one says "other articles", one must continue—
"used for packing or loading or unloading cargo".
I would say that possibly this could include a very minor repair to a truck of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, the kind of repair the driver himself would make without holding up the job.
Lord LYELL: That is just the basis of my argument. In fact the noble Lord was saying that we were speaking to Part I of Schedule 3. With the greatest respect, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, introduced this. I am speaking, and I think probably the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is speaking, to Amendment No. 99, which seeks to amend paragraph 11 of Part II.
The noble Lord mentioned just now the case where a driver might carry, out a minor repair. I believe that what might be a minor repair to a driver who would have skill in this particular facet of maintenance of his vehicle, would not be a minor repair to a registered dock worker, for reasons which we have already discussed in Clause 8(4), in that different skills are involved. But I hope that the noble Lord will consider the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. However, I still believe that different skills are involved, and that that which is a minor repair by a driver would not be a minor repair to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or, perhaps, to many others of your Lordships. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.29 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 26, line 22, beginning insert ("(a)")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, which paves the way for Amendment No. 101. I suggest that it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we discussed both

367
Amendments together. Our main point is that while paragraph 8, to which we turn now, provides a necessary and a welcome exclusion from classification, in our view it is neither wide enough, precise enough nor flexible enough for its purpose. In this particular case, as in some others, we wish to strive both for precision and flexibility.
May I remind the Committee that the broad processes to which the exclusion of paragraph 12 refers are these, namely, preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo—paragraph 6 of Part I—and preparing ships for departure after loading or unloading cargo. That is paragraph 7. You do not have to be a seafarer—so perhaps that is why I have been drafted on to this Bill—to appreciate that here we are right on the demarcation line between the work of the docker in the port and the work of the sailor on the ship. It is no surprise, therefore, that in the past it has often, if not always, been difficult to draw that demarcation line. It has not always been drawn at the same point, and it is not everywhere drawn at the same point today.
There are two further factors which we must have in mind because they bear upon the matter. The first is that of the ship's company it may not only be the seamen—they are the only ones mentioned in the Bill as drafted—it may not only be members of the National Union of Seamen who may be involved in preparing ships for handling cargo or preparing ships for sea after they have taken on cargo; the shipwrights may also be involved, though, strangely, they are members of the Boilermakers' Union. They may also be involved in doing parts of this work, and the more skilled parts in particular. That is the first point: that shipwrights are involved as well as seaman.
The second point is this. It may well be that some shipowners choose to employ for these duties not seamen from the crew of the ship's company, who after a spell at sea are entitled to go on leave and may well be discharged to go on leave, but instead experienced men specially registered to do the work on behalf of the crew. The "local custom and usage", which is the term used in paragraph 12—quite rightly because that is what we want to preserve—has varied
368
and still varies because the demarcation is quite difficult. But in London, for example, the following has been the pattern for some years. Originally all shipping companies using the port employed their own shore gangs to go abroad and replace those members of the crew who were going on leave. They were needed to prepare the ship for cargo handling. Now only two companies still do that, but contractors provide the gangs for them instead, all registered. Although these men, known as "riggers", work for a contractor, the predominant majority of the individual members of these teams, 200 out of 216 at the Port of London, remain attached to the ships of a particular company and therefore become skilled and experienced in operating their equipment, much as they did when employed directly by the shipowners themselves.
I should like to specify rather more precisely the kind of work which is involved here, so that your Lordships may imagine more readily what it is we are talking about. This is the kind of work under-taken by the riggers in lieu of the seamen of the ship's crew: preparing the ship's derricks, opening and closing hatches and cleaning holds, discharging edible oil with portable pumps and cleaning deep tanks in preparation for dry cargo, the rigging of jumbo derricks for heavy lifts—and your Lordships can see that that is something which may well require the services of a shipwright—the supervising and carrying out of heavy lift operations (the shipwrights again), the laying and removing of dunnage (the shipwrights again in some circumstances), the lashing and securing of cargo in general cargo vessels in conjunction with shipwrights who chock the cargo and build beds for heavy lifts, the lashing of containers, and the fendering of vessels inwards and outwards. From this list it is easy to see that at certain points shipwrights will need to be working with the seamen and/or the riggers; there is no mention of them in the Bill as drafted. We think there should be, and have so provided. The position as I have described it for London is roughly similar in the other principal ports like Southampton and Liverpool; but, of course, it differs in the smaller ports, where the provision of registered riggers for the shipowners may not always be practical; they may not always be available.
I hope your Lordships will now see that paragraph 12 as it stands is not enough to preserve the status quo, the local custom and usage. It is inadequate, in that it omits to mention the shipwrights or the other possible members of the ship whose skills are quite often needed for the work in question which I have described. It is inadequate in that it makes no provision for the registered members of the shore gangs of riggers to continue to be engaged for the work that they have done for ages. And it is inflexible, as there is no scope in paragraph 12 as drafted for devising and adopting fresh usages and customs by agreement among all those concerned, which is the last leg of my Amendment No. 101. I submit to the Committee that the phrase "agreed by all … concerned" acts as a very valuable curb to any attempt by any one party to overturn existing agreements arbitrarily, but provides for the flexibility which I am sure we should have within the precision we are providing. I hope that I have indicated sufficiently clearly to the Committee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in particular, the reasons why we are not satisfied with paragraph 12, and the justification for the Amendments which I propose. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: This is probably the most complicated of the Amendments that we have dealt with in its effect. I will therefore go very slowly, hoping that we shall all understand what is being said. The question of work customarily done by shipwrights and riggers was discussed in Committee in the other place. The Minister of State explained that there were circumstances in which it was considered it would be appropriate to classify such work and that an absolute exclusion for such work could not be accepted. The Amendments now before this Committee modify the Amendments discussed in the Commons Committee in two ways: first, by confining the exclusion to work done on board ship; and, secondly, by adding the proviso allowing for classification if this is agreeable to all parties concerned. We have considered this wording most carefully, but still do not feel that it provides an acceptable basis for an exclusion of the work of ship-wrights and riggers.
So far as the words "on a ship" are concerned, it is true that most of the work of those normally described as shipwrights
370
and riggers is done on board ship. But some is also done in shore workshops, where it involves preparing equipment, rigs and so on, for use in loading and unloading, or in container group age depots, where rigger. may lash down the cargo inside the container. But there is no reason to suppose that the work which shipwrights and riggers do on board ship is in some way less appropriate for classification than flat which is done on shore. Indeed, in so far as the work on board ship involves battening down hatches, sheeting up deck cargoes, et cetera, this is work which in some places is already done by rigger; who are registered dock workers. In other words, it is already classified work and is the sort which, in certain circumstances, might be appropriate for classification elsewhere. The work on shore, on the other hand, is of a more specialised nature and seems generally less likely to be appropriate for classification. In brief, we are saying that very often the work on board the ship is more appropriate for classification than the work ashore.
The Amendment would permit classification of the work of riggers, shipwrights and seamen and others on board ship where a change in local custom and usage was agreed by all the parties concerned. It is not clear what is meant by the phrase "agreed by all the parties concerned". Does it mean the unions and the employers? If so, what is to be the situation if three out of four employers agree to classification but the fourth, who employs, say, 5 per cent. of the workers, disagrees? Alternatively, if the union are agreed but a small unofficial group of men disagree, are they to have the right of veto? The Amendment does not indicate what is meant by the parties.
The Amendment also refers to the work of others on board ship. This could be taken to refer to stevedores working on board, stowing or unloading gods in the hold. The effect of the Amendment would therefore be to prevent the. scheme from applying where casual labour was being used on a regular and constant basis to unload ships, unless, of course, the employer voluntarily agreed to change the existing custom and usage. The Scheme could then not be used to end casual working, and whatever the difference between the two sides of the Committee there has been general agreement that this is a desirable objective.

371
The Government have taken serious note of the views expressed by some groups of riggers to remain outside the Scheme. This is not a new problem. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 3, which make riggers potentially liable to the Scheme, form part of the enabling powers of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. The Government believe that the procedures for consultation and examination in the Bill, and the very close scrutiny which is being given to industrial relations implications, means that the Scheme will not be applied when it is undesirable and contrary to their wishes. The question does not arise to the same extent with shipwrights because only a small part of their work is within this scope, and in any case would not satisfy the criteria in Clause 8(5).
Lord SANDFORD: I think that this has been a most useful and valuable exchange. I would not attempt, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that this is a complicated business, to respond straight away. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said. I felt as he was speaking that although he was making entirely valid points they could be met, and not perhaps by the Amendment as it stands but by relatively minor modifications of it. I am encouraged to attempt that because the noble Lord started off by saying that he was in sympathy with our intention. This is, as far as possible, to preserve the local custom and usage where it is operating to everybody's advantage, and to make it possible to adapt and to change such usage where there is general agreement—and I agree that that has to be defined more precisely than we have done so far—but at the same time to give people whose interests are at stake a sense of security that their jobs are not to be jeopardised by the operation of the Bill when it is on the Statute Book. I think that we also want to do everything we can—and this is highly relevant at the present time—to make sure that the charges of handling cargoes in British ports do not rise as a result of this, and that the work is done by skilled and experienced men as efficiently and quickly as is consistent with safety. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I shall carefully study what he has said, and return with a modified Amendment
372
at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 26, line 35, leave out ("the cargo-handling zone") and insert ("a dock labour scheme area").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential to, I think, Amendment No. 11A, if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would confirm that. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: It is consequential.
7.47 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 26, line 45, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
("15. Work with liquid chemicals, liquefied gases, bulk hydrocarbon oils and chemicals derived therefrom; oils and chemicals derived from natural products including vegetable oils, natural rubber latex and other commodities shipped in bulk liquid form, where such bulk liquid commodity is unloaded from or loaded into deep tanks of ocean vessels, ocean tankers, sea-going tankers or tanker vessels including tank barges. Any work with natural gas including work at a site where the gas is piped ashore; any work at a site or fixed installation for the bulk storage of hydrocarbon oils, bulk liquid chemicals, bulk liquefied gases or products derived from hydrocarbon oils, crude liquid petroleum and natural products in hulk liquid form.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, in spite of its length and in spite of some of the complicated chemical descriptions, I hope will appear to be reasonably simple. The main point that we seek to make in moving this Amendment is that, even if the Government did not admit that many specialised skills were, and still are, necessary in loading and unloading liquid chemicals and liquefied gases, all the products mentioned in this particular Amendment, we should be interested to know why registered dock workers have been able to work alongside and, in many cases, in association with the specialist workers who are well qualified by their skills and training to handle what I might call these dangerous and often volatile cargoes. We hope that it would be reasonably efficient to have classified work which is carried out at present on the dockside or the quays.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, during proceedings on this Bill commented that

