Sitting of 18 March 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LUTON CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)
  WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    District Heating
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power if he will consult with the Minister of Housing and Loal Government on the use of refuse disposal incinerators to heat whole towns or large districts within towns; and if he will ensure that nationalised fuel industries co-operate where appropriate to establish more extensive use of whole town or district heating systems.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Total energy and district heating schemes, incorporating refuse incineration, are certainly developments which we wish to encourage, wherever technically and economically viable. We are considering the possibilities of greater co-operation between fuel industries, developers and local authorities, and are in touch with other Departments on the subject.
    Mr. Roberts: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Nottingham scheme is likely to still be operative in 1970? What active steps are being taken to encourage other local authorities to use district heating schemes based on refuse disposal? Would he agree that any scheme which led to a reduction of the £70 million a year which we spend on refuse disposal would be helpful?
    Mr. Freeson: The second part of my hon. Friend's Question is for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Certainly we as a Department wish to encourage this kind of development and are in touch with that Ministry on the issue. I understand that in Nottingham negotiations are now proceeding in which the N.C.B. and, no doubt, other interested persons and bodies are involving themselves with a view to embarking on a district heating scheme incorporating refuse incineration.

    Nationalised Industries (Connection Charges)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to stop the usage of connecting charges as an instrument of competitive marketing by the nationalised fuel industries.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is discussing with the Electricity and Gas Councils the systems of connection charges used by the two industries.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the time for discussion of this matter is now well-nigh over and that the essence of public ownership is replacement of undesirable competition by healthy co-operation? Would he not take some urgent steps to avoid the undesirable use of connecting charges by some boards as a weapon in this field?
    Mr. Freeson: I hope that the review of this matter is well-nigh over and that soon we shall be able to get a conclusion satisfactory to all persons and industries concerned.
    Sir J. Eden: Why has this matter taken so long? Did not the Government make clear that they were reviewing it at the time when the 1965 White Paper on policy was published? Could not the hon. Gentleman give a general direction to the boards concerned, or, better still, leave this matter to their commercial judgment?
    Mr. Freeson: This is a rather complex subject which did not arise in 1965 but was developing over a number of years before then. We are making a serious study of the problem, and we think we shall find an answer soon which will obviate a general need for such a direction and at the same time meet the needs of the industries from an economic and commercial point of view.

    Ports (Oil Imports)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the oil industry objecting to the Government's proposals for nationalising the ports; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Freeson: Quite a number, and the Ministry of Transport will shortly reply to them in detail.
    Mr. Ridley: As one of the principal customers of the ports has objected to the scheme for nationalisation because it will make charges much more expensive, will the Minister have a word with the Minister of Transport and suggest that he drop this ridiculous scheme?
    Mr. Freeson: This is a matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be replying to. Questions on this matter should be directed to him.
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power what is the estimated percentage of the volume of imported oil products which will pass through ports due for nationalisation under the Bill proposing a National Ports Authority; and whether he will consult with the Minister of Transport to ensure that adequate provision is made for such imports.
    Mr. Freeson: Over 95 per cent. of United Kingdom crude oil and product imports pass through ports which are due to be reorganised under the National Ports Authority. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is well aware of the importance of such imports.
    Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the industry is seriously considering using ports which are not in this area, and will he give an undertaking that the Minister of Transport will not extend the scheme if the oil industries decide that it is better to use a private enterprise port rather than a nationalised one?
    Mr. Freeson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not using an occasion such as this to introduce threats against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I suggest that he direct his attention and his Questions to that Minister

    Meter Reading
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Power what progress has been made with the feasibility studies of the possible use of one meter reader for both gas and electricity.
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Minister of Power what progress he has made in his discussions regarding the use of one meter reader where appropriate for both gas and electricity; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Minister of Power whether he intends to implement the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report to amalgamate the meter reading staffs of the gas councils and electricity boards.
    Mr. Freeson: The feasibility studies have been completed. The results will shortly be considered by the Electricity and Gas Councils, to decide whether to extend the studies to field trials, as has been suggested by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its Report No. 102.
    Mr. Dance: Why is there such a long delay? The scheme has been proved to work well in France. It is obvious that one man reading both beters and, with the aid of computers, one bill must be cheaper. The hon. Gentleman must

    179
    realise that it would halve the risk of bogus meter readers.
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman reads too much into this possibility. I assure him that it is a subject to which I have paid special attention since I have been at the Ministry. I am not persuaded that there is likely to be any major savings as a result of any such exercise in joint management. The N.B.P.I. estimated the figure at about £1½ million without taking into account counterbalancing costs.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there would be not only economic advantage but advantage from a convenience point of view? Householders should not have to stay in to have their meters read when the numbers of calls could be reduced by half.
    Mr. Freeson: I assure my hon. Friend that, although I want to abate the enthusiasm of one or two hon. Members opposite on this subject, I am concerned that the matter should be properly studied and field trials will be considered by the two Councils. The matter is being pursued seriously and benefit could accrue from such an exercise.
    Mr. Baker: Why has it taken so long for the Ministry to recognise a fact which is self-evident to every householder, namely, that one man could read both meters? The saving of £1½ million estimated by the N.B.P.I. is a substantial one. Should not this saving be made immediately?
    Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the Report of the National Board, he will find that what the Board has to say on this matter arises largely as a result of the work that the Ministry has been doing on the matter.

    Coal-Fired Generating Stations
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Minister of Power (1) in view of the difficulties being experienced in the nuclear power programme, if he will consider the further immediate use of low cost coal for power generation until these difficulties have been overcome;
    (2) when he will announce his conclusions about the commencement of a
    180
    second coal-fired generating station at West Burton.
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Power (1) what representations he has received about the proposed second coal-fired generating station at West Burton; and what reply he has given to them;
    (2) when he expects to announce his decision on the construction by the Central Electricity Generating Board of a further coal-fired power station.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Power if he will give further consideration to the use of low-cost coal for power generation, having regard to the difficulties which have arisen in the nuclear power programme.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): Experience to date with the nuclear power programme gives no grounds for changing existing policies. The Central Electricity Generating Board has no immediate plans for a further coal-fired station but the possibility will be kept under review in the light of the policy described in paragraph 98 of the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438). In fact, I saw a delegation from the Nottinghamshire County Council on 18th December and I am sending it my comments on the memorandum it submitted to me about a second power station at West Burton.
    Mr. Ashton: I thank my right hon. Friend for sending the memorandum to the county council. Is he aware that it is three years since the last coal-fired power station was ordered by the C.E.G.B.? Is he further aware that the N.C.B. is putting in what I believe to be a record low bid for the second power station at Drax? Due to nuclear difficulties at South Dakota in America, they are now going back to fossil fuels. Further, will he take—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question must be brief, even from a new Member.
    Mr. Mason: I am aware—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Ashton: It is due to banding five Questions together that I have to ask this super-supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend further aware—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mason.
    Mr. Mason: I have forgotten all the questions now. I am aware of how long it has been since a coal-fired station was ordered. There are 20,000 megawatts of coal-fired stations either being commissioned or under construction at present, and by 1975 at least 74 per cent. of all power generation will still be from coal.
    On the second major point, about the Chairman of the National Coal Board having made a record low offer, no offer has been made to the C.E.G.B. and no offer has been made to the Ministry of Power. Public contracting in this way can cause annoyance, can be misleading, and does not satisfy anyone.
    Mr. Marquand: With reference to my right hon. Friend's point about the deputation from Nottinghamshire, what, if any, factual miscalculations were there in the very solid and reasonably based representations which the Nottinghamshire County Council put before him?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot go into all the details about pence per kW-hour or per unit, the life of generating sets, and so on. No doubt, my hon. Friend will have noted that the C.E.G.B. has now changed the ground rules for nuclear stations, and they will now have a life of 25 years compared with 20 years hitherto, so that nuclear power becomes more competitive still.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to setting up a prototype plant for the fluidised-bed system of coal combustion, as this seems likely to revolutionise the use of coal as a low-cost fuel?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate later Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend has jumped out of bed too soon. There are at least five other Questions on that topic.
    Sir J. Eden: Since the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the C.E.G.B. has changed the ground rules, would it not have been more proper if in answering the debate on Friday he had drawn the attention of the House to that matter?
    Mr. Mason: I did answer Questions during the week. It would not have been possible on that occasion, when the hon. Gentleman himself left me very little time to reply to a whole day's debate.

    Nationalised Industries (Green Paper)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power whether he will arrange for the issue each year of a Green Paper containing commercial and financial forecasts, investment plans, and other relevant information about the nationalised fuel industries.
    Mr. Mason: I shall keep in mind this proposal, which has been made in slightly different form by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, but I would remind the hon. Member that a great deal of information is already published by the Government and the industries.
    Mr. Lane: I appreciate that, but will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that discussion on fuel matters in the House and elsewhere would be better informed and more up to date if he could produce annually some sort of comprehensive and forward-looking document covering the whole field?
    Mr. Mason: I wonder how much information the hon. Gentleman and the House really want. While we have been in office, we seem to have flooded the House with information. Since the Select Committees were established, particularly the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which examined the possibility of a Minister of nationalised industries, there have been 47 papers submitted to that Committee, and 11 from my Ministry alone.

    Energy Advisory Council
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Power when his Energy Advisory Council last met; when it will next meet; what decisions or recommendations it has made in the past 12 months; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: In June, 1967. It will next meet on 1st April.
    Sir G. Sinclair: But will not the Minister accept that this neglect of the Advisory Council shows that he is not treating it seriously but has made it into

    183
    nothing more than a Labour Government gimmick?
    Mr. Mason: On the contrary. I am treating it seriously. That is why I do not call upon it when there is no special material for it to discuss. When it comes before me on 1st April, it will be looking at the implications of the economic assessment up to 1972 as it affects the energy sector.