373
where there were vacancies for registered dock workers these vacancies should he taken up by the registered dock workers. But we would submit that there are certainly going to be no vacancies in these specialised categories, and we wonder what the noble Lord and the Government would have to say to this particular Amendment, because we understood that paragraph 15 in Schedule 3 does not cover the specialised skills in loading and unloading, and in piping ashore and to and from ships, these particular commodities. I beg to move.
7.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: I am surprised that this Amendment should have been moved. Indeed. we came to the conclusion that somebody had been looking at the wrong Bill, or that the Bill had been examined as it came through Committee in another place rather than after the Report stage. Strong criticism of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 was made in Committee in the other place. On Report, however, we submitted an entirely new draft in which we responded completely to the points that had been made in Committee. We thought that we had given the Opposition exactly what they wanted. That is the first reason why I am surprised that the Amendment should have been moved.
There is a second reason. In Committee in the other place we were criticised for the use of certain words, in particular the use of "bulk hydrocarbon oil". Those words having been severely criticised, we avoided their use in the new paragraph. In the Amendment, however, the words which we were asked to avoid have reappeared. Noble Lords opposite seem to be going round in circles and it seems clear that there is some misunderstanding here. Having said that, I will deal with some of the differences in words between the Amendment and the Bill. The phrase:
"Work with liquid chemicals, liquefied gases, bulk hydrocarbon oils and chemicals derived therefrom …".
would exclude all work with these substances. The Government think that quite wrong. Such substances are very often handled in cans or drums in a normal cargo-handling dock. If cans of paraffin or weed-killer are being handled in this way, it is entirely appropriate for registered dock workers and would be quite wrong to exclude them. Therefore, paragraph 15
374
refers to work at a site for the talk storage of the substances specified and will thus apply to oil terminals or chemical tank farms which arc normally established separately from the rest of the dock and which contain machinery and plant installations which required highly specialised skills.
The Amendment goes on with the phrase:
"… oils and chemicals derived from natural products including vegetable oils, natural rubber latex and other commodities shipped in bulk liquid form …".
It is open to doubt whether the intention is to exclude only the oils and chemicals derived from commodities or whether any commodity is to he excluded, if handled in bulk liquid form. it would seem to be the latter because natural rubber latex "is clearly not al oil or chemical derived from a natural product. We believe that wine, spirits, beer and non-toxic substances such as vegetable oils, which are handled in normal dock facilities by registered dock workers, would be excluded by the Amendment. The Government see no reason to exclude such substances from the potential scope of the Scheme. I might add that the words "ship or other vessel" comprehend the list of boats given in the Amendment. We therefore think that the Amendment would be a retrograde step and would lead us into difficulties of industrial relations.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I agree with h m that it is a complicated subject, although I had hoped that it would not prose more than a drafting Amendment. The noble Lord I think said that latex was not in the classification in the Amendment and that it would not be derived from natural products. I understood that it might fall into this classification. However what also concerned me was my understanding that the handling of latex required a considerable amount of skill at the point where latex in its different forms is unloaded or brought ashore. Hero there is a slight similarity with several of the categories of work which I mentioned when we were discussing Amendment No. 86, at which point we were talking about docker checkers and specialised and skilled checkers who were able to classify a particular product at the quayside before it was transmitted further

375
to the client's warehouse. I understand that this also concerns the importers and handlers of the material which is known as latex.
I moved the Amendment because we and certain sectors of the chemical industry were not entirely satisfied with the assurances that had been given in another place by the Minister. We understood that the Minister had not proved that several of the exceptions which he quoted were valid in this case. We also felt that bulk liquids of the type described in the Amendment required skilled and often specialised handling and, as I pointed out earlier, identification at the point of landing, either at the point of import or piping it away from land on to a ship at a tanker point. There may be a case for saying that dockers might be able to turn a handle and open a pipe or valve, but I am told that often further skill and considerable training is required.
Thus, I cannot say that we have been totally satisfied by the noble Lord's reply. I assure him that we were in no way attempting to go round in circles. The term "hydrocarbon oil" was mentioned by some of the concerns which have been in touch with us, and this question of liquid chemicals and liquid gases gave a great deal of concern to one company. I know that liquid chemicals and liquefied gases are mentioned in the Bill, but we understood, as did this company, that the processes whereby they are handling liquid chemicals and liquefied gases are not specifically covered by paragraph 15 as now drafted. This is a very technical process, as are all these processes. Having taken note of what the noble Lord said, I shall endeavour to acquire greater skill in chemistry before the next stage of the Bill, when I shall have more to say on the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.59 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
("17. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs in controlled temperature conditions.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to remove from classification the industry which, for want of a better
376
term, we would call the cold storage industry. Cold storage is an enormous industry which is spread right across the country. As far as we understand it, the Bill, for all its benefits, has certain defects and we believe that these are producing a great deal of uncertainty for all the companies operating in cold stores and ware-houses. We think that the Bill places future investment in the industry in jeopardy and puts it at risk, making the future more uncertain for people who might like to invest in certain areas of the cold storage industry.
So far as we can understand it, the Bill will not provide a solution to the problem of the docks and it has caused fear and alarm and will extend the problems that have been apparent in the docks in the past 10 years and more beyond the cargo handling industry, to the detriment of the nation. The proposals in the Bill represent a fairly major threat to the national interest as far as cold storage is concerned because cold stores now have a very large capacity and are capable of holding over 1 million tons of food. If any of these cold stores is subjected to the provisions of the Bill as it stands, we believe that there is a risk that the food stocks concerned could be in jeopardy when an industrial dispute affected one or more ports.
Secondly, there are the interests of the consumer. We believe that the extension of the Bill now proposed will increase the costs of handling and storing food and we can see no escape from a rise in prices to the consumer. Also, we believe that the Bill will harm the interests of the employees in this industry. It has grown very greatly in the last 10 years since 18th September 1967, which marked the end of casualisation. It has a very enviable record of industrial relations that is sadly somewhat different from the record of the docks. Of course we understand that there are problems of industrial relations in the docks, but we hope that those problems will not spread to outside industries. Unfortunately, we feel there is a risk of this happening with the Bill as at present drafted. We think that the proposals in the Bill threaten the record of good industrial relations in the cold storage industry and they have created great fears among the people now working in the industry. This is not just pure propaganda. There have been considerable representations made by the

377
cold storage industry within the last six weeks or so since the Bill was considered in another place. We believe that the fears expressed could be genuine—though we do not say that they are—and that there is risk and uncertainty.
We also believe that the Bill is affecting the efficient working of the cold storage industry because it is a very varied and sophisticated industry which is becoming more so every year. The industry does not provide mere freezing facilities; it does a lot more. It handles goods and, above all, the work force is having to acquire new skills and flexibilities. This was something that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, stressed that we needed. He hoped that the Bill provided it, but we cannot say that we agree with him. In the industry there is a great deal of inter-change between one job and another in the same warehouse.
We believe that the future of this industry will be much affected by the Bill because the proposals which it embodies create great uncertainty not just for the employees but also for the employers in the cold stores. We believe that the viability of many of the stores will be in doubt under the Bill as at present drafted. There is a risk that expansion and development of facilities may not go ahead and that employment opportunities will continue to be limited until this uncertainty is removed in one way or another.
The industry has grown a great deal in the last 10 years. Its capacity has expanded two and a half times, the acreage of farmland which is used for growing quick freeze foods has expanded in the same proportion and frozen food sales have trebled. Noble Lords will therefore see that this is a major industry which affects every family in the land. Apart from these figures, we also know that foods emanating from the cold storage industry arrive in containers and that containerisation, which has really taken off since 1968, has not necessarily shifted dock work to the cold stores themselves because there is no difference at all at the cold store between unloading a refrigerated lorry and unloading refrigerated containers. Therefore, part of the dock work has been eliminated.
Noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of traffic comes from overseas and is sent into cold stores—for example, South American meat and Australian
378
butter and cheese, which constituted a major part of the cold stork e capacity about 10 years ago. However, this has been replaced by supplies from sources much nearer home—for instance, EEC meat and dairy products and other foods such as home produced poultry and vegetables. I could give enormous numerical examples, but I shill not go into that now because it may weary the Committee. We recognise that: some of these cold stores were at or near or virtually on the quayside. They employed registered dock labour. Unfortunately, for various reasons and not entirely through the volition of the employers at the dockside, these stores have closed. I understand that all the cold stores owned and operated by the Port of London Authority have closed. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, might be able to say whether I was correct about this, but unfortunately he is not in his place. I hope that he will come back. The stores that have closed have in part been replaced by new stores within the dock areas, but today there are cold storage facilities far afield inland. This has arisen totally as a result of the growth of quick freeze vegetables. The development has arisen from the demands of the housewife, as we must appreciate.
As we see it, the Bill risks affecting such inland container cold stores because we believe that there is liable to be an increase in cost owing to the imposition of the levy payable by the employers who will be included in the Scheme. There is of course a risk of inflexibility resulting from the traditions of the dock workers who will be moved to the new stores and who will come under the aegis of the new Scheme. This, too, we believe risks increasing costs. I believe I have said enough to make it clear to the Committee that we feel that there is too much uncertainty and risk to this enormous industry which concerns the whole nation. We are not entirely convinced by the exclusions that have been written into the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned earlier that many things could be done by custom and practice b it that there were very often areas in which people felt that they should have rights. What we fear is that the Bill may give dockers rights to come to the cold stores. We are not against dockers who might wish to leave the port areas and work in cold stores in or around dock areas,