    Energy Demand Assumptions
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Power to what extent the estimates in the Fuel Policy White Paper of November, 1967, formed the basis of the energy assumptions embodied in the general economic forecasts published in the Green Paper at the end of February.
    Mr. Mason: Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Chapter 8 of the Green Paper describe the assumptions about energy demand used in it.
    Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the divergence of the Green and White Papers, does the Minister not see some usefulness in bringing up to date Table D and publishing it annually?
    Mr. Mason: Not having in mind precisely what Table D is, all I can say is that there is very little divergence between the Green Paper and the estimates of demand in the Fuel Policy White Paper. They are running fairly well in line.
    Sir G. Sinclair: But that is not true for coal.
    Mr. Emery: As there is a difference—and the Minister will realise that there is—may we be told which we are now to take as authoritative, the Green or the White Paper?
    Mr. Mason: The estimates in the Fuel Policy White Paper and the slight variations in the Green Paper show that nuclear power and North Sea gas are coming on stream a little slower than we expected, coal has recently made a slight revival, and oil is coming in a little faster than we had in mind.

    Nationalised Industries (Forward Plans)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Minister of Power which years will be covered in his 1969 review of the
    184
    nationalised fuel industries' forward plans.
    Mr. Mason: The five years 1969–70 to 1973–74.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: How will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the revisions which will become necessary as we improve our knowledge of the avail-ability of North Sea gas?
    Mr. Mason: Because I review it every year. I expect to give final approval each year, over a five-year programme, tentative approval for the second year, and then generally for the three years following. It is kept under annual review by myself and my Department.

    Nationalised Industries (Investment)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Minister of Power whether in future he will offer opportunities for Members of Parliament to participate at some stage in the annual review of investment for the nationalised fuel industries.
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be helpful to the Minister to have an informed body of Members of Parliament behind him in his dealings with heads of the nationalised industries?
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir. The formulation of policy is my responsibility, and I am answerable to the House. I believe in participation, but that would be ridiculous: 630 Ministers, or—as I imagine the nationalised industries would say—630 more interferers.
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power on what assumptions about pricing policy he bases his present system of appraising the investment plans of the nationalised fuel industries.
    Mr. Mason: Each industry has a pricing policy which takes account of its particular circumstances. It is in the light of that policy, and the views on pricing expressed in Cmnd. 3437, that I appraise the industry's investment plans.
    Mr. Alison: What will the Minister's policy be towards the recommendation published by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that his industry should adopt long-run marginal cost pricing for new investments?
    Mr. Mason: We have not determined policy on that yet. The marginal cost pricing policy is certainly under consideration, but with the background of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, in mind.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the implications of the recent decision to extend the effective life of the A.G.R. stations? Does not that significantly affect the investment priorities for power stations generally?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. There will have to be fresh consideration, as they have now been given 25 years' life instead of 20.
    Sir J. Eden: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study Lord Robens's recent offer of coal in 1975 at 3½d. a term? Will he confirm that this would be on the basis of marginal costing?
    Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I say. I said in answer to an earlier Question that no specific offer has been made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board. Therefore, the public comment about a record low offer is about an offer that does not yet exist as far as we are concerned.

    Solar Power
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Power what research he is supporting into the utilisation of solar power for industry.
    Mr. Freeson: None, Sir. Some research in this field is being supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that some interesting results have been obtained at Wallasey and in the Pyrenees in space-heating and specialised smelting? In view of the rapid technological developments coming from the space programme in energy conversion devices, is not this a field in which we could at least play a larger part than at present?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to the matter. I am aware of the school in Wallasey which has been using solar heat, for 16 or 16 years now, I believe, and I understand that it has done so effectively. However, I am not so cer-
    186
    tain that the economics of such developments would be sound in this climate.

    Steel
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what is the current level of steel production in 1968–69; how much steel continues to be imported in 1968–69; what imports reduction is planned; and whether he will make a statement on steel imports substitution.
    Mr. Mason: The current rate of crude steel production is about 27½ million tons a year. Steel imports have been rising for some years and totalled 2·1 million tons in 1968, including material for hire-rolling and subsequent re-export. This upward trend is expected to be checked in 1969.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon his position of neutrality over the proposed increase in the price of steel by 9 per cent. to 10 per cent., the effect of which would be to militate against the use of home-produced steel and in favour of imported steel?
    Mr. Mason: There is no question of neutrality. The matter is not before me but before the N.B.P.I.
    Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the motor car industry, for example, imports a large quantity of steel from Holland and other European countries which cannot be produced here at home? Will he make inquiries into why we cannot produce all the kinds of steel British industry requires?
    Mr. Mason: When there is a great upsurge in demand, as in recent times, it is not possible for our steel industry to satisfy all domestic demand.
    Mr. Tinnasked the Minister of Power how many steelworkers on Teesside are working part time because of a shortage of steel.
    Mr. Mason: I understand that the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation has now written to my hon. Friend about this.
    Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very substantial number of workers affected in my constituency feel bitterly about working short time

    187
    when the country is having to import steel? They put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the bad planning of the private industry, which they look to the British Steel Corporation speedily to rectify.
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry that one or two plants should be suffering like this, but it depends upon their products, which may not be the type we are importing. But my hon. Friend is right in blaming the inheritance of the badly planned private steel industry. This will, in the short term, cause difficulty in a number of plants, but I hope that it will be quickly resolved.
    Mr. Emery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a Question is down for Answer we like to know what the Answer is, and that the fact that the Answer is in a private letter to an hon. Member is quite irrelevant at Question Time? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us how many steel workers on Tees-side are working part time because of the shortage?
    Mr. Mason: The simple answer is that I do not know.

    Nationalised Industries (Performance)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Power what are his present methods of comparing performance with forecast year by year for each of the nationalised fuel industries; and what changes he proposes to make in those methods.
    Mr. Mason: I make such inquiries as seem to be necessary into the reasons for differences between forecasts and performance, in full consultation with the industry's management.
    Mr. Shaw: Would not it be helpful if such inquiries as the Minister made, and their results, were published, particularly with regard to forecasts and results, returns on capital, the levels of productivity and profitability generally?
    Mr. Mason: I notice that that was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and we did not particularly answer it. As I indicated earlier in Question Time, we give a large amount of information to the House, through White Papers, the annual reports of the
    188
    nationalised industries and the material we provide for Select Committees. It is not really necessary to go further.

    Nationalised Industries (Overseas Loan)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Minister of Power whether, in view of Her Majesty's Government's new policy on financing of nationalised industries, he plans to raise a loan in an overseas market for the nationalised industries for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Mason: Under the statutes it is the nationalised industries concerned which raise loans of this kind. The hon. Member will be aware that the Gas Council is exercising its powers under Section 4 of the Gas and Electricity Act, 1968, by borrowing 300 million deutsche-marks, which is about £30 million, on the German market.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that many people in this country will be resentful that the German investing public now have a chance to invest in North Sea gas? If he devised a form of equity participation, sufficient money would be forthcoming in this country for all his capital requirements. Before he embarks on the rôle of international financier, may I ask him to appreciate that if the Deutschemark is revalued the guarantee that the Treasury has given today could be the most expensive the British taxpayer has ever had to bear.
    Mr. Mason: It is through the co-operation of the Treasury that this has been made possible. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a narrow-minded attitude about it. The balance of payments will benefit by it, and the Gas Council is pleased to adopt this method.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not it an extraordinary development that we are borrowing such a large sum of money for a nationalised industry? How soon will it be before we go to Germany and ask for money to finance the Army and Navy?
    Mr. Mason: I am not interested in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The Gas Council thinks that this is a good thing. I applaud it, and there is no reason why we should not take advantage of it.

    Power Stations (Natural Gas Purchases)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power what directive he has given to the Central Electricity Generating Board about the purchase of natural gas, on normal commercial terms, from the gas industry for burning in power stations.
    Mr. Mason: None, Sir. Proposals for fuelling power stations with natural gas will be considered on their merits in the light of the policy described in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd.3438).
    Mr. Palmer: It has been widely stated that some guidance has been given to the electricity supply industry in this matter. Is that the case?
    Mr. Mason: In the investigations into the possibility of North Sea gas powering power stations there has been an experiment at Hams Hill which proved successful. The C.E.G.B. would have liked to convert the whole station but I have not given permission because of the difficulties of the coal industry at the moment.
    Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman, however, state what his view generally is about using a primary fuel for generation of secondary fuel?
    Mr. Mason: It is entirely unnecessary at this moment.

  GAS

    Natural Gas
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the growing number of complaints from members of the public that their gas bills have increased since conversion to natural gas; what action he proposes taking to curb this inflationary trend; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: Most of these complaints arise from misunderstanding accounts, but in a few cases, being rectified by the boards, faulty adjustment during conversion has led to excessive use of gas.
    Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the disturbingly large number of faulty conversions are responsible for these increases? Is he aware that the public thought originally that
    190
    natural gas would lead to smaller bills, whereas now the first bills are coming in and they are increased?
    Mr. Freeson: I should not generalise from the experience which has given rise to this Question. In most instances where natural gas has come on stream there have been reductions in price. We have discussed this before. There are bound to be difficulties initially, but wherever they have been experienced they have been overcome.
    Mr. Marks: While gas boards are correct in saying that natural gas is more efficient and cheaper than town gas, is my hon. Friend aware that faulty conversions, which are the cause of most of these complaints, are probably due to the fact that the men who carry out the conversions are inadequately trained and that the hours of work are far too long for efficient service? Will he ask the gas boards to consider their method of contracting out this work and doing it themselves?
    Mr. Freeson: I assure my hon. Friend that we have been in touch with the gas boards concerned and with the Gas Council. I have visited a number of areas where conversion has been initiated. That there have been difficulties no one will deny, but they should not be exaggerated. In the vast majority of cases there has been no difficulty at all, but there is a sizeable minority of cases where difficulties have arisen. The boards themselves are aware of the problem and are reorganising where necessary.
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power on how many occasions North Sea gas has found its way into pipelines still distributing town gas; how many accidents to persons and to equipment have resulted from these occurrences; and what steps he is taking to ensure greater safety to the consumer.
    Mr. Freeson: Thirty-nine occasions. No accidents resulted.
    Mr. Emery: Will the Minister try to ensure that this is more widely known? At present it is frequently suggested in the Press and generally that when there is an accident or explosion involving plant it is because of the change to North Sea gas. It is most important for

    191
    the consumer to realise that there has been no damage or fatality.
    Mr. Freeson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been some confusion on the matter in the public mind and in the Press. It has arisen because of some instances during conversion programmes when a certain amount of natural gas has escaped into the existing complex. There has been no damage in any of those instances, and the situation has been corrected very quickly. There have been no accidents as a result of those instances.