379
or indeed inland at a reasonable distance from their homes, if they wish to do so. But we wonder whether it is wise to allow dockers to have a right to come and work in the cold stores, which we believe would be the case if the Bill went through in its current state. I beg to move.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lyell on this matter. Overall, these cold stores are almost entirely concerned with food. There is also the mixture: at some times of the year the store is filled with home grown produce, which never yet has been known as cargo, and the dockers technically could only provide and expect the work which means either importing and bringing in food or exporting goods. In many of these stores, with the home grown produce that is frozen, and in other sections taking in imported food, there is a duality of interest between those who perfectly legitimately will be dealing with home grown produce, and those who will say that because a section of this comes in and is imported foodstuffs, they as dockers are entitled to handle it.
This activity has grown over the past 20 years into a highly skilled, highly complicated operation, with enormous capital expenditure going into the cold stores. Different sections of the plant operate at different temperatures for different commodities, and there is all the care that has to be taken in taking in the stocks so that the first in is first out, and later stocks are not put on top of some stocks which have been in for some weeks. Scrupulous timetables have to be kept because of the variation of the staying power and the lasting power of even frozen commodities, which vary in terms of the time for which they can he kept. It appears to me that yet again in another sphere the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, so sweetly puts the idea that the dockers would be denied the right, but does he not appreciate that by giving these rights in a dozen new spheres, and widening this into many spheres, he is deeply worrying many other skilled and genuine trade unionists in other trade unions who feel that their right will increasingly become the subject of a demand by others to take over their work?
380
I should like to mention just one other aspect of the matter; namely, the enormous pressure of consumer interests. I believe that the Minister for consumer affairs has an inquiry on foot at the moment about the period between food, even frozen food, being processed and its reaching the consumer; all the ramifications which require a staff dedicated to that type of work, a staff trained in it, knowing it, and which is flexible with all that is required, with the varying stocks coming in from home or abroad from time to time. There is the flexibility and the right, at least on any normal historical count, of having the right to deal with all the home produce. Therefore it seems reasonable that when the food gets to the store, the work of the store and the handling to and from that store should be under-taken by those who are specially trained for these very large and very costly centres.
Viscount ROCHDALE: I should like to support my noble friends on this Amendment. If ever there was an industry which ought to be exempted from classification this is it; unlike, shall we say, the development of containers. I can under-stand the point of view of the dock worker who sees his old-fashioned trade slipping away because this traffic is now coming through the ports in containers. I would not agree with him, but I can quite see his point of view. The containers are a substitute trade for the original way of handling cargo over the quay. But this is not a substitute trade at all; it is something relatively new. Historically it is true to say that only a relatively small part of this trade was handled by dock workers. But as my noble friends have pointed out, what we are now discussing really amounts to public cold storage. I realise that the wording in the Amendment goes rather wider than cold storage, but basically we are talking about public cold storage, and as my noble friends have said, this has developed quite enormously over the past 20 years.
It has developed for a variety of reasons, only partially due to dock work. It is due to the tremendous growth of the frozen food industry throughout the country as a whole. It has a relatively small labour force, about 5,500. It is a labour force which, as my noble friends have pointed out, is flexible, but at the same time is highly trained and highly

381
skilled and is working on full-time engagements. It is most important that the whole possibility of uncertainty which now exists should he laid aside and put to rest. The reason why this arises at all is that tremendous capital expenditure has already taken place. It so happens that not all of it, but a very large proportion of it, is within the present cargo handling zone, and that is why it is at risk.
I believe that the industry has a great potential for further development, but it is capital intensive and if it is to expand it needs a tremendous amount of further capital. While there is this uncertainty, there is a danger that this development will be delayed or held back: and as my noble friend said, this would be to the detriment not only of those intimately connected with the industry, but to every man and woman living in the country who increasingly uses frozen food.
Therefore I urge that this industry, which can show a fine record of service to the country, should be included in this part of a Schedule, the exclusion part. I believe that it would be of no consequence—it would do no harm—to dock workers seeking work, but would be of great benefit to those who rely, day in, day out, on the services it provides.
Lord WIGODER: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether he would he kind enough to resolve one difficulty which I cannot at the moment follow? It is this. Is the highly skilled work of trained engineers who are engaged in operating and maintaining expensive and complicated equipment classifiable as dock work under the Bill as it now stands?
Lord JACQUES: In our view it would not be classifiable because of the rigid tests which are in Clause 8. It should be remembered that here we have the two-stage procedure, and in our opinion it would never get past the first stage, which is Clause 8(4)(a), (b) and (c).
This Amendment would prevent classification of work in cold stores or cool warehouses, or even in sheds with warm temperatures which are used to ripen fruit. Furthermore, this would be the case even if such stores or sheds were situated on the dockside and the work involved was fully integrated with the work of loading and unloading ships because the store or shed in question was used temporarily while the goods were in
382
transit awaiting collection prier to transportation to a further destination. This situation occurs at present and is likely to continue to occur in the future. A transit cold store, for example, has fairly recently been opened on the Seaforth docks in the port of Liverpool. Such developments will continue to occur in the future because over 80 per cent. of all food by weight imported into this country is imported through t le existing Scheme ports. I should like the Committee to note that: 80 per cent. of imported food is imported through the existing Scheme ports.
Moreover, dramatic changes have taken place in the handling of imported refrigerated foods. In 1963 the Port of London handled 840,000 tons of refrigerated meat and dairy produce. Ten years later this was 313,000 tons. The cold storage which was there to back it up in 1963 was 20 million cubic feet, but by 1973 this had fallen to 5 million cubic feet. It had fallen to a quarter of what it had formerly been. The means of bringing about these changes did not always show the proper concerr for good industrial relations and full cor sultations which could have helped mitigate the difficult problems involved in the run-down of dock work in the Port o' London. The move by certain companies away from the London dockside led directly to the 1972 dock strike. It was for picketing cold stores in the vicinity of the port that the five dockers were imprisoned under the Industrial Relations Act for contempt of court, and there have beet several other cases in London of industrial action directed against cold stores which refused to enter into negotiations about the possible employment of dock workers.
One of the aims of this Bill, and indeed of the ILO Convention on Dockwork, is to ensure that in drawing up the local definitions of dock work account can be taken of technological changes on the employment opportunities of dock workers. We cannot accept the argument that because refrigerated foods now frequently reach cold stores in containers this has not meant a shift of dock work inland to the cold store. Cold stores away from the ports have always unloaded refrigerated lorries. However, they now also unload refrigerated containers. It is precisely because part of dock work has been eliminated by using an integrated

383
transport system to move the cargo from producer to consumer that it is necessary to include cold stores within the description of work which may be classified so that, if appropriate, dock workers may perform such work.
The noble Baroness talked of other trade unionists being concerned that their work may be taken away from them by dockers. That is not possible under the Bill. The Bill provides, first of all, that work can be classified only in the exceptional conditions which are described in Clause 8, and under Schedule 4 there is a two-stage operation for this. Then, in a later clause in the Bill there is complete protection for the people who are already doing the work. So I say to the noble Baroness that what she said is quite impossible under this Bill.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: The noble Lord is pleading in clause after clause for the conditions. Does he really think that some of the companies which have moved away from the docks at enormous capital cost would have clone so if they had not felt they could not get a proper service for their food when they were there? Does he really believe that the pressure will not be put on, once the opportunity is given for the dockers to say, "This is our work and we are going to have it"? They will use, as they have used in the past, their opportunity to stop the goods getting through unless they get the terms they want. This is what is terrifying people, and nothing in those clauses will help that situation.
Lord JACQUES: When the noble Baroness talks about their having to move away from the docks so that the work will not be classified, perhaps I may point out that, under the Bill as it is, if they move five miles away they are not classifiable, and under the Bill as amended if they move half a mile away they are not classifiable. So they have not got to move very far to be outside the scope of the Bill altogether.
Should this Amendment be accepted, then it would create a nonsensical situation in existing Scheme ports because the Scheme could not be applied to new developments on the dockside. It would moreover mean that instead of the orderly and sensible procedures laid down in the Bill for dealing with the proper application
384
of the Scheme outside existing port areas, this House would in effect be saying to the dockers, "Continue your picketing and any other means you have which are legal. We are not going to give you orderly and peaceful procedures for settling your problems". That is the issue before the Committee.
Lord WIGODER: I wonder whether I might revert for one moment to the question of engineers which I raised, because I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right in his answer. It appears from Schedule 3, Part I, as to the work which may be classified, that that includes,
"Work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo".
It is at the very least arguable, is it not, that a maintenance engineer's job is work done in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo; and therefore it passes that test? If one then goes back to page 11 of the Bill, to Clause 8(4)(a), it states:
"The Board may … determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work … is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …".
Is it not at the very least arguable that if at one time registered dock workers were unloading ships so that the cargo could be delivered, let us say, direct to the wholesaler, and that has now been replaced by a mechanised process under which the goods are sent to cold stores, then the work done at the cold stores is work done by way of substitution for other work previously done by the Registered dock workers? Is there not therefore a danger that these words could be interpreted, together with Schedule 3, as meaning that skilled, trained, qualified engineers will find their work classified as dock work, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would agree would be quite ridiculous?
Lord JACQUES: I do not think for one moment that the obstacles laid down in Clause 8(4)(a), (b) and (c) could ever be surmounted.
Baroness SEEAR: Following my noble friend, may I say that the point that is worrying us is how widely do you interpret "substitution"? If "substitution" is