    Prices
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Power whether he intends to accept the proposal contained in the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report No. 102 on Gas Prices that the gas industry should be relieved of the legal restraint regarding undue preference in its pricing policy.
    Mr. Mason: I am considering the proposal.
    Mr. Moyle: When is my right hon. Friend likely to reach a decision? Further, does he agree that the concept is so vague as to give little protection to the public while providing a psychological and marginal handicap to the gas industry in its competitive position?
    Mr. Mason: I am aware of the restraints which it places upon the Gas Council, from which the Council has already sought relief, as well as of the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board. It depends on the progress made in the preparation of the gas reorganisation Bill, which might prove a suitable opportunity.

    North Sea Gas (Coal Equivalent)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what coal equivalent is represented by estimated North Sea gas of £15 million landed in 1968–69, £36 million in 1969–70 and £62 million in 1970–71; what part of total contracts for North Sea gas these landings represent; what further contracts ad valorem a year for North Sea gas are still to be made; and whether he will make a statement on progress to date.
    Mr. Freeson: About 4, 10 and 18 million tons of coal equivalent respectively. Supplies under present 25-year contracts are expected to rise to about 40 million tons of coal equivalent a year by 1975. Contracts for further supplies, equivalent to 3 to 4 million tons a year, have still to be signed.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Do those figures represent an accelerated run-down of the coal mines, or is the position as it was when the abortive White Paper was published and subsequently withdrawn?
    Mr. Freeson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop talking nonsense about the White Paper. As we have stated time and again in the House and elsewhere, it never has been withdrawn. In reply to his question about the effect on the coal industry, there is no reason for us to change our judgment in the White Paper that the impact of natural gas supplies will be chiefly in the area of the oil industry and not coal.

  ELECTRICITY

    Interest Rate (Customers' Deposits)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Power if he will seek power to vary the 4 per cent. interest rate laid down in Section 71 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir, I do not think this is necessary.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the Minister aware that, before a new customer is accepted and given supplies, where he may require large quantities of electricity a substantial deposit has to be made? Therefore, is the Minister satisfied that rates of interest prevailing in 1899 are realistic today?
    Mr. Mason: I am not aware that it is causing any difficulties. The boards are entitled to pay more if they wish to do so, and some boards do.

    Demand
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what average annual rate of growth of electricity demand occurred over the last five years; and upon what

    193
    annual rate of growth he is planning for the next five years.
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power what is the estimated annual percentage growth of the maximum demand on the Central Electricity Generating Board system, adjusted to average cold-spell weather conditions, over the next five years.
    Mr. Freeson: The Electricity Council's recently adopted forecast for the six years up to 1974–75 implies an average annual rate of growth of simultaneous maximum demand of 5·8 per cent. This compares with an average annual increase, adjusted to average cold spell weather conditions, over the period 1962–63 and 1968–69 of 4 per cent.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary pay tribute to the Opposition for having persuaded him to reduce the over-expensive plans of the electricity supply industry? How much capacity is it planned to provide in 1974–75 to meet the demand of 53,000 megawatts which is now the target?
    Mr. Freeson: I cannot give full details on the last point. The forecast of maximum demand for 1974–75 is 53,000 megawatts. If the hon. Gentleman wants specific details about investment programming, no doubt he will communicate with us or table further Questions. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to pursue too closely the question of over-investment. What we have been experiencing in recent years is the result of decisions taken long before the Labour Government came to power.
    Mr. Alison: What will be the new margin of spare generating capacity in the light of the downward revision? Will it be lower than the present 21 per cent. margin?
    Mr. Freeson: The target remains at 17 per cent.
    Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rate of growth last year in terms of units of electricity consumed was 8·6 per cent.? Therefore, would it not be very dangerous, looking to the future, to cut back too much on electricity plant investment?
    Mr. Freeson: I certainly accept that. We do not think that this is what is
    194
    likely to take place. The figure I gave of 5 8 per cent. was an average spread over a period.

    Wales
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Minister of Power what progress he has made in his plans for the reorganisation of the electricity industry in Wales.
    Mr. Mason: I shall inform the House of my conclusions on the organisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales as soon as I have completed my review.
    Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread expectation in Wales that when the electricity industry is reorganised Wales will be treated as an entity for the purposes of both generation and distribution, with a national Board and a headquarters in Wales? Does he realise that in Welsh affairs Welsh opinion should be paramount?
    Mr. Mason: I am aware of the demands, though I am not satisfied that they make sense. If it came about, this arrangement for a Welsh power board would be to the disadvantage of Wales and would not provide efficiency in generation and distribution of electricity for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Ridley: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to inform the House of the results of the review in both England and Wales?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot give a date, but I hope quite soon.

    Generating Capacity
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power what is the margin between the maximum recorded demand on the electricity grid system for the present winter so far and the total of generating plant and interrelated transmission capacity available and ready to supply that demand at the time it occurred.
    Mr. Freeson: The daily availability of generating plant varies and is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The maximum demand for the winter so far has been 37,735 MW.
    Mr. Palmer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the C.E.G.B. gave these much more realistic figures on the different amounts of capacity available it would be very much in its interest?
    Mr. Freeson: I have stated the gross margin available this winter previously to the House. The latest estimate is that it stands at 19 per cent.
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Power what will be the total cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of installing 65,200 megawatts of electricity capacity by 1973–74.
    Mr. McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Power how much capital it will cost to increase electricity capacity to 54,000 megawatts by 1973–74.
    Mr. Freeson: Last year's investment programme of the electricity boards in England and Wales related to a forecast load of 54,000 MW in 1973–74 and was estimated to cost about £2,400 million in the period 1969–70 to 1973–74 of which about £1,500 million was for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The investment programme will be reviewed in the light of the Electricity Council's recent load forecast.
    Mr. Shaw: In view of the recent forecast, and the reduction in the levels forecast in it, would the right hon. Gentleman say how much the estimated excess capacity over the 17 per cent. margin is likely to cost?
    Mr. Freeson: Not without notice. I repeat that the responsibility for any over-estimating must lie with the Government that preceded us.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that on the figures he has given this afternoon he has reduced electricity capacity by 18,000 megawatts by 1974–75, which represents a saving of £400 million to the public purse, for which he should be grateful to the Opposition?
    Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman chooses to repeat himself on this matter, I must repeat that he was a supporter of a Government which prepared the over-investment that he is so busy criticising these days.

  COAL

    Fluidised Bed Combustion
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Power what assistance his Department is giving to the National Coal Board in the development and application of the fluidised bed system of coal combustion.
    Mr. Mason: My Advisory Council on Research and Development drew attention some years ago to the fluidised bed system of coal combusion as being worth investigation. My Department, through the Council, has since then encouraged and continues to encourage the National Coal Board in its efforts to determine the potential of this new technique of coal combustion.
    Mr. Speed: Does the Minister consider that this is a technological break-through by the National Coal Board? If so, will not it increase coal's share of the total energy market in the 1970s?
    Mr. Mason: It is much too early to say that it is a technological break-through, although at this stage it is encouraging. If it succeeds, it will certainly help the sale of coal.
    Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend has confirmed to the House that the nuclear industry has amended its financial policy to make it more competitive. Does he agree that here we are discussing a technological development in the utilisation of coal which will make the coal industry and the National Coal Board competitive without any financial manipulation?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend must remember that the Central Electricity Generating Board always errs on the side of caution and safety. We have developed a nuclear industry that is perhaps the safest in the world, we have more experience than anyone else in the world in the peaceful generation of nuclear energy, and we have been selling stations abroad. One of the ground rules was that the stations had a 20-year life. Now they have a 25-year life, which is a sensible and logical step. It is not for my hon. Friend to start charging the industry with what he probably thinks is a trick because at the same time fluidised bed combustion techniques may

    197
    be feasible. A technological break-through does not exist, but the development is encouraging, and I hope that it succeeds.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Power what assessment he has made of the fluidised bed system of coal combustion for electricity generation recently proposed by the British Coal Utilisation Research Association and the National Coal Board, particularly with regard to cost per unit and capital costs; and what changes he envisages in fuel policy as a result.
    Mr. Mason: The work on the fluidised bed combustion of coal is aimed at providing the engineering data required for detailed design and cost studies of novel boiler plant. It will not be possible to make any worthwhile assessment of the impact of this new technique upon the cost of electricity generation based upon coal or to determine what influence it might have upon the pattern of power generation in this country until these studies have been completed. I look forward to the results of these studies with great interest.
    Mr. Cronin: As this revolutionary system of consuming coal may well help enormously the profits of the coal industry, is it not desirable to set up a prototype plant for using this form of combustion as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mason: There are two aspects. The first, and smaller, is the development of an industrial boiler with this new technique. I understand that the prototype will be at one of the research establishments quite soon this year. The second aspect is to try to find a technique for power generation. We shall not be able to evaluate the data until later this year, and that will determine how much money should be spent on further research to develop it.

    Derivatives
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the development of coal derivates.
    Mr. Freeson: There is continuing research and development work by the National Coal Board to get maximum benefit from coal derivatives, and associated work is done by the British Coal
    198
    Utilization Research, Coke Research and Coal Tar Research Associations. An account of the lines of research and progress made is given in the latest annual reports of the Board and the associations.
    Mr. Eadie: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to set up a committee to reinvestigate the technology of this, since it was in the 1950s that this matter was last thoroughly investigated?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not think there is need. The work which is being done is in capable hands and there is no need for a Ministry committee to be set up.