385
to be interpreted as including the introduction of an advanced technical process which takes the place of what was pre-viously a manual process—and, after all, this is how a great many changes take place—then you would require new skills on that technical process, but it would still be "substitution", I should have thought you could argue. This new technical process has taken the place, is in substitution of, the work previously done manually by a docker. It is then substitution, is it not?
Lord JACQUES: I should not think for one moment that it is possible for it to be supposed that the engineer at a cold store is doing work which was formerly done by the docker. The docker has not been an engineer.
Lord WIGODER: It is in substitution for other work "previously done by …".
Lord JACQUES: I would not think that the engineer's work is in substitution. What we are getting at here when talking about substitution is work which was done at the dockside and is now being done away from the dockside. It is substitution of work that was being done by the docker. That is the significance there.
Baroness SEEAR: My question was a slightly broader one, as to whether when you substitute a mechanised process for a job previously done by a docker largely manually—not necessarily cold storage, but in any case of substitution—it is substitution. It may not have been meant to be when the Bill was drafted, but it is surely arguable that if you have introduced a mechanised process in substitution for a manual job, then the man doing it is operating in substitution of the previous job.
Lord BROWN: May I interject here? I am not very much in favour of this Bill but I believe my noble friend is right in this matter. It becomes a technical matter. I take it that Clause 8(4) is also governed by Schedule 3, Part I. Schedule 3, paragraph 1 says "handling cargo". It lays that down. The cargo is specified as goods which are to be shipped. An engineer working on plant in a cold store is not handling cargo.
Lord WIGODER: I was not referring to paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, the handling of cargo, but to paragraph 3 which seems to me to be much broader:
"Work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo."
Lord BROWN: Nevertheless, Schedule 3, Part I, is definitive and contains definitions. The deft ditions lay down what cargo means and Part I refers to the handling of cargo. That literally says:
"This includes any movement of cargo by means of manpower, machinery or lighterage."
If you include the engineer locking after a refrigeration plant in that, then I cannot possibly see that it could be included in the terms of Clause 8 or Schedule 3.
Lord LYELL: May I help the noble Lord, Lord Brown? Handling cargo does not cover the whole of Part I. Handling cargo is only paragraph 1. What the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was attempting to inquire about was paragraph 3. It seems to me that there could be a difficulty here. That says:
"Work in connection with storage or ware-housing of cargo."
I think that the noble Lord's copy of the Bill will be about the same as mine, and as I see it that is not part of handling cargo. Handling cargo is one of the categories, but work in connection with storage or warehousing is another.
Lord BROWN: You can destroy this argument by use of the reductio ad absurdum. If you interpret this Bill in that way then you can attach to almost any work almost any other work, a ad if you will say that handling cargo and work in connection with storage and warehousing of cargo includes the work of an migineer who is concerned with the construction and maintenance of a compressor for maintaining a refrigeration part, then anything goes in any Bill.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord could not have put it better. Those are the fears that have been expressed to us, and if the noble Lord thinks that this is scare-mongering and propaganda, he has explained it beautifully and briefly and much better than any of us could do it.
Lord BROWN: I resist the noble Lord's argument because I do not think you can interpret Bills in that way.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May we come back to the Amendment instead of the other possible interpretations. It seemed to me from the way, with the very powerful peroration, that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, ended his argument that he was dead against this proposed Amendment in any form. It would seem to me that this is not honouring the various statements that were made in another place.
Lord JACQUES: I never made any such statement.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Lord did not make any such statement, but he certainly did not say he was going to accept it. Is he going to accept it or offer to put something in its place? Perhaps I might remind him that in another place at Second Reading the Minister said:
"Long established warehousing, storaging, packaging and cold storage operations which are not related direct to work transferred from the docks and not connected with port operations would most certainly not be classified as dock work and therefore subject to the new scheme."
That is a very firm statement. At a later stage, the Committee stage, at col. 1482, Mr. Booth said:
"We hope to come forward at a later stage with an indication that classification would only in general apply in places where the overwhelming bulk of the work was classifiable work, where it was a majority activity. As a general rule that is what we seek, and we shall seek to apply that as much to cold storage as to any other."
I read those quotations as the Government in another place accepting that there is a special point about cold storage.
I shall not repeat to your Lordships what my noble friends, both on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches, have said which covers all the points as to why cold storage needs to have special treatment. There are only two fundamental reasons: one is its importance, because it handles the food supplies, and not only the food supplies from overseas but those from within the country as well; and the other is that experience has shown, and the Government in another place clearly endorsed this in my second quotation, that under any circumstance split labour is to be avoided if possible. I am sure that
388
experienced people like the noble Lord, Lord Brown, would agree with me that a split labour force with trades unions which have different traditions and terms and conditions can be very troublesome.
Those are the two particular points: one, the importance of cold storage in the storing of all sorts of food on which we all depend—and even in your Lord-ships' House we are allowed to go away for food from time to time; and, secondly, because one wants to avoid a split labour force. On the whole, a cold store is not one that will have more than a few jobs which would be registerable as dock labour. It is almost impossible within the provisos to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, draws our attention repeatedly that only a few jobs would be dock jobs, and therefore a split labour force is almost inevitable in the cold storage environment.
It would seem therefore that there is a very good reason for having an Amendment on these lines. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained that perhaps it was rather wide, and my noble friends might think that we could word it better. But, better still, perhaps the Government could endorse the undertakings which they gave in another place and produce a suitable Amendment of their own to back that up.
Lord JACQUES: I ought to reply to the last point first. The Government did this a long time ago, and it will be found in Clause 8(5)(c). I should now like to reply more fully to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The work of maintaining machinery is not included in Part I of Schedule 3. Therefore, it is not even potentially liable to classification. So far as paragraph 3 is concerned, we take the view that it is not the case that "work in connection with" would cover maintenance work. The words are used in the 1946 Act and have never been held to have such a wide meaning. In other words, we have had this problem for 35 years and it has not given rise to the kind of difficulty which has been referred to.
Lord WIGODER: Would the noble Lord help me a little further? Is there any decision that the phrases "work in connection with storage" or "work in connection with warehousing" excludes people working on machinery?
Lord JACQUES: Does the noble Lord mean in a court case? I could not give an answer off-hand, but I will find out and make sure that a reply is given to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord BROWN: I can assure the noble Lord, having had some experience of court cases over industrial action, that the wording "in connection with" does not embrace anyone who might have had anything to do with machinery or with the buildings, and so on. The contention put forward by the noble Lord that mechanical engineering people working with cold storage are in fact classified because of this wording "in connection with" as cargo handlers is very far out-side my own experience of a good deal of industrial law.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: If we turn to paragraph 6 of Part I, Schedule 3, referring to preparing ships for sea and the discharge of cargo, surely that wording could cover machinery, derricks and cranes on board, and so on? It seems extremely widely drawn, far too wide for me. I am referring to paragraph 6 of Part I:
"Preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo."
Lord JACQUES: I do not think that has anything whatever to do with this Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: What has happened is that earlier in the debate the noble Lord was arguing that "articles" embraced vehicles. I read out the specific things included in,
"Preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo",
and that certainly would include the operations of derricks. Therefore, despite the assurances the noble Lord has been giving to us, I am left in almost as much doubt as I was when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, first raised this point.
Lord BROWN: In paragraph 12, Part II, Schedule 3, we have the words:
"Such work on a ship as by local custom or usage is left to seamen on the ship."
No one can deny that looking after derricks on ships is something which by custom and usage has been left to seamen on the ships. I think that if the noble
390
Lord would read that paragraph again, he would have his doubts totally resolved.
8.43 p.m.
Lord LYELL: It seems that this particular Amendment has engendered a very lively debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced a very impressive array of figures, and he mentioned—I have noted it carefully and will retain what he has told us—that 80 per cent. of our food comes through Scheme ports. I hope he will be able to enlighten us further as to whether the food came in by container, on roll-on/roll-off vessels, by conventional means or whether it was put into cold store in or around Scheme ports. While I accept the accuracy of this figure, I wonder how that is latched on to his main argument. I know, of course, that the Scheme ports play a most important part in the import of our foodstuffs and also concern the food storage industry.
The noble Lord mentioned that the Port of London Authority have closed down all the cold stores, and indeed I mentioned the point myself in moving the Amendment. I wonder why all that happened. It seemed to me that employers did not behave irresponsibly and that they did not want to leave the docks. Something must have made them wish to leave the docks. I therefore wondered whether they had perhaps been wrong, in some cases, in following fir. trade. For instance, there has been a great increase in the use of frozen vegetables; this has grown very rapidly in the period we are discussing. The noble Lord mentioned 1963, and I wandered whether employers and the users of cold stores did the wrong thing in moving away from these particular areas since, as the noble Lord said, it was something that inflamed the employees which they saw what had been their traditional work leaving these traditional areas. I cannot think that is necessarily the case, but obviously there were considerable reasons to make the employers leave the docksides and remove their cold stores beyond the perimeter or coastline and certainly 3eyond the old five-mile limit.
The noble Lord ended by saying it was totally impossible that work could be taken away from the existing employees in cold stores and they had complete protection. He mentioned Clause 3(5)(b), but from my reading of that I do not see

391
that protection is provided nor does it seem to me to spell out the protection which the noble Lord says is inherent in this clause. However, I do not think we should turn this Committee into a court of law and attempt to argue that particular section tonight. The noble Lord tells us that the dock workers will work alongside the existing workers and I would ask him: Is it really intended, if the cold storage industry is to be classified, that dockers should go to some of the largest inland cold stores such as Peter-borough and Droitwich, which are certainly two of the largest inland cold storage depots?—because the employees at such cold stores are genuinely apprehensive that such will he the case.
According to our reading of the Bill, this is perfectly feasible and I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord has said has removed these fears from our minds. I do not know how the employees at cold stores would interpret the words of the noble Lord, but I think he was perhaps a trifle extravagant in suggesting that if we exclude the cold storage industry from classification there would be a consequential rise in industrial unrest and activity. That is certainly not what we intend, and I think perhaps that was a trifle extravagant. Possibly it was under-standable, but I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord has said quietens our fears. He may say that the jobs of the employees in cold store are assured, but that is only one half of the argument. If registered dockers who are not able to gain employment in or around the dock areas are to be offered vacancies, which may be theoretical vacancies, in inland or other cold storage depots, I am afraid the employers will seek to take other steps, as they may have taken in dockland since 1967–68, which has led to the removal of cold storage facilities from the quay-sides and the dock areas. I totally fail to see how the noble Lord has answered this question. People are afraid for their jobs: of course they are—
Lord JACQUES: May I tell the noble Lord that the protection of existing workers is not in Clause 8, but is in Clause 10.
Lord LYELL: We can probably have a fruitful discussion after the Committee
392
stage. But I believe the noble Lord said earlier that it was Clause 8(5)(b). However, I would stress that the noble Lord has not gone far enough in answering. He said that no work can be taken away, but I believe that if vacancies in cold stores are found for dockers that will make their present operation totally uneconomic, which will have a grave effect on the national interest as well as on the consumer interest. I have not been at all convinced by the arguments, but at this stage I should like to withdraw the Amendment. However, I must say that we look for a much more constructive series of arguments from the noble Lord opposite when we discuss this again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.51 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 27, line 5, at end insert—
(". The work of persons employed in a business where the work involves handling of goods ancillary to the carrying out of constructions or of dredging operations (as defined in Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very much concerned with the construction industry in and around ports and harbours. From our present reading of the Bill, it seems that certain construction work, which we believe ought not to be included as dock work, might be classifiable. In particular, there is the question of tendering for contracts, which may or may not be sizeable, around the coastline. When firms tender for contracts they will be required to show the Board why the work should not be considered for dock labour, which we think is a trifle harsh on them. The work carried out by these construction firms is not permanent, and it has been stated that they might be said to use casual labour, but most construction contracts run on for a considerable period, even up to 10 years. We believe that the criteria set out in Clause 8(5)(b) are a little too general in their application to the construction industry, and we are a little worried that the position of these firms will be inhibited when carrying out work in a dock area. Therefore, we should

393
like to hear what the Government have to say on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: May I first remind the Committee of the terms of the Amendment? It states:
"The work of persons employed in a business where the work involves handling of goods ancillary to the carrying out of construction or of dredging operations (as defined in Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975."
Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act (No. 2) Act 1975 defines "construction". It specifically excludes delivery of materials or equipment to sites. Whether or not the handling of goods will be construed as ancillary to construction operations would therefore depend on the normal meaning of the words. We therefore believe that this Amendment, if incorporated into the Bill, would certainly give rise to disputes.
We also believe that the great majority of the work concerned would be unlikely to be classified, because it would not satisfy the criteria of Clause 8(5). However, the delivery of materials for construction of off-shore oil-rigs, undertaken from ports, is certainly work which could be appropriate for consideration for classification. Some such work is done by registered workers now. There is other work which would be excluded from classification by this Amendment, which might well be appropriately done by registered dock workers. For example, we understand that registered dock workers handled the stone from the old London Bridge which was exported to the United States of America, but by this Amendment they would be excluded.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Can the noble Lord say whether the Bill in its present form would include as classified work, or exempt, the building of pontoons for a marina, or the dredging which frequently has to be carried out? At some of the marinas around the smaller ports they often have to bring in contractors, and have regular dredging.
Lord JACQUES: We are concerned here not with dredging but with the handling of cargo.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: What about the building of pontoons where materials have to he brought into an area which is not a commercial port, but is merely a marina port?
Lord BROWN: I declare myself as being a person who does not at all like this Bill—
Lord SANDFORD: You are not the only one.
Lord BROWN: But having failed to get it defeated or amended in a major way in another place, and having to accept the idea that dockers are to have preserved areas of employment, is it any use nit-picking around it? I ask your Lord-ships to look at this Amendment. You could say "all handling of goods ancillary to the running of canteens" or "to road making in docks" or "to building or repairing ships in docks". They would all be equally worthy of an Amendment similar to this. You could go on piling up the agony, because if you use the words "ancillary to" it can mean almost anything. We had the same argument over engineers, and if the words in the Bill are to be interpreted to include almost anything, then there it is.
You cannot word a Bill in such a way as to exclude these things; that is what courts of law are for. One knows perfectly well what are the precedents in these matters. The docks were not built yesterday. I was chairman of the Ports Modernisation Committee for two years and have heard all this stuff before, and to a large extent one has to go on what has happened before in interpreting laws of this kind. As I said, I am against the Bill, but must we waste time on nitpicking things like this, which will not help what it is intended to help? This type of Amendment would merely limit certain things, and because of that limitation would include all the rest. So I am against this Amendment, although I am not at all in favour of the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, but, alas!we are left with making the best of a bad job. There are hundreds and thousands of people whose interests are at stake, and we have to do our best to defend them.
Lord BROWN: With great respect—I do not mean to be insulting—the noble Lord is making the worst of a bad job, in one sense, because that would not at all achieve his aims. That would tend to include by omission all the things that the noble Lord does not want to include. That is the principle which always operates.

395
If you specify a lot of little things, then all those you do not specify are included.
Lord LYELL: Certainly they will be included under the definition of the Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head, but, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, this Bill affects thousands of people. They want certitude: that is what the law is about, I believe. If the noble Lord says, "We want a specific exclusion here; you are including thousands of other people", and if other people feel they are concerned or that their interests are affected, this is what another place and, indeed, this House in Committee is deliberating upon. We are seeking to discuss the Bill. The noble Lord says that this is a nitpicking Amendment. Perhaps every Amendment that we have put down is a nit-picking Amendment. Does the noble Lord accept that we should just say that we do not like the Bill, do a rain dance and go away? No. We believe in discussing this particular interest, and I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that it is nit-picking.
This was in the nature of a probing Amendment and we believed that it was well drafted and well founded. I cannot say that we are totally satisfied by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He mentioned one or two amusing and interesting examples. I am thinking in particular of the moving of London Bridge, which I should have thought could in no way be classified as dock work by custom, practice or any other method. Nevertheless, this is probably one very good example that the noble Lord might be able to use at a later stage where, by custom or practice, something has been tolerated. I think that the French language expresses it just like that: it is tolerated; it is permitted.
Lord JACQUES: I do not think that it is fair to say "tolerated". May it not be that the inherited skill of the registered docker is so great that those who took down London Bridge knew where to go to get the right kind of expertise?
Lord LYELL: I am indeed fascinated but I would not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. This may be one of a thousand exceptions. Nevertheless, we accept that the Bill excludes delivery.—Certainly we are
396
worried by certain aspects of the handling of these materials. The noble Lord has gone one-third or one-half of the way towards enlightening us on this Amendment. Therefore we seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, find out more and come back at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
9.3 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 28, line 40, leave out ("18th September 1967") and insert ("10th February 1976")
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, beg leave to move this Amendment which we regard as one of the more important Amendments that we are seeking to make to the Bill. The effect of the Amendment will, we hope, he to substitute the date on which the Bill was introduced in Parliament in another place in lieu of the date in Paragraph 8(2)(b) of Schedule 4. This was the date, we understand, when the 1967 Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order came into operation. This was the date, as the Minister expressed it in Committee in another place, on which decasualisation of registered dock work was completed.
First, may we discuss the context of the Amendment? Schedule 4 seeks to amplify the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill, which in its turn permits the Board to recommend to the Secretary of State that work which is done at premises in a Dock Labour Scheme area, and previously the cargo-handling zone, should be classified as dock work if the work falls within a particular category of Part I of Schedule 3 which we have been considering. However, Part I of Schedule 4 deals with the consultations which have to take place before such a recommendation is made. Not only all employers who employ workers on this type of work but also all trade unions which are recognised by such an employer in respect of the work in question have to be notified. Then the Board have to consider any representations that are received from the employers or trade unions who may have been notified—or it might be persons acting on behalf of either the employers

397
or the trade unions—and also from any other persons who, in the Board's view, are interested.
During the Committee stage in another place an assurance was given that this would include the users of ports. It seems to us that the Board then have to tell all those who have made representations to them what work the Board propose to recommend should or should not be classified and then invite further representations. The Board also have to state what safeguards they recommend to the Secretary of State for the existing work force, whether they propose to recommend that any of the existing work force should not he eligible for Registration as dock workers, and why, and what they recommend should happen to the rest of the existing work force, but in particular for how long they should be put on the extension register.
Paragraph 8 was added to the Bill during the Committee stage in another place as part of a Government Amendment, following discussions with the TUC and several individual unions. We think that it goes some way towards allaying the fears of existing work forces in premises at which the Board propose to recommend that work should be classified as dock work, but unfortunately we believe that it does not go nearly far enough. The Secretary of State under—took on Second Reading to put down an Amendment, although he indicated that in his view it was not really necessary. Nevertheless, the Government put down an Amendment and paragraph 8 is the result. The paragraph gives a qualified independent trade union recognised by the employer in respect of the work in question the power to veto the proposed recommendation but only if the recognition agreement was made before 18th September, 1967, and also if this recognition has been in operation ever since.
Lines 42 to 47 on that particular page mean that the veto will not necessarily apply if different methods of handling cargo have been adopted. Let us take, as an example, containerisation or roll-on/roll-off, even if the employer has moved to other premises outside the particular port area. The Minister said in another place that 1967 was the year in which the first of seven berths of containerisation of freight were ready for use, but he
398
did not go on to say when they actually came into use. We are not sure when they did come into use, but we think it was certainly some time after 1970.
Nevertheless, the main point of the Amendment is that we regard as unsatisfactory the date, 18th September 1967, because containerisation only really began to get off the ground in 1968. As we believe this to be the case, the provision as set out now in the Bill would cut out from the exemption all agreements in respect of container bases and also many agreements which have been made in cold stores, warehouses and in other places of work which started work after 1967.
We think this is a very strange provision to come from this Government, because certainly we should not have expected them to interfere with agreements which have been freely entered into between employers and employees, let alone, as we believe is going to be the case, to favour one union against others. It is one thing for legislation to provide that from a given particular date no new recognition agreements shall be entered into on the part of any industry except in accordance with certain provisions, but it is quit e another thing to disregard or to cancel any existing recognition agreements which have been entered into quite legally and in accordance with the good labour relations practice which is endemic in that particular industry. We believe that the lea that we in this House and the Members of another place—and indeed the unions—are entitled to demand is respect for all re cognition agreements entered into before the date on which the Bill was introduced, giving warning that from the date of the intro—duction such agreements could—and often would—be overridden. We want to make it clear that if the date remained as it is in the Bill, the 18th September 1967, that would not necessarily mean that in no circumstances would recognition I agreements entered into after that date be overridden. I believe it was Mr. Harold Walker in another place who mentioned that the existence of the veto would be accepted and that indeed account would be taken of it.
Nobody—I hope not even in this House—would deny that in some cases this veto would and could be overridden. We believe that is wrong and we hope to put it right. Certainly to keep the date