  MINISTER OF HEALTH
  Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister of Health from among the Members of the House of Commons.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): There is no need, Sir. The functions of the Minister of Health were transferred on 1st November, 1968, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is a Member of this House.
  Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that, for the first time in living memory, there is no senior Minister with exclusive responsibility for health matters sitting in the House of Commons? Is not this indicative of the priority which the Government are giving to the modernisation of the National Health Service?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is a still more senior Minister in the Cabinet responsible for these matters, and he is a Member of this House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman raised this point about senior Ministers in the Commons and in another place, since under the Government which he supported there sat in another place one Foreign Secretary, four Commonwealth Secretaries, one Minister of Defence, one Minister of Power, one Minister of Education, one Secretary of State for Air and four First Lords of the Admiralty.
  Lord Balniel: As the National Health Service is perhaps one of the major public spending Departments of State and as many matters of importance to constituents, medical staff and patients have to be raised here, is it not right that the

  199
  Minister specifically responsible for health should be answerable to the House of Commons?
  The Prime Minister: I am surprised that this sort of question should be raised by hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services, who is responsible for all these matters, is also a member of the Cabinet. Not all Ministers of Health have been in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend is responsible to the House of Commons and he is taking a close personal interest in the question of the modernisation of the National Health Service.

  DISABILITIES AND HANDICAPS (APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY)
  Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Prime Minister if he will seek powers to establish a joint unpaid committee of medical doctors, technologists, industrialists and recognised representatives of the disabled or handicapped to consider the best and quickest application of technology for each disability or handicap, to give a measure of relief and independence to such people; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of applying technology for the benefit of the disabled and handicapped. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services already has advice from a wide range of expert organisations in this field.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of technologists feel that much more could be done for disabled people and are willing to give their services as their contribution to the social services? Would it not be wise to accept them and let them work in an equal capacity for the disabled with medical people, other specialist technologists and the disabled themselves?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the objective but I am not sure that a committee is the right way to deal with this. There are so many different problems to investigate. For example, at Stoke Mandeville a tremendous amount has been done, partly on a remunerated basis and partly voluntary, using modern technology. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the Biochemical Research and
  200
  Development Unit at Roehampton and the Scientific and Technical Branch of the Department of Health and Social Security. A great deal is going on in this field and it is better co-ordinated by the Department itself, particularly as it receives all sorts of representations on all these problems from disabled persons' organisations.
  Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in addition to the points made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the British Medical Association in a recent report drew attention to the standard of aids provided for the disabled at the moment and the lack of technological progress as well as to its administration and the shortage of detailed statistical information? What is being done about these three points made by the B.M.A.?
  The Prime Minister: That supplementary question would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is a Member of this House. I should like to look into the question of statistical information which the right hon. Gentleman has raised to see whether more information—of which there is a great deal—can-not be made available. One of the subjects covered in the report was artificial and powered limbs. There are two advisory committees here which are giving valuable guidance on the application of technology to the problems of limbless persons. At Aldermaston, I believe it is, a great deal of technological work is also going on for helping thalidomide babies.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (SPEECH)
  Mr. Henigasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Homchurch on Great Britain's relations with France on 22nd February represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Henig: Now that the recriminations of the "Soames affair" have died down, has my right hon. Friend some plan for improving relationships between Britain and France? Is he aware that

  201
  this is essential if he is to succeed in his bid to get this country into the European Community?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter which was very fully debated rather less than a month ago. My right hon. Friend and I have answered Questions since. I think that I have answered Questions put by my hon. Friend. We are, of course, most desirous to improve relations with France by talks at all levels.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: How long does the Prime Minister think it will be before General de Gaulle is willing to speak to him again?
  The Prime Minister: I have no information to suggest that he has at any time been more willing than at other times to speak to me. I had some very rewarding discussions with him at Versailles not very long ago, and on the question raised by my hon. Friend, entry to the Common Market, I did not find his views very encouraging.
  Mr. Heath: It has been reported, on this particular question of relations with France, that President de Gaulle told Dr. Kiesinger at their recent meeting that he no longer had any intention of attending W.E.U. or sending representatives of his country there. Can the Prime Minister say whether Dr. Kiesinger has communicated this to him?
  The Prime Minister: I have had no official confirmation of this story—I think that it was a newspaper report which the right hon. Gentleman was quoting. In what I have heard about these talks no such information has reached me. Were there to be confirmation of it, I would take an opportunity of letting the right hon. Gentleman know.

  SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for visiting Scotland officially in the next six months.
  The Prime Minister: I intend to undertake visits to Scotland this year, Sir, bur no firm plans have yet been made.
  Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend make sure that he gives full pub-
  202
  licity to all of the quite outstanding achievements of the Government in Scotland since they came to office? [Interruption.] Secondly, before he goes will he read a document recently produced by the Scottish Council on the increased and increasing centralisation of industrial decision-making of all kinds in London, and the remedies proposed to solve that particular problem?
  The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to read that. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will be aware that I did something of this on my last visit to Scotland in December. I should be very happy, particularly since hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to see these achievements publicised, to answer any supplementary questions with regard to the record of this Government over the last four and a half years, compared with the previous four and a half years, whether in advance factories, industrial development certificates, aid in bringing work to Scotland, slum clearance, house building, school building, further education or unemployment.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: When the Prime Minister does visit Scotland, will he investigate a serious matter, namely why there has been a net loss of 35,000 jobs in Scotland in the last four years, whereas there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs during the four years 1960–64, according to the Government's own White Paper?
  The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to go into the migration figures with my right hon. Friend—
  Hon. Members: Jobs.
  The Prime Minister: As to unemployment, which is the best measure of the—
  Hon. Members: Jobs.
  The Prime Minister: People who lose their jobs usually become unemployed. As to the unemployment figure, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the latest figure, for February, seasonally adjusted, is lower than that recorded for the whole period from June, 1962, to August, 1964, covering the greater part of the 11th to the 13th years in office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. James Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend be sure to visit Lanarkshire, where he will discover that there is a very serious shortage of skilled craftsmen? Is he aware that this is a complete contradiction to the state of affairs in 1963, when in Lanarkshire we had 19,500 unemployed?
  The Prime Minister: When I visited Scotland last year I had the privilege, when I went to Lanarkshire, of seeing one of the most encouraging things that I have seen anywhere in Britain, and that was the training centre for training additional craftsmen to meet the growing demand in the Lanarkshire area.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister answer the specific question as to why there have been 35,000 fewer jobs in the four years of his Administration, compared with 30,000 more jobs in the last four years of Conservative administration? There is no point in referring to the unemployment figure, because obviously if people emigrate from Scotland at the rate they were doing two years ago there are bound to be fewer people there to be unemployed. It is the number of jobs that matters.
  The Prime Minister: I shall be very glad to look into the job figures, and to give them to the right hon. Gentleman. I will also give the right hon. Gentleman what is most relevant to this, the amount of new factory development, the number of new jobs created by this Government, which was at a rate 112 per cent. higher, in terms of floor space—[Interruption.]—and 54 per cent. higher in terms of jobs—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the Battle of Bannockburn.
  The Prime Minister: The figures that I am giving the right hon. Gentleman show that in the past four years industrial development certificates account for an increase of 54 per cent. in the number of jobs created compared with the four years under right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what new proposals have been received from the illegal
  204
  régime in Rhodesia since new constitutional plans were published by that régime.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 4th March.
  Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that the illegal régime has issued something in the nature of an ultimatum to Her Majesty's Government—that if agreement is not reached before May, then no agreement at all is likely?
  The Prime Minister: It was agreed that these exchanges should be confidential, but certainly no ultimatum has been received, nor have we received anything which remotely suggests an acceptance of the terms put forward on board H.M.S. "Fearless". As time goes on more hon. Members even than before will begin to wonder whether anyone who cannot accept the "Fearless" terms must be, in their hearts, moving towards a racialist solution.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will state the criteria which guide him in the division of responsibility for the handling of foreign affairs as between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and himself.
  The Prime Minister: Those which have operated ever since the war, Sir, apart from the Suez period.
  Mr. Marten: While recognising the obvious need for the Prime Minister to visit overseas, is he aware that some people are beginning to doubt the wisdom of the British Prime Minister, at this time when there are so many domestic problems, making so many diplomatic sorties overseas, to Bonn and Nigeria, when we have a Foreign Secretary who can probably do just as well?
  The Prime Minister: The position is that there has been a long-standing agreement about annual exchanges of visits between Bonn and London. As to

  205
  Nigeria, I should have thought that anyone who listened to our debate last week, or read it, would have realised the grave anxieties about this, and I think it is my duty to go.
  Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend give the figures for the number of occasions that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has expressed the desire that my right hon. Friend should visit all sorts of places all over the world?

  FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES
  Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for keeping under review the operations of American and other foreign-owned companies in order to benefit the interests of the British economy.
  The Prime Minister: The Government already keep these matters under constant review.
  Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is disappointing in view of the importance of foreign-owned companies, from America and elsewhere, to the British economy, particularly in development districts, through the creation of new jobs?
  The Prime Minister: I could understand my hon. Friend's disappointment if I had said that the Government were not to keep these matters under constant review. I have previously explained in the House, as has the Chancellor, the criteria which guide us, and which guided previous Governments from the end of the war, when deciding upon applications by overseas manufacturers to set up in this country. A high proportion of them have been in development areas, and they have brought very welcome "know-how" and employment.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister keep a special eye on the progress of the Concorde, bearing in mind that already some Americans are making noises which lead one to believe that it will be kept out of the United States on the pretence of noise because the United States has not got an aircraft equivalent?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question is very relevant.
  Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly bad practice for American-owned companies in this country to subscribe to the funds of British political parties?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that happening. If my hon. Friend can give evidence—
  Mr. Dickens: Rootes.
  The Prime Minister:—I should be glad to see it. I think that Rootes has a fairly long and consistent record in its contributions to political parties.
  Mr. Lubbock: What steps is the Prime Minister taking to reassure American and other foreign-owned enterprises in the United Kingdom that he is taking measures to prevent industrial unrest, and thus prevent the jeopardising here of American and other investment which is so essential to our balance of payments?
  The Prime Minister: The measures included the White Paper on Industrial Relations, which was recently approved by this House, supplemented by a statement I made in the country last Friday that referred to three major and damaging strikes on Merseyside, and it is a fact that two of the firms concerned were subsidiaries of American firms.
  Mr. Cant: I welcome the emergence of a special relationship based on economic rather than political factors. In the light of the fact that American investment is likely to assume the proportion of 25 per cent. of total investment in this country in the 1970s, will my hon. Friend do something to allay the disquiet that is emerging by asking the Americans to make room for British shareholder participation and for more management possibilities in American companies here?
  The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend's anxieties are based on a study of a document on American investment published by P.E.P. in February this year. That estimate is based on some very un-checkable assumptions, and I do not think that many people would necessarily go as far as he would in the figure which he put on it; nor does he take account of British investment in the United States. With increasing specialisation, this is to be welcomed both ways, particularly when valuable "know-how" is

  207
  brought to this country. My hon. Friend will know that foreign firms in this country account for 14 per cent. of our total exports from Britain, even though they own only about 7 per cent. of the net assets.

ANGUILLA
Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in Anguilla.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): As I told the House yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), I shall be making a statement on this subject. This will be at the earliest possible moment.
Meanwhile, I wish to make one thing clear. The object of the British Government's policy is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla with the task of working out a long-term solution of the problem in Anguilla which is acceptable to all concerned, including the people of Anguilla themselves.
It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want.—[Vol. 780, c. 39–42.]
Mr. Maudling: Is the Secretary of State aware of the volume and detail of the Press reports of activities which are causing public concern because they are out of scale with what is happening in Anguilla? Secondly, will he make absolutely clear today—and I think that this can be done without prejudice to anything that is happening—what is the precise constitutional duty of Britain and what are the precise constitutional rights of Britain in acting in this field?
Mr. Stewart: I am, of course, aware of Press reports. I do not think that I should comment on them now; they may arise later on when I make a statement.
The constitutional position is to be found in the West Indies Act, 1967. We have responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of an associated State, and there are also certain other provisions where we could act with the consent of an associated State. The point
208
that is most relevant is Section 7 of that Act.
Mr. Maudling: May I press the Foreign Secretary on that? I asked what our duties were. I am quite clear that out duties relate to external defence, but what are our duties on internal problems?
Mr. Stewart: The internal affairs of an associated State are its own concern, but we have a responsibility for its external defence, and we can also act in accordance with the wishes of the Government of an associated State.
Mr. Braine: If the purpose of the Government is not to force the Anguillans to live under a Government that they detest, the Government have known this for two years. Why have not they done anything before, and why is it necessary now to use force?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member had better wait for the statement I am to make later.
Mr. Marten: Does the last part of the Foreign Secretary's answer to my right hon. Friend mean that he is prepared to give an assurance that Anguilla will not be put back under St. Kitts, and, if so, what is the power in the West Indies Act under which he gives that assurance?
Mr. Stewart: I will repeat the assurance which I gave. It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration which they do not want. It means exactly what it says.
Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it would be most unfortunate if Britain were to be involved in a military intervention overseas and the House of Commons were presented only after the event with a fait accompli? I welcome his remarks about the wishes of the Anguillans, but will he elaborate? Does this mean, for example, that there will be a referendum of all the people of Anguilla before any final constitutional settlement is imposed?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think at this stage that I can elaborate. In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we are making a number of precautionary moves so as to be ready for any eventuality.
Mr. Murray: As the Government seen) to have acted very quickly and there seem to be preparations for troop movements, would it not have been better to have a rehearsal for this military operation in Rhodesia?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend should look at the geography and certain other facts that are involved here.
Mr. Sandys: Has it not been obvious, ever since internal self-government was granted, that the union between St. Kitts and Anguilla could not last, and why have not the Government taken effective action to prevent the occurrence of this explosive situation which could have been foreseen?
Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman makes a large number of assumptions in that question which I am not prepared to accept, and there are implications in it which had better be dealt with later on.
Mr. Dalyell: On the last point of the Foreign Secretary's statement, that it is no part of the Government's purpose that Anguillans should live under a régime they do not want, was this made perfectly clear by the Under-Secretary when he visited Anguilla?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. When my hon. Friend visited Anguilla a statement from him which made this quite clear was distributed to the people.
Mr. Heath: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that right hon. and hon. Members have to make assumptions in this matter because he has been so uncommunicative to the House? Yesterday, the House was very patient with him, but we now find that there is wide and detailed coverage of all these matters in the Press, radio and television, and the House of Commons appears to be the last place to be informed. Will the Foreign Secretary at least be more explicit about the situation as the Government see it? For example, do they believe that at the moment Anguilla is under a régime which it does not want, and will he be more explicit about the Government's objective? Is it to achieve results by negotiation, or by force?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can complain that I was unwilling to inform the House yes-
210
terday. I answered a question which, in fact, was not asked, and which I was under no obligation to do. I did it in deference to the wishes of the House. I have been plain enough today about the objective of policy. I do not think that I can be expected to comment on every report that appears in the Press, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I will keep the House as fully informed as it is in the public interest to do so.
Mr. George Brown: I do not press my right hon. Friend to make a statement; I think that he should be the judge of when he should do that. Will he bear in mind that both he and I, over a period of some years, have refused to resort to what we used to call scornfully "gun-boat diplomacy" in issues which had much more interest for Britain than this; and when he comes to make his statement, will he please take into account that if by then force has been used a number of people will want to know why it has been used in this case and not in other cases, which have much more interest for Britain?
Mr. Stewart: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Might I take up a point in the right hon. Gentleman's question which I did not answer? In the light of the treatment accorded to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we believe that what happened then was not in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people of Anguilla.
Mr. Thorpe: Since what is required is a permanent political settlement, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are adequate legal facilities for the people to be allowed to secede or opt for a looser form of federation?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it would be right to look ahead to the exact nature of what the settlement will be. I have laid down one necessary condition of it, namely, that it should be acceptable to the people of Anguilla.
Mr. Luard: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulty, can we be assured that, before there is any attempt to use force in this instance, there will be further attempts at a peaceful approach to the people of Anguilla themselves?
Mr. Stewart: We are most anxious—and this was one reason why I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question as I did—that the people of Anguilla should be fully aware of our policy as I have defined it.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Baker— Private Notice Question.

LONGHOPE LIFEBOAT
Mr. W. H. K. Baker Mr. W. H. K. Baker (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Longhope lifeboat reported missing and now overdue.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): At about 2 o'clock this afternoon, the Longhope lifeboat was found floating upside down about 4 miles south west of Torness. Three lifeboats, a Shackleton aircraft, a helicopter and two Coastguard rescue companies had been searching for it since daylight, the search having begun late last night. The lifeboat had a crew of seven and the search for survivors is continuing. We must all hope very much that they will be found. The life-boat went to the assistance of the Liberian cargo ship "Irene", which ran aground off South Ronaldsay last night in a force 9 easterly gale. Its crew were rescued by coastguards.
I would like to express my admiration for all concerned in the rescue of the crew of the "Irene" and express my deepest sympathy, which I know the House will share, for the relatives of the gallant lifeboat crew in their anxiety and sadness.
Mr. Baker: I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with those remarks of the hon. Gentleman and express its profound anxiety today, which, by tragic coincidence, happens to be Life-boat Day in London. I am sure, too, that the House will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives of the crew. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Would the Minister agree that the incredible bravery and self-sacrifice of lifeboat crews is exemplified by the Longhope boat having put out on its mission of mercy in such appalling weather conditions as
212
prevailed last night? Will the Minister undertake to keep the House informed as soon as practicable of any news he may receive?
Mr. Rodgers: Certainly I will give the last undertaking. I understand that the lifeboat is now in tow and will be righted when it reaches its destination at about six o'clock this evening. At that stage, it will be possible to discover whether there are bodies underneath.
As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I agree that this is one of the worst stretches of water in the world, and it was an act of singular courage for the boat to put out in the conditions prevailing last night.
Mr. James Johnson: May I, from these benches, say how much the men of the fishing ports owe to our gallant lifeboat crews? May we extend our sympathy and deepest condolences to the families of the missing men?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short business statement.
Tomorrow, there will be, until about seven o'clock, a debate on an Opposition Motion on the rising costs of home ownership. This will arise in Supply.
The business already announced will follow.
Mr. Heath: May I thank the Leader of the House for facilitating the arrangement of this business? Are we to understand that the rest of the Supply will continue for an additional time?
Mr. Peart: Yes.
Mr. Michael Foot: Did my right hon. Friend receive any representations through the usual channels that this debate on the mortgage rates—if the Opposition consider it to be a matter of importance—should be taken today instead of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, or were there no representations from the Front Bench opposite to postpone the Parliament (No. 2) Bill at all?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend wishes to make his point. I note it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does this mean that my right hon. Friend is taking more time out of our consideration of the Air Estimates? He has already stolen four hours from our consideration of the Defence Estimates. Does he intend to steal another two hours?
Mr. Peart: No. We can go on until midnight.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House now answer the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)? Did he receive any approaches from the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to put the same question twice at business question time.
Mr. Lewis: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for an answer to my question?
Mr. Ogden: Will the Leader of the House suggest how I might answer a constituent who inquires how it is that the House of Commons can spend three hours debating the situation on mortgages and yet spend eight, 10, 12, or 15 hours considering the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be about tomorrow's business.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to help the House, are we to understand that, if a question is put to a Minister and he does not answer it, no one else can put the same question to try to get in answered?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The simple answer is commonsense. It is an otiose exercise—[Laughter.] Obviously I must translate.
Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am answering the hon. Gentleman. If an hon. Member asks a Minister a question and the Minister refuses to answer it, to ask it again does not secure an answer from the Minister.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are occasions when it is the duty of the House to pursue certain questions. If the Minister does not answer a question, I would
214
have thought that the House must pursue it. Your Ruling seems contrary to that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker never rules. He only advises the House on matters of commonsense.
Mr. Heath: Would not the Leader of the House agree that both he and the Opposition thought it more important to look after the convenience of the House by not changing the business with less than 24 hours' notice than to pander to the peculiar obsessions of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)?
Mr. Peart: Yes, I agree. I thought that this change was for the convenience of the House.
Mr. Peyton: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). If, in your wisdom, you describe so innocent a pastime as repeating a question to a Minister as "an otiose exercise", would you be good enough to tell us with what graphic phrase you would describe the Government's pursuing the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt Mr. Speaker.