399
18th September 1967 as it is at present written in the Bill could also lead to industrial friction, which we believe to be needless. Certainly it would not improve industrial relations because it would engender resentment as far as the existing work force was concerned in various premises which would be affected. We think this resentment would continue to grow and would fester. We also believe that the respect for recognition agreements which have been freely and legally entered into would come under heavy pressure.
The date that we have suggested in the Amendment, the 10th February of this year, is not of any particular significance. It might be earlier by a few weeks—perhaps a month of two—or perhaps a little later; but we think it is a reasonable starting point, it being the date of Second Reading, the first major consideration of this Bill, in another place. We hope this Amendment will promote good industrial relations, efficiency and fairness. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The Bill as drafted would give an independent trade union the right to veto the classification of work in long established warehouses, cold stores and other classifiable work in respect of which it has been continuously recognised since 18th September 1967. I would emphasise that "long established" are the operative words in that sentence. This date marks the completion of decasualisation with the introduction of the 1967 Dock Workers' Employment Scheme. Broadly speaking, it was also about this time that the farreaching changes in cargo handling techniques, which have revolutionised the industry, were beginning to take place, with consequential changes in the nature and location of dock work. It is not, and it has never been, the Government's intention that long-established operations, not related to work transferred from the docks, should be capable of classification as dock work. It is most unlikely that such work would be classified under the provisions of Clause 8. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 simply removes any such possibility when the union concerned objects.
This Amendment, if accepted, could frustrate a principle objective of the Bill. That objective is to make possible, when the Board so recommends and the Secretary of State so agrees, the classification
400
of work which registered dock workers were performing under the 1967 Scheme but which was transferred outside the port area and undertaken by unregistered workers. It would clearly be incompatible with the intention of the Bill that such work should be subject to automatic union veto.
The choice of the date, 10th February 1976, is presumably the date of the Second Reading debate in the other place. It would give the right of veto in respect of virtually all containerisation work, and work in certain warehouses and cold stores which has been the subject of such industrial relations trouble in recent years. This does not, of course, mean that the views of the trade unions concerned will not be taken fully into account. There is adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that a trade union which objects to the classification of any particular work has every opportunity to make its views known, and these would clearly carry great weight. However, it does not seem right that the Board should automatically be precluded by union veto from making a thorough examination of all the circumstances to determine whether or not to recommend that any particular work should be classified.
There may be cases when some conflict of interest exists which may not be wholly reconcilable to the complete satisfaction of all concerned. However, the Bill provides a sensible means, where none exists at present to procedures in Clause 8 and in Schedule 4, of seeking the best solution to many of the difficulties which have arisen through changes in the nature and location of dock work in recent years. The extension of the right of veto, as the Amendment proposes, could undermine these arrangements and prevent the introduction of orderly and sensible procedures to deal with very difficult problems, and would leave difficulties unresolved. It cannot be over-emphasised that the Trades Union Congress, in the form of its Transport Committee, gave full agreement to the principles of the Bill but said that it thought drafting Amendments should be brought forward to ensure the intention of the Bill, that long-established ware-housing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations which are not related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, should not be classified as dock work

401
and, therefore, not subject to the Scheme. The union veto was brought forward during the progress of the Bill in another place in response to that request. Those who have studied the Committee proceedings in another place will be aware that the Members of Parliament who are sponsored directly by the unions affected expressed their satisfaction with the Bill as amended.
Therefore, Amendment No. 107 proposes a change which has not been suggested by the trade unions concerned and which would, in the opinion of the Government, be less rather than more conducive to good industrial relations in the docks.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right in making rather an issue of "long-established". However, I should have thought that in a working life nine years is a pretty long time. It is just about nine years since I left the Navy and I have had three jobs since then. One of them was in a newly-established organisation. It was not in connection with the docks, but that is not the point because it might have been if I had been in a different environment. If, after this new job had been going for three years—and we started it from scratch and had to work out new ways of doing things—suddenly someone had come along and said: "Some of your jobs look as though they are classifiable as dock labour", we should have been very upset indeed.
It is not reasonable to look at this entirely from the point of view of the dockers and their long history. Of course their view has to be taken into account, and on Second Reading we made this point very fully. But it seems to me that it is almost detaching from reality to feel that someone, not today but in five years' time or even ten years' time, because the system rolls on, should be caught by this Bill, whether in the form in which it now is, or as it is amended before it leaves this House. However it may appear, it really does not matter in this context.
The whole procedure is very tight, even in the original form of the Bill. It means that a relatively long time will elapse before all the less important ports have been considered, and in due course possibly engulfed. Whether it be another cargo handling zone system or a dock
402
labour scheme system does not matter in this respect; both are possible under the Bill. People who work in dock areas, people who are trade unionist; in other types of trade, have said to me, "It is all very well; they are not interested in us now, but in ten years' time they might be."
If we leave the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, wants it to be left, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that something like 14 to 19 years after this magic date in 1967, someone will be told, "Oh well, yours is not a longestablished job"—even though he has been working that way for half a working life-time—" because the Bill says the key date is 1967. I know it is now 1981, but that is not long enough to count as a long-established job". You really cannot argue about what is so magic about 1967. The only magical thing about it is that it is the theoretical date of the end of casualisation. That is a point.3ut when we recast this in terms of people working rather than theory, history and taking ourselves back to the last century, and all sorts of other things that we do as we read about the docks, which the 11 of us have done who take part in these debates, we really want to think whether this is a reasonable date.
Personally, I would not support my noble friends on a precise date in 1976, any more than any other particular it date. But I would think it reasonable to have the date nearer to the present time, observing that nine years have gone by since the now key date in the Bill. In some people's terms, particularly if they are youngish men, that is a long time. It might be for the whole of their twenties. Noble Lords are a long way from their twenties in most cases, as I look round the Chamber, but if they cast their minds back, and if they had done the same job from the age of 21 to the age of 30 and someone had then said, "Well, old boy, your job is going to be altered into a dock one", and they did not want it to be—and it must not be presumed that they would—it seems to me that it is our reasonable to put this sort of time-scaly; on it. If noble Lords can think of a better date than the Second Reading in another place, by all means do it, but do not put it back much before 1976.
If the Bill becomes law in the reasonably near future, it will take a few months, if not years, before this is brought into effect

403
in whatever form. So it would seem to me that it is important to think of the attitude of the ordinary chap who is not a docker, nor the son of a docker, nor the grandson of a docker, who has not been brought up in that environment, and how he and his job will be affected by the Bill.
Lord BROWN: If this Amendment had read as follows, "It appears that the Board should have been so recognised by the employer and his predecessors at all times during the last ten years", I would have supported it. But it is quite a serious thing to give a trade union a right of veto over a proposal that has been approved by the Secretary of State and presumably by the Government; and to give that right of veto to what may be a trade union that has only been in existence just over a year seems to me to be going too far, and that is what the Amendment would do. I do not think the Amendment is sound at all. It should have implied giving a right of veto to a union which has been recognised for 10 or 15 years, or what-have-you, but not one that has been recognised for one year plus.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I take up the noble Lord's point very briefly. Is that not a little unreasonable? There are lots of new trades. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is a distinguished engineer and he would know this very well. There are lots of new trades which are now thinking that they ought to have trade union representation, and on the whole I applaud that. I think it is very unreasonable to make a distinction between a trade union that has been in existence many years as opposed to one which might have recently been established.
Lord BROWN: There may be lots of new trades, but not lots of new trade unions; in fact there are very few new trade unions. Reading behind this, one can see an existing trade union getting members in an old established location—we know how these things are done—and then getting the veto power because it has only got to be recognised for a year and a bit. I would say it is quite reasonable to suggest that it should have been recognised for ten years, and that will take care of the future.
Lord WIGODER: I do not want to be controversial at the end of an amicable evening. In order that I might be
404
accurate should we return to this point at a later stage, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help me by referring me to other Statutes where similar powers of absolute veto have been given to non-Parliamentary bodies?
Lord JACQUES: I will certainly look into that, but I cannot give the answer offhand. I would explain that this is not vetoing something which the Board has proposed and the Secretary of State has ordered; this is vetoing something which is under consideration by the Board. It drops the matter immediately because it has been vetoed. So it is not quite as bad as it was thought to be.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this particular Amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced a number of sound points, such as where there were long-established recognition agreements these could easily be, and indeed should be, accepted, but I am afraid I did not follow the logic of why newer recognition agreements should not be accepted. He made a sound point when he said that agreements which were long established should indeed be allowed, and he made a valid point again when he said that this veto by the trade union is going to be in respect of something which is merely proposed, but I must admit that nothing in his reply convinced me or some of my noble friends of the validity of striking out the power of veto which might be granted to another trade union, indeed to a long-established trade union.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, had a perfectly reasonable case when he suggested that there might be new wildcat or splinter unions which might wish to frustrate the Bill in this particular way, but I think the argument is just as reasonable where there is a long-established trade union but in, say, a new container store or a new area of work. This trade union might have perfectly good standing, and yet because the work at this new location had only been carried out for two years the power of veto would not be available to that trade union.
Lord JACQUES: May I explain that I did not use the term "long established" in relation to a trade union. I raised the term in relation to cold stores, and what-have-you.
Lord LYELL: I appreciate that, but the noble Lord commenced his reply by mentioning a long-established, I think he called it, recognition agreement. He did use "long-established" meaning nine years from October 1976 back to this arbitrary date. He accepted that our date was arbitrary, but we accepted that his was a little arbitrary. Nevertheless, the noble Lord produced a further argument saying that this Amendment could frustrate the Bill in its intention so far as the veto is concerned. But I wonder why should container bases and cold stores, or newer types of depot or work places be singled out as not being allowed to have this veto?
Lord JACQUES: Because it is dock work being taken away.
Lord LYELL: The noble Lord says it is being taken away, and this is particularly arbitrary. Who is to say whether it has been taken away? We understand that whether the work shall or shall not be classified will be under discussion. Yet the noble Lord is saying arbitrarily that it has been taken away, and in that case we are not going to allow the trade unions to veto it. I thought that whether the work had, or had not, been taken away was under discussion.
Lord JACQUES: But it would not be under discussion if you carried this Amendment. What you are saying is that the trade union should be able to veto it. I say no, the trade union should not be able to veto it; it should be under discussion.
Lord LYELL: Why, then, is the trade union able to veto what the noble Lord called a long-established recognition agreement?
Lord JACQUES: Because the long-established places existed before the changes in techniques. They were there long before the present changes. They are not doing work in substitution for dock work. Many of the modern ones are doing work in substitution for dock work.
Lord LYELL: If the noble Lord believes that, will he be able to tell us what proportion of container bases in cold store areas which are going to be affected by unions not being able to use this veto have arisen as a result of new
406
technologies, and what proportion have arisen as substitution for dock work? I do not believe, and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, believes, that it is entirely 100 per cent. That is a valid point, and one he did not raise. He said that new techniques have been learnt since 1967, 1968, let us say, and that this is substitution for what has been accepted as, or what lie says is, dock work. I do not know whether it is what he says, or the dockers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and perhaps indeed the Transport Committee of the Trades Union Congress, that 12 unions have signed this. Nevertheless, I wonder whether we have got to the bottom of this particular Amendment.
I am not happy with being told that, because the new areas are in substitution for dock work, therefore they should not have this power of veto, which is a pretty powerful weapon. I am not entirely happy with that, yet the noble Lord has a point when he says that there are some areas which are indeed substitutions for what has been regarded as dock work. I am inclined to withdraw this Amendment at this stage, but I must way that I am not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I look forward to discussing this again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
9.35 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 109:
After Schedule 4 insert the folk wing new Schedule—

SCHEDULE

  PUBLIC INQUIRIES (NOTICES AND PROCEDURES)
  1. Where subsection (11) of section 5 above applies, the Secretary of State shall proceed in accordance with the following provisions of this Schedule.
  2. The Secretary of State shall public do a notice that the draft Scheme, the proposal or the draft order (as the case may be) are available, stating where copies may be obtained and specifying a period of 40 days within which representations may be made to him about the draft Scheme, proposal or draft order.
  3. A notice under paragraph 2 above shall be published—

  (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the draft Scheme, proposal or draft order relates to ports in England, Scotland or to the and

  (b) in such local newspapers or in any other ways as appear to the Secretary of

  407
  State best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons interested;

  and shall specify a place where the draft Scheme, the proposal or the draft order (as the case may be) may be inspected, and copies thereof obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time in which and the manner in which any objections thereto may be made to the Secretary of State and, subject to paragraph 4 below, the Secretary of State shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice.
  4. The Secretary of State shall not be required to consider any objection which does not comprise, or have submitted with it, a statement in writing setting out the specific ground of the objection and particulars of any omission, addition or modification asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
  5. If there are no objections which the Secretary of State is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn—

  (a) in the case of a draft Scheme or order (either in the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, being modifications which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the character of the draft as published), he may lay the Scheme before Parliament or make the order (as the case may be); or

  (b) in the case of a proposal, forward to the Board for their consideration a copy of the report referred to in paragraph 8 below.

  6. Before preparing a new Scheme, the Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held.
  7. Where any objections are made as aforesaid and are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall cause an inquiry to be held by an impartial person and, where that inquiry relates to a draft scheme or order, the Secretary of State may, after considering the report referred to in paragraph 9 below, lay the draft Scheme before Parliament or make the order (as the case may be) in the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.
  8. Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply in relation to an inquiry held under this Schedule as they apply to a local inquiry held under subsection (1) of that subsection with the omission of the word "local" from subsection (4).
  9. The Secretary of State shall publish the report of the person appointed by him to hold an inquiry for the purposes of this Schedule.").
  The noble Lord said: I will, with the permission of the Committee, speak at the same time to my manuscript Amendment, No. 110, which is needed if it is to he possible to apply the new Schedule to the Principality of Wales. One could say that this Amendment is consequential because the broad idea of providing for a public inquiry was raised much earlier, in fact on the first day of the Committee stage on the Bill. But perhaps it is necessary on this, the fourth day in Committee, to remind noble Lords of the
  408
  way in which it is intended to fit the concept into the Bill.
  It is necessary first to go back to the debate on Amendment No. 9 to Clause 4—that appears at col.347 in Hansard—which was the point at which my noble friend Lord Gowrie and others first argued, and successfully, for the retention of the public inquiry procedure where draft dock labour schemes, proposals to the Dock Labour Board and draft orders were involved. The full range of matters under the Bill to which the procedure should, we believe, be applicable were set out in the debate on Amendment No. 32 to Clause 5; and that appears at col.446 of Hansard. That was accepted by the Government, will now be incorporated in the Bill as Clause 5(11) and is the main point of connection between this new Schedule and the main body of the Bill. That is how this Schedule is linked with the Bill and the Amendments which have paved the way for it.
  All I need reiterate are the arguments for making provision for public inquiries, which it seems to me are overwhelming. It has been considered necessary to provide for them up to now. The enlarged scope of the Bill, the wider powers of the Secretary of State and the wider geo-graphical range of the effects of the Bill would certainly require it, if it had not already been found necessary. Public inquiries are already common form for the proper handling of innumerable other issues of far less local import and impact than the ones we have been discussing. Without the use of public inquiries there is little or no scope for any proper exercise of public participation and, without a public and open inquiry, there will often be the suspicion that the Secretary of State has been subjected to improper pressures. Those suspicions may well be ill-founded, but they are the inevitable result of decisions on issues as sensitive as these if they are taken behind closed doors. As I said, the Amendment is really consequential and I beg to move.
  9.39 p.m.
  Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD then moved the following Amendment to the Amendment:
  In paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (a), line 3, after ("England") insert ("and Wales").
  The noble Lord said: This is the manuscript Amendment to which I have also been speaking. I beg to move.
  Lord JACQUES: I accept that the Amendments are consequential, but I think I should put on record that under the terms of Amendment No. 32 this Schedule is to apply to a proposal to extend the limits of the cargo handling zone referred to the Board under Clause 4(7). By another Amendment, No. 12, all the provisions of Clause 4 for a cargo handling zone and for extending its limits have been deleted from the Bill.
  Lord SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will read what he said and it may be that we shall have to make some adjustments at a later stage.
  House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
9.40 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am deeply honoured to be given this opportunity and I hope I may be given others to address your Lordships. I am not the first Scottish Law Officer to speak from this Dispatch Box, but I believe I am privileged to be the first serving Solicitor-General for Scotland to address this House as a Member of it. I have attended many of the debates since I was introduced into the House and I hope that I may be permitted to say that I am professionally accustomed to a different type of forum where the forms of speech are perhaps more trenchant, direct and uncompromising than is the custom in your Lordships' House. However, I assure your Lordships that I shall try fervently and quickly to adopt the habits of this House and if, in the beginning and at moments of passionate concern, I lapse into an unduly acerbic tone, I would ask your Lordships to be indulgent, to reprove me gently and to regard such lapses neither as intended discourtesies nor as an argument for devolution.
The Bill serves two separate and distinct purposes which I shall try to explain.
410
Clause 1 increases the statutory limit on the borrowings of the two Scottish Electricity Boards from£1,200 million to£1,950 million. The two Boards plan their power station programme jointly on an all-Scotland basis, and there is a joint statutory limit on the borrowing required by both Boards to finance the programme.
In accordance with establish practice, the Bill makes provision for an interim borrowing limit of£1,500 million, and this figure may be exceeded only when an order to extend the limit has been made. Any such order is subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure in another place. Depending upon the pace of investment by the Boards, the interim limit may either be increased directly to the final limit contained in the Bill or increased to a lesser amount, leaving the move to the final limit to be made by a later order. Borrowings against the existing limit of E1,200 million amounted to almost£1,100 million at the end of September; and it is now likely that the current limit will be reached well before the end of this year. It was originally expected that: the limit of£1,200 million would meet the requirements of the Boards until the end of the financial year 1977/8.
The need to increase the borrowing limit at an earlier stage has arisen because of inflation, because of price restraint policies which prevented the Boards from fully recovering their costs and because of the difficulty in determining in advance the level at which borrowing limits should be fixed. The Boards' borrowing requirements are determined mainly by the level of their capital expenditure and the extent to which this can be financed from internal resources. In turn, of course, the level of capital expenditure is determined by the Boards' forecasts of demand for electricity—and these forecasts have to be projected over a substantial period because modern power stations take at least seven years to plan and to build.
There are of course many fact ors which affect electricity demand, some of a purely Scottish or of a purely regional character, and others, such as the level of economic growth and price relativities, 'which are national in character. Noble Lords will appreciate that when the vagaries of the climate are added to the equation, the uncertainties involved in forecasting demand for electricity are bound to be great.

411
Earlier this year the Boards carried out a fundamental review of their forecasts, and this review led to a considerable reduction in the estimates that were previously forecast. The reduced estimates formed the basis of the Boards' capital investment programme which is described in their brochure Plans for the Future 1975–1982. During that period the Boards expect to finance nearly 40 per cent. of their capital requirement from internal resources, principally revenue surpluses, reserves and depreciation provision.
Following the Government's decision to phase out price restraint subsidies, both Boards made small profits in 1975/76, and they expect to be profitable again in the current year. But arrangements similar to those made under the provisions of the Price Code in April 1975 and April 1976, will apply next year, and the result will he to limit the surpluses available to the Boards. So, my Lords, you will appreciate that there will be little immediate scope for increasing the self-financing ratio by means of tariff increases; and the hulk of the proposed capital investment must be financed by borrowing.
The nuclear power station which the South of Scotland Electricity Board propose to construct at Torness is the principal item in the capital investment programme. This station, which could cost some£600 million at current price levels, is part of the Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor programme which the Government announced in 1974. The South Board, if I may so describe them, were given consent to the use of the Torness site in February 1975, and the station is now planned for commissioning in 1985. But no work on the construction of the station will be undertaken before the completion of the examination of the future of the Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor programme, an examination which we are carrying out as part of our overall review of energy policy. But whatever the outcome of that examination, there appears to be little doubt that additional generating capacity will be required in Scotland in the mid-1980s. We are therefore satisfied that the estimates produced by the Boards provide adequate justification for the increases in borrowing limits for which this Bill provides. May I emphasise that we are concerned here only with statutory limits.
412
Let me now turn to Clause 2. In 1967 primary aluminium production in this country met only 10 per cent. of our requirements and we had to import the rest at an annual cost of some£70 million. The Government of the day decided to examine the prospects for making import savings by promoting an expanded United Kingdom primary aluminium production capability.
The development of the new advanced gas cooled reactor nuclear power stations held out the prospect of providing cheap electricity supplies to aluminium producers. The 1968 White Paper announced that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board were engaged in negotiations with the British Aluminium Company on an agreement to supply power to the company's reduction plant at Invergordon for a period of approximately 30 years. A contract was negotiated, and under it the North Board undertook to supply the plant with electricity at a cost related to the expected cost of generation at the new Hunterston B Station, an advanced gas cooled reactor station, then under construction by the South Board.
The Government recognised that the risks involved for the North Board were very large in relation to that Board's turnover and resources. The Government therefore assured the Board that they would examine the position and its implications for the Board's other customers if substantial losses were to arise. In the event, large deficits have in fact been incurred in the Board's smelter account. There are three principal reasons for this, which I may summarise. First, all the AGR stations have run into difficulties in the construction stage and Hunterston B is no exception. Commissioning of the station has been delayed by more than three years, and as a result electricity has had to he supplied to the smelter from more expensive conventional sources. The losses on the contract resulting from this have had to be funded by borrowing at high interest rates.
The second problem which has arisen is that the assumptions made in 1968 about the level of output at Hunterston B are very likely to prove unduly optimistic. These assumptions were used as a basis for determining the contract charges, so provision must now be made for losses which may arise from this source during the remaining period of the contract. The third problem which has come