ART AUCTIONS (RINGS)
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crosland—statement.
Hon. Members: Where is he?
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): The House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend left the Board of Trade some time ago with the intention of being present at this moment. I know that the House attaches the greatest importance to what my right hon. Friend will say. I can only conceive that there has been some untoward incident in his journey here. I am sure that the House will not wish to make assumptions until a full explanation has been given.
It may be helpful to the House, and avoid further delay, if I indicate what my right hon. Friend would have wished to say had circumstances allowed him to be present. The House will know the great courtesy that my right hon. Friend always shows on these occasions and will not

215
assume that it is not his intention at the earliest moment to give a very full explanation—[Interruption.]
The House will be delighted to see that no harm has come of my right hon. Friend, so I shall be glad now to withdraw.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I should like to begin by apologising to the House for my under-estimation of the amount of time that would be spent on the preceding business.
With permission, I will make a statement about the inquiries which my Department has been making into the existence of rings at art auctions. I have now had the opportunity, on my return from a two-week visit to Latin America, of examining in detail the results of these inquiries.
They were undertaken by two experienced former police officers, who are members of the Investigations Branch of the Board of Trade. These officers interviewed over 40 persons concerned in different ways with sales of works of art, including most of the leading art dealers in London. They also made inquiries of many other art dealers, both in this country and in Italy. In the course of these general inquiries, information was given about the sale at Aldwick Court.
After consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I have decided that the report of these inquiries should not be published. The report gives details of the persons interviewed by my officers, of the statements made by those persons both orally and in writing, of the officers' assessments of the reliability of the witnesses and the value of their evidence, and of the officers' conclusions. Some of the material on which the report is based was given confidentially, and some of it may well be defamatory. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be wrong for me to be responsible for breaches of confidentiality or for the publication of defamatory statements.
Further, and perhaps more important, it would be wrong in principle to publish details of an inquiry of this nature which necessarily included an investigation into the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings. Publication might
216
well cause injustice to persons named in the report who will not be charged, and who consequently will not have the safeguards afforded to defendants in a criminal trial. Moreover, publication might have an adverse effect on future investigations into allegations of criminal practices of all kinds.
But I wish to give the House the essential findings which emerge from the report. On the question of the existence and possible operation of rings generally, many art dealers have given a certain amount of information which, however, never descends from the general to the specific. That is to say, they have all heard of rings operating, but cannot, or will not, supply precise information as to their membership or operation. The inquiries, therefore, do not disclose any evidence which could form the basis of criminal proceedings. I should add that a study of the prices achieved at sales at the leading art auctions in London over the last two years strongly suggests that rings have not operated there and that dealers compete freely and properly for pictures.
As to the Aldwick Court sale, I repeat what I told the House on 6th November, namely, that no detailed or useful information was given either to the Board of Trade or to the police, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, until after the time-limit for any prosecution had expired.
It may be said that further or better information might have become available had inquiries been started earlier. But the outcome of the present inquiry does not encourage me to believe this. The only information of any substance or significance concerning the Aldwick Court sale which my officers have been able to obtain has been provided by people who were in a position to make that same information available well before the time limit for any prosecution had expired, but who made no move to do so. Indeed, we were given no clue even as to who these people were until that time had expired.
As I have said, I do not intend to publish the report, but my statement this afternoon has given the House the essential conclusions which emerge from it. In my view, the most important thing now is to make rapid progress with

217
the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Bill, which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has so helpfully introduced with the full support and co-operation of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Channon: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many people, both inside and outside this House, will find his statement this afternoon extremely disappointing?
Is he further aware that this only goes to show that the wrong form of inquiry was set up by his Department? Is it not a fact that hon. Members, on 6th November and on many other occasions, pressed him to set up a different sort of inquiry under which none of these difficulties would have arisen?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rumours which have been flying around and the position in which the London art trade is now left by his refusal to publish this report is a most unsatisfactory situation and may damage many people in the London art trade?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the legal difficulties could be cleared up, both the British Antique Dealers' Association and the Society of London Art Dealers are most anxious that he should publish this report? Is it not possible to get over these legal difficulties by laying this report in response to an Order for an Unopposed Return, which has been done many times in this House—most recently in the Bristol-Siddeley case? Would it not be far better to clear up this unsatisfactory state of affairs than to leave the matter where it is at the moment?
Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
First, as to this being the wrong form of inquiry, there were only two forms of inquiry fundamentally possible. One was an inquiry conducted, as this was, in confidence, in which persons might be prepared to give information because that information would not be published. This seemed to be the sensible way of going about things.
The only other form of inquiry would be a public inquiry, perhaps under a O.C., as the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) has suggested, in which witnesses would not enjoy any protection and would, therefore, be
218
wholly unwilling to provide information I should not think that that kind of inquiry would benefit anyone, so I have no regrets about the form of inquiry that was chosen.
As to damage to the London art trade, I hope that what I have said about the findings concerning the London art trade is sufficient answer to the question, because it is important to clear it of any imputation of incorrect or inappropriate actions.
On the last question about an Order on the Bristol-Siddeley analogy, I should like to look into that and give the hon. Gentleman a considered answer.
Mr. Costain: Will the President confirm that the Bill which I am sponsoring would lead to the prosecution of people named in an inquiry? That being so, will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see that time is provided to give a speedy passage to the Bill?
Mr. Crosland: I am strongly in favour of a speedy passage for the Bill, and so is my right hon. Friend.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, nothing in this report would lead, or has led, to any possibility of criminal proceedings being taken. I think that the report, in a general sense, lends support to the objects of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman has introduced.
Mr. Whitaker: Is it not obvious that the present strength of State machinery for investigating these practices is less than adequate, because it was left to a national newspaper to expose a major example of the racket, despite the grave risk of libel to which it exposed itself in doing this public duty?
Mr. Crosland: I hope that my hon. Friend is not misunderstanding what the rôle of the Board of Trade is in this. We have a general responsibility for supervising the law relating to auctions. That is our sole responsibility. Any question of prosecution or criminal proceedings is not a matter for the Board of Trade. That is a matter for the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if any hon. Member, or anyone in the art world, has now, or has had in the past, any evidence which might lead