413
to light is the risk of corrosion of boiler components. This is a highly technical matter, but it is being dealt with by restricting the operating temperature of the reactor, and there is a consequent loss of output of the station. This is known as "derating" and for the time being the derating of this station has been set at 20 per cent. The need for continued derating is being carefully studied, but it is impossible at present to know what the long-term level of de-rating, if any, will be. The company cannot properly be expected to carry any part of the costs arising from the de-rating, which was unforeseen when the 1968 contract was entered into, so these costs will be treated as a charge to the North Board's smelter account.
My Lords, when it became clear that these problems would cause substantial deficits on the North Board's smelter account, the Government undertook the promised examination of the situation and concluded that the sums involved were indeed too large to be borne by the North Board without imposing an unacceptedly heavy burden on that Board's other consumers. The Board were therefore informed that the Government would seek the necessary statutory powers to provide for the deficits on the smelter account to be reimbursed. That under-taking is fulfilled by this clause in the Bill.
I should have liked to be able to give your Lordships an indication of the cost of making good the deficits, past and future, but because of the continuing uncertainties that I have described I cannot do so. The deficit at the end of the North Board's financial year 1975/76 was just over£39 million. Even if no new difficulties were to emerge to affect the performance of Hunterston B, the total deficit over the life of the contract would be unlikely to be less than£100 million. On the other hand, serious continuing problems over the operation of Hunterston B could, after allowing for inflation, cause the deficit to reach£200 million, or even more. My Lords, this is a very gloomy prospect, but I am happy to be able to say one encouraging thing, and that is that good progress is now being made with the task of bringing Hunterston B into operation.
The first reactor was commissioned in February 1976, and the South Board
414
expect that the second will be synchronised with the grid before the end of this year. In the few months since it started generating electricity, the first reactor: has already produced 75 per cent. of the output of both reactors for which the Board have budgeted in the current financial year. However, having said that, it would be imprudent to suggest that the station's problems have been overcome, a did because of the continuing uncertainty about the future performance of Hunterston B we have felt unable to insert a financial limit in the Bill. But may I emphasise that each payment that my right honourable friend proposes to make will be: Prescribed by an order which will be subject to Affirmative Resolution in another place,
My Lords, the electricity supply industry is passing through a difficult period, but in spite of these difficulties we are certain that the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board will continue, as. they have done in the past, to provide a highly efficient service—one which is of crucial importance to the economic and social well-being of the people of Scotland.
My Lords, I understand that it is one of the gentler customs of this House that when a new Member makes his first speech here it is spared too critical an assessment. That is a matter for your Lords sips, but for the Bill itself I ask no such indulgence. I commend it to your Lordships on its merits as a necessary measure of very considerable importance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
9.55 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it is one of the very pleasant tasks which occasionally fall to people in this House to answer debates on Bills. Very seldom, however, does one have the chance to answer a Bill at Second Reading when a Minister is making his maiden speech. When we have the combination of such a very pleasant personality and such a very useful Bill it is a doubly pleasurable task to be able to congratulate the mover of the Bill. It is a requirement of this House that one always says that one hopes to hear a maiden speaker again. In this case it is with sincere person so conviction that I say that. I know that in

415
any Scottish measures put forward by him he is supporting the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who is supreme in these matters on Scotland.
The Scottish team in this House for years has had on the Labour Benches the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who battled extremely well. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is still with us; we have Lord Kirkhill, and now we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The manner in which he moved the Bill was moving and appealing. I went to some trouble to check up with my honourable friends from Ross and Cromarty and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, about this measure and I found that they all basically agreed that it was a very sound measure. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who would have liked to be congratulating the noble Lord on this his maiden speech, as is known is unable to be here, and I am a very inadequate substitute. Nevertheless, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained this measure to us.
I was particularly happy to hear what he said—which was new—about the synchronisation with the grid coming on at Hunterston B. This is an investment in new generating capacity. We on this side often complain about Government money being thrown about. In this case there is no complaint at all; it is a wise investment. The quality of life in Scotland will be improved and, although the interest rates on£750 million plus£200 million will be more than nothing, at the end of the day there will be a reasonable return both on investment and in quality of life. It makes very good sense. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board needed this Bill to pass in order to honour its contract with the aluminium smelter in Invergordon. It is a sensible and very good thing. I believe we would have done the same had we been in power. I cannot say more than that, my Lords, can I?
My Lords, Clause 2 is slightly worrying as it is open-ended. But against the open-endedness of it we have the comfort that Parliament has to be consulted or the matter has to be put before Parliament and therefore we have the ability to limit too great an open-endedness. It is a late hour. We have been sitting late last week and will be late again this week.
416
This subject has been well discussed and we are in general agreement with this Bill. It is a very happy occasion—the maiden speech of the noble Lord, the Minister—and, having said that, I think I have said enough.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I feel I cannot let this convivial occasion pass without adding my welcome to the new Minister and my congratulations on his introduction of the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which is vital to Scotland, but I do not want to say anything about it at all. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I know little of it; but I know that it is a great pleasure to welcome a new Minister in this House. I was warned, I may say, by the Scottish Bar that a man of some ability and charm was coming to our House and that he should be welcomed and looked out for thereafter. Therefore I am very happy to add my congratulations to those which have already been given.
10 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should also like to add congratulations to the noble Lord, who succeeded in making what I thought was one of the dullest Bills I have read for a long time really quite interesting. The noble Lord has very wide and high experience in law, concerned particularly with the field of drafting—on which I believe Parliament could do a lot better than it is doing at the present time. If the noble Lord is able to add a little skill to that side of things he will certainly be performing a very important task for this House. I think it is an admirable scheme to bring into this House Scottish Law Officers if they are not Members of another place, and I hope the practice will he continued. I hope it will help him in his tasks as Solicitor-General. I am sure it will add strength to the Government Front Bench—and the more strength there is on the Government Front Bench, the more useful it is to this House. That is a burden which lies particularly on their shoulders.
This Bill in fact is a rather formidable one, and some of the figures quoted by the noble Lord I found rather disturbing But this is no time to go into the problems and I hope that some of the points which he raised will in fact resolve themselves. I should like to make one further remark.

417
This is of course a Money Bill and is therefore treated by us in a special way. Would it not be desirable in normal practice to have the words "Money Bill" somewhere on the draft of the Bill itself? It is true that it can be seen on the Order Paper which is before the House, but I would suggest that it is not unreasonable that a Money Bill should, in some way or other, be described as such. I suggest that, because there are occasions when Bills come forward and we are not always sure whether or not they are Money Bills. I think they should be clearly stated to be what they are. Finally, I will merely say that I hope the noble Lord will come to address us as often as he can. Of course, he will not address us unless he is told to and he will not address us if he is told not to. Nonetheless, I am quite certain that he will be very welcome when he comes.
10.2 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for his support for the Bill? That is the most important thing I have to say, because it is very welcome indeed for us to have such solid and unstinted support for the Bill from noble Lords opposite. On a personal level, may I also thank him again for his kindness and say that I hope it will continue to be extended to me when I speak from this Dispatch Box or indeed from the scat now occupied by him. But I do not expect that to happen within the period covered by this Bill, which takes us to 1982. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am not quite sure how to take his remark that he was told to look out for me, but I shall judge that in the light of subsequent events.
I should like, too, to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is a distinguished member of the same Faculty of Advocates of which I am a member. He has drawn attention to a point that I will certainly take up. I may say that in the original print of the Bill which came from the Commons certain parts were italicised, and that was perhaps a clue to the fact that it was a Money Bill. But it may well be that these Bills should be marked in a clearer way when coming before this House. I thank noble Lords opposite for what they have said, and I thank your Lordships in general for your kind reception.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD (GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT) ORDER 1976
10.4 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 11th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in force permanently certain provisions of the 1971 Civil Aviation Act which would otherwise expire at the end of March next year. Without the order, British Airways' public dividend capital would revert to interest-bearing loans and there would be no power to provide further public dividend capital.
Public dividend capital, or rather Exchequer dividend capital, as it was then called, was first given to BDAC 10 years ago. When the British Airways Board was set up under the 1971 Civil Aviation Act, this form of finance was still relatively novel. Provision was therefore made for the position to be reviewed after five years. A similar provision was made in 1969 for the British Steel Corporation's public dividend capital. Noble Lords may recall that, after a review in 1973, the legislation relating to the Steel Corporation's public dividend capital was made permanent in 1974.
International civil aviation has been through very hard times over the last two years, as a result of the oil crisis and the general world recession. British Airways have weathered the storm better than many other airlines, but for two years it has not been possible for them to pay a dividend. Before the oil crisis, however, BOAC, and later British Airways, had on average a remarkably good record of dividend payments, exceeding so 7 nearly 10 years the interest payments which would have been paid on equivalent loan finance. The first three months of the current financial year have seen the start of a recovery in British Airways' fortunes: there was a surplus of over£14 million compared with a loss of£2 million in the same period last year. This encouraging trend shows every sign of continuing, and there is reason to hope that within a couple

419
of years the airline will once again be paying good dividends.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place recently welcomed the increased role of public dividend capital in British Airways' capital structure. The Government also feel that this type of finance has an important part to play in the airline's capital structure, and that it is now appropriate to make the arrangement permanent. The order before your Lordships also perpetuates the duty of the Secretary of State to determine a target rate of return on net assets for the Board to aim at achieving. The Government have set a target of an average of 11 per cent. return over the four-year period up to 1978–79. This figure has been carefully selected so as to present a real challenge for the airline, but not so high that it would be impossible to achieve. Noble Lords will, I am sure, agree that in British
420
Airways we have an airline of which the nation can be proud. I am therefore pleased to commend to the House this order as an expression of confidence in its future. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved. That the draft British Airways Board (Government Investment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 11th October, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his very brief explanation of this order, which is very vital for British Airways. We said that we would not sit late, and the order was made easy for us to under-stand. So I will merely say that British Airways need this money, and we need an efficient airline. I thank the noble Lord again for what he has told us tonight.
House adjourned at nine minutes past ten o'clock.