219
to criminal prosecution, it is his duty to draw this evidence to the attention of the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we appreciate the difficulties of publishing evidence which was given in private which might be defamatory, he has given the House very little information? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, as a result of the inquiry, that he knows the sort of powers that are required to prevent any such occurrences in the future? Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending an Amendment to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)? If the Government are not prepared to expedite the passage of that Bill, are they intending to introduce legislation themselves?
Mr. Crosland: I have given little detailed information because the results of this inquiry were, in a sense, negative. The inquiry showed that there was a good deal of hearsay information about the operation of rings, but no evidence was produced to the inquiry which would justify criminal prosecution, and, as I have already said, there was evidence that the London art market, in particular, operates freely and properly.
As to the Bill, I do not think that, in the event, the results of this inquiry either alter the case for it or against it. I am certain that the thing to do now is to get on with the Bill whose provisions will be necessary whatever the consequences of this inquiry.
Mr. John Mendelson: While accepting that one could not place the blame for this unsatisfactory outcome on my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, for his part, my right hon. Friend accepts that he has put the House and the public in a highly unsatisfactory situation? On the one hand, my right hon. Friend argues that, on the advice of the Attorney-General, he cannot publish the report, and on the other, he leaves the public in the dark about whether there were any guilty parties. May I therefore press my right hon. Friend most strongly to reconsider the matter and to discuss it with the Attorney-General to see whether, after all, the report can be published as fully as possible?
Mr. Crosland: My instincts are entirely on the side of my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I have, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, given the reasons, which I find to be powerful ones, why the full report of this inquiry cannot be published. As to leaving the public in the dark about whether criminal events took place or not, I think I made it clear in my original statement that no evidence emerges from the report which would justify any criminal proceedings.
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: As the right hon. Gentleman was spurred into setting up the inquiry only as a result of an article in the Sunday Times, may I ask whether he is, in effect, saying that there was no substance in that article? If so, will he bear in mind that there have been no actions for defamation following that article?
Mr. Crosland: I do not wish to comment any further on the Aldwick Court sale as such, for the reason that that sale is now time-expired and therefore it would not be right to comment on it. As to whether there would have been any evidence of criminal offences committed at that sale, it was fully open to anybody who had such evidence to bring that evidence to the attention of my Department, or to the police, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, before the six months had passed, but no such evidence was given from any quarter.
Mr. Barnett: I am sure that most of us would like to see the report, but is not there some confusion here? We may want to see the abolition of rings generally, but the fact is that losses which have been made in instances of which we know are not necessarily due to rings but to inadequate reserve prices being placed on particular articles owing to inadequate advice being given. Should not we be centring our minds on how to deal with this aspect of the problem rather than on the one about which we have been talking?
Mr. Crosland: I think that there are occasions when my hon. Friend's analysis is the correct one. I have no doubt that in the course of the Committee discussions on the Bill, which I hope will now proceed, this matter can be more fully debated.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
Mr. A. Royle: On a point of order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and I originally raised this matter with the Board of Trade, would it be possible for me to be called to ask a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is not omniscient. The hon. Member has raised a valid point. Mr. Anthony Royle.
Mr. A. Royle: Many people outside the House will consider that the President of the Board of Trade is tending to raise a disturbing wall of silence around the Board of Trade. Did any of the people who were interviewed by the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors identify anyone who had taken part in a ring?
Mr. Crosland: I hesitate to speak on legal matters without my right hon. and learned Friend immediately beside me, but nobody identified anyone in such a way that could have led to any criminal proceedings being taken.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order. As I first raised the matter in October, 1964, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I allow the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question, he must ask my leave to do so. I think that the hon. Member has a point.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in his statement, he gave an indication that he was satisfied that there was no ring in pictures. Why was there such a wall of silence about rings in other forms of antiques throughout the country?
Mr. Crosland: What I said about rings in pictures was that there was a good deal of hearsay information but no firm evidence which would have allowed criminal proceedings to be taken. As to other rings, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, this inquiry was confined to rings at art auctions. We are dealing primarily with pictures.
Mr. Heath: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think,
222
feels that the matter has been left in a rather unsatisfactory state? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in some other matters, for example where security is involved, the Government publish a report after they have deleted matters which they consider not to be in the public interest to publish and after they have shown it to myself as Leader of the Opposition—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A short time ago you rebuked me for asking the Minister once to change an answer that he had already given to a question. The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members are asking the Minister to change an answer that he has given to a question. May I ask why you rebuked me and have not rebuked the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition is a right hon. Gentleman, not an hon. Gentleman. He was not asking the same question in any conceivable way whatsoever.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General whether it is possible to make deletions from the report which will avoid the difficulties about defamation, and, if so, whether this could be done? Or would he agree to the Attorney-General discussing with one of my right hon. Friends who has legal experience what the difficulties are to see whether they can be overcome?
Mr. Crosland: There are two points here. I think that there would be great difficulties about publishing an expurgated edition of the report. The bulk of the report consists of statements from the 40 or more people who were interviewed. I think that an expurgated edition would omit all the information that was most interesting and would not give any indication of where the omissions had been made.
I should like to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend whether the full report should or could be made available to the right hon. Gentleman under the procedure which he described. As far as I am concerned, I would greatly welcome this.
Sir J. Vanghan-Morgan: On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he would like to publish something but has been overruled by the Attorney-General, and as the Attorney-General is present, may we have a statement forthwith on why he overruled his right hon. Friend?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Attorney-General, not for the Chair.
Mr. Brooks: On a point of order. In fact, I have two points of order to raise. On the first, may I have your guidance? It is the normal custom in this House when Members rise to seek to catch your eye to put supplementary questions to accept your judgment about the time when the discussion should be exhausted, and I think it is true to say that the majority of us accept that unequivocally. This afternoon we have had no fewer than three hon. Members rising to make specific points, and in two cases to extend the discussion. Would it be possible for others who are members of the Committee which is to discuss the Bill tomorrow to put representations to you that we have as much right to be called as others who are not members of the Committee? If that be the case, it appears to follow that, if such representations are made and those hon. Members are then called, this will extend the time for questions on my right hon. Friend's statement very substantially.
Mr. Speaker: I agree with all that the hon. Member has said, in spirit, in tone, and in everything. If the hon. Member wishes to put a supplementary question, he may do so.
Mr. Brooks: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not waste the time of the House, because this will now remove the need to raise it as a point of order. Might I put it to my right hon. Friend that, as he is in some difficulty, because we understand the Parliamentary Commissioner is at the moment investigating certain allegations of maladministration by his Department, it might be in the interests of the House to know whether Sir Edmund Compton will have a right to see the full unexpurgated version of this report?
Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, he already has done so.

ANGUILLA
Mr. Marten: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anguilla situation.
Yesterday, I gave reasons for moving the Adjournment of the House, and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them, but today we have had a statement from the Foreign Secretary and there is no longer any need for secrecy over this operation. It is clear that we have a situation in which the House should urgently express its opinion on a matter which, as I said yesterday, is most specific and important.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anguilla situation.
I have listened to all that happened yesterday, and all that has happened today; and, as the House knows, under revised Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in that revised Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, and to all that has happened since yesterday, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. May I submit one point which has not been raised during this afternoon or yesterday's discussion, namely, the need for absolute clarity of Government statement, otherwise English lives could be endangered. This seems a new point, especially as there has been no denial by the Government—and I failed to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—in a very complex legal situation under the 1967 Act, that this possible sending of British troops is not at the request of Premier Bradshaw. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is setting two bad precedents. One is trying to debate a subject which I have said cannot be debated under revised Standing Order No. 9; and the other is questioning the Ruling that Mr. Speaker has given.
Mr. John Mendelson: Without going into the details of this particular question, may I again raise a point of order which I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, namely, when important policy is being decided by the Government, either in the United Nations or in their own counsels, affecting the future of this country and its involvement in important and serious international affairs, when is the House going to be able to discuss such a matter whilst the policy is still being decided? The answer that one is often given is to put down a Motion. It is not my intention, or that of my hon. Friends who agree with me, to put down a Motion. It is most unreasonable in order to initiate a debate to have to put down a personal Motion about Mr. Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that procedure is for an altogether different purpose and an altogether different situation. But I submit that this is a real problem and that we ought to have some opportunity to take counsel with you in public as to what the answer to the question is.
Mr. Speaker: The answer is very simple. There is almost no limit on the kind of topic which an hon. Gentleman may seek to raise under Standing Order No. 9. All the old precedents have disappeared and all the Rulings my predecessors have given in the past have disappeared. It still remains the fact that Mr. Speaker has to decide from time to time whether the business of the House, or the business of the next day, shall be moved to one side to make way for an emergency debate; and none of the anxieties in the hon. Gentleman's mind affect this particular decision.

ANGUILLA

  ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE)
  Mr. Gurden: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for compulsory motor vehicle insurance against liability for damage to the property of third parties; to give third parties a right of action against insurance companies in respect of damage to their persons or property caused by motor vehicles insured by those insurance companies; and for connected purposes.
  This Motion seeks leave to bring in a Bill to extend the effect of subsection (3) of Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to protect the property of any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Act of 1960 requires a vehicle to be insured for liability to a third party suffering death or bodily injury. I seek to extend that liability to property of a third party. The person insured in respect of the vehicle has to complete a claim form to comply with the insurance policy that he is obliged to take out for liability for death or bodily injury, even though the injury to the person may be only a cut finger. But where property damage only is sustained, and not personal injury, there is, under the law as it stands today, no obligation upon the owner or driver, or upon his insurance company, to meet the damages.
  There is no such obligation so long as the owner or the driver declines to fill in a form of claim upon his insurance company. At times, insurance companies refuse to pay, or even to consider a claim simply because under the terms of the policy the insured person has not filled in a claim form. This Bill seeks to make it obligatory for the insured person to make out a claim form where property is involved, just as he does in the case of personal injury.
  Most drivers and owners of vehicles, of course, do fill in a claim form where they have incurred damage or where damage is involved. But a growing number of drivers and owners refuse to do this, for several reasons. One is that the insured person may lose his no claim bonus. Another is that he may not be insured against property damage of the kind that can arise. The reason why the law is in the position that it is, and why Governments have refused to do anything about this, is that 40 years ago a Royal Commission refused, on balance, to recommend that this provision should be

  227
  included in an Act of Parliament. But we all know the changes that have happened in motoring in the last 40 years. Car ownership is much wider. It is now for the masses. Indeed, some owner-drivers could not possibly pay for the extensive damage which a vehicle can do. Many owners take out the absolute minimum of insurance and wish to protect their no claim bonuses, so there is a growing number of cases of damage to property every day in which recovery is not possible. Of course, one can resort to civil action, but many people who have written to me have not the resources or the ability to do so. In any case, the procedure is very slow and there is always the risk of losing. This does not apply in the case of personal injury, when the law says that an insurance company must meet its liabilities.
  This amending Bill is not aimed at the ordinary honest and decent citizen who insures himself properly and meets his obligations by filling in a claim form, but against the negligent and certainly the dishonest and unscrupulous people who get into difficulties, sometimes through no bad intentions. Police action usually does not apply, because there is not always evidence of a driving offence and it may not be the driver's own fault that property damage has occurred.
  The exact situation is this. Any of us may be resting calmly in a deckchair in the garden one afternoon, with the vehicle that we own parked in the front drive or garage, when some other vehicle
  228
  runs off the road and damages our vehicle, or even the garage or the house, or a pram or a cycle or other property. There is no redress and thousands of £s worth of damage may be done which could not be recovered. Of course, if all steps are taken, the person responsible may go into bankruptcy and the person injured receive nothing.
  There have been few cases of this in years gone by, but a growing number is happening now and I have a large number of letters and evidence. I do not propose to put it all before the House now, since there would not be time, but I should be happy to do so if the Bill were given a Second Reading. Since this is my second attempt, I hope that the Government will at least give facilities for a Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Gurden.

ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE)
Bill to provide for compulsory motor vehicle insurance against liability for damage to the property of third parties; to give third parties a right of action against insurance companies in respect of damage to their persons or property caused by motor vehicles insured by those insurance companies; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 115].
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th February].
  [Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

  PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL
    Clause 4

      LOSS OF VOTING RIGHT BY NON-ATTENDANCE
      Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 4, to leave out from 'than' to '(other' in line 5 and insert:
      'two-thirds of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session to debate any matter on which the House of Commons has reached a decision within the same Session and one-half of the total number of other days'.—[Mr. Sheldon.]
      4.25 p.m.
      The Deputy Chairman: The Question is—
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order. Once again, I consider that the selection of Amendments has been restrictive, because precedents have been used where there is no precedent. This is not just an important public Bill but a Bill which decides the fate of all future Bills, and there are no precedents for this in a situation in which there is no official Front Bench Opposition to protect certain safeguards in a Bill of this magnitude. Therefore, the safeguards can only come through you, Mr. Gourlay, and your colleagues. I must make clear my very serious objection to the important principles which have been allowed to be over-ruled. The Bill is unique, and what we may be establishing by this kind of selection are unhappy precedents for the future.
      But I have a second point of order. In some ways, it is just as serious. You may recall, Mr. Gourlay, that when we ended our previous debate on Wednesday, 26th February, a Motion to report Progress was moved shortly after a discussion about questions of secrecy and information which was due to be given to the Committee. When I asked for certain figures which underlay the whole scheme upon which the Bill has been built, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
      230
      "Certain calculations were made on our behalf and, if my hon. Friend feels interested, I will consider making them available to him, although they are long and complicated."
      I expressed my very deep thanks for the understanding that these matters should be brought before the Committee and that there should be no attempt at secrecy in matters fundamental to the way in which the Bill had been prepared.
      This was shortly before ten o'clock, and our discussion was then interrupted by a Division. When we returned, my right hon. Friend was then able to give the figures which he had mentioned previously. He said:
      "I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the Sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the Sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837, 1844.]
      That was a half a dozen figures instead of the long and complicated figures which were the only basis on which we could indepndently examine the value of the model created by my right hon. Friend. Have you had representations made to you, Mr. Gourlay, that we should now receive those figures?
      The Deputy Chairman: The second point of order, the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is not a matter for the Chair. On the first point of order, it is not for the Chair to discuss the selection of Amendments. I have taken note of the hon. Members points, but I cannot help him on this matter.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. On the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, is it a decision of the Chair whether documents which should be laid are to be laid? When there are questions of certain documents mentioned in debate being put before the Committee, is it the Chair's decision whether they should be laid? On the first point, some of us have been greatly assisted by the lists posted in the Lobby about the Amendments which are to be called and their grouping. Can you inform me on this point? Is it not the case that the selection of Amendments is bound to be affected by the course of the debates

      231
      themselves, and that there may be events that occur in the course of the discussions which create the need to call some Amendments that are upon the Notice Paper? It may very well be, for example, that the discussion of these figures would affect the calling of some future Amendments. May we have an undertaking from the Chair that the selection and grouping, of Amendments and the decision about the Amendments upon which votes may be cast, will be reviewed by the Chair at least after each sitting of the House on these matters?
      4.30 p.m.
      It has been noted by some of us that the selection of Amendments in the Lobby at the present time is the same as the selection of Amendments following the end of our last debate. In my submission, it is necessary for the Chair, after each sitting when we discuss the Bill, to consider whether the course of debate regarding the Bill itself and the developments that may take place do not affect the future Amendments which may be called. I stress this in the same sense as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has done. This is a unique Bill. It is a Bill which seeks to do in the Preamble what has never been attempted before so far as we are aware. It is a Bill which is attempting to alter the whole constitutional balance between the different Houses of Parliament and is therefore also unique in that sense.
      Many of us believe that it is all the more necessary that the Chair should be extremely scrupulous in ensuring that we have the fullest possible opportunity to press the Amendments which many of us think are desirable. Could I have the assurance, therefore, that, on the first point of order, there will be a review by the Chair of the selection of Amendments after each sitting so that there may be the possibility of Amendments being altered, if necessary, and extended to take account of events which may have occurred in the debates themselves?
      The Deputy Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), as a result of the long discussions in the Chamber on this Bill, that the Chair does recognise the unique character of the Bill. On the question of selection, I can give
      232
      no assurance other than to say that all relevant factors are considered prior to each sitting of the Committee regarding the grouping and the selection of Amendments. In consequence, the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are naturally taken into consideration.
      On the first point of order, namely, the question of placing documents before the Committee, no documents have to my knowledge ever been referred to. It is true the Secretary of State made reference to figures and numbers, but no reference to any specific document.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, could we be advised, in the difficulty in which we find ouselves, to which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has drawn attention'.' When the Committee was previously seized of the Amendment now before you, an indication was given by the Secretary of State of the existence of a great mass of material—he used the words "long and complicated "—which clearly bore upon the discussion on which we were engaged. There was then an interruption and, subsequent to that interruption, some information of a very brief, though relevant, character was given by the right hon. Gentleman. We now find ourselves, after a lapse of between two or three weeks, resuming the consideration of this Amendment. This puts the Committee in a great difficulty, because we are not able easily to proceed with the consideration of this Amendment without the background material, the existence of which was indicated, and the presentation of which, initially to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, but subsequently generally, was promised by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope you will be able to help the Committee by suggesting to us how we could extricate ourselves from this problem.
      The Deputy Chairman: I recognise the point that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is not a matter for the Chair. There are ways, I am sure, in which hon. Members can elicit the information from the Minister; but this is definitely not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Powell: As you recognise the difficulty that the Committee is in and the

      233
      importance to the Committee of having this information before it, would you accept a Motion "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again "?
      The Deputy Chairman: I would not accept such a Motion at this stage.
      Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: May I raise a quite different point of order, of rather less far-reaching importance, but affecting the convenience of our discussions in Committee?
      On Friday, a number of new Amendments to the Bill were tabled. They duly appeared on the Notice Paper on Monday and appear today not as starred Amendments. None the less, they appear on a separate sheet, pale blue in colour—I can assure you that this has no political significance—and separate from the main Notice Paper. As they relate to a number of Clauses, Amendments to which are set out in proper order on the main Notice Paper, it is quite extraordinarily inconvenient that, for example, Amendment No. 220, which relates to Clause 8, comes after Amendment No. 78, which relates to the Preamble on the Notice Paper.
      It is normal, as I understand it, for a marshalled Notice Paper to be produced every day when the House is in Committee. I agree that there are occasionally some days when the marshalling is not done on days between our sittings. On this occasion—which is a day the House was to be in Committee on this Bill according to the announcement of business last Thursday—we have a white Notice Paper dealing with Amendments submitted prior to Friday and Friday's Amendments on a separate sheet, entirely detached. This is a matter of some inconvenience.
      I wonder whether you would indicate whether this is intended to be a normal practice during further deliberations on the Committee stage, or whether it is the result of that very exceptional thing—a lapse on the part of the House authorities?
      The Deputy Chairman: I am somewhat surprised by the optimism of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) regarding the progress of the Committee on the
      234
      Bill. Referring to the specific point of order whihch has been made, the reason for this is due to some labour troubles in the printing office. This is a matter which is out of the control of the authorities of the House.
      Mr. John Peyton: You yourself, Mr. Gourlay, have referred to the progress being made with the Bill. Is it not of the utmost importance that no unnecessary obstacles shall be placed in the Bill's course? If there have been some difficulties due to labour troubles on this occasion, I hope you will give the House the assurance that, as soon as matters return to normal, we will have a Notice Paper which sets out the Amendments in an intelligible form, that Notice Paper then being almost unique in virtue so far as the whole proceedings on the Bill are concerned.
      The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to information which had been mentioned by Ministers. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State, who is a natural parent of the Bill, is temporarily absent from the Chamber, because had descretion not been the better part of valour he would have wished to respond to the obvious invitation issued to him by you, Mr. Gourlay, that perhaps he could guide the Committee, whereas it would be difficult for the Chair to do so. The right hon. Gentleman being absent, would the Under-Secretary say if it is the intention of the Government to aid the Committee along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?
      The Deputy Chairman: I cannot add to what I have said on this matter. Perhaps the Committee may now proceed to discuss the Amendment.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Further to that point of order, in so far as hon. Members have suggested that a document is in existence, I put it to the Committee that the word used by the Secretary of State and by the Solicitor-General was "calculations" rather than "document". The information contained in these calculations has already been given fully to the Committee. [HON.
      MEMBERS: "When?"] It appears in column 1844 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February.
      Mr. Sheldon: Further to the point of order. It might be valuable to the Committee if I pointed out that I have been trying to obtain a list of statistics which are relevant and which are in the Library, but which have been denied to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have proof with me that the list exists. I have a letter which tells me that a request for straightforward statistical information cannot be given because of undertakings supplied to certain people. [Interruption.] May I ask for guidance from the Chair about whether a list which is in the Library should be laid before the Committee?
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. Again, the point which the hon. Member raises is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. The Under-Secretary suggested that no document exists. When we last debated this matter, the Secretary of State referred to "long and complicated calculations ". Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that these complications were made in his right hon. Friend's head? If not, how were they written down? Is not the Under-Secretary fiddling with words when what we want to know is whether a document or list should be presented to us? Where is the piece of paper on which these calculations were written? Since the hon. Gentleman's first line of defence has been breached, will he proceed to the second and produce the document?
      The Deputy Chairman: I have already dealt with that point of order. As far as the Chair is concerned, no such document exists.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), but on a different basis. Is it not a fact that if any person attempts to prevent an hon. Member from carrying out his Parliamentary duties by deliberately withholding information, a prima facie case of breach of privilege might arise? Does not such a case arise in this instance?
      My hon. Friend said that the Library is in possession of information which it
      236
      is vital for us to have but which, at somebody's behest, has not been made available to my hon. Friend. This information is, therefore, being denied to hon. Members and may prevent us from performing our Parliamentary duties in discussing the Bill. Would you consider whether a prima facie breach of privilege exists in this instance, Mr. Gourlay?
      Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested that the Chairman might report Progress and ask leave to sit again, we were discussing the possibility of the Minister producing some figures, to which reference had been made on 27th February. We now appear to be on a much greater constitutional question; namely, the fact that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has proved that the House of Commons, which is sovereign in these matters, is being deprived of information because of a private agreement entered into between whom we do not know. This information might alter our view about the Bill or the Clause. In view of this grave matter of constitutional propriety which has been raised. I suggest that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). When you ruled on this matter some minutes ago, Mr. Gourlay, you said that your statement was being based on what had been said at the conclusion of the previous sitting on the Bill. That was the statement that there was no document but merely some figures. Obviously, the Chair was bound to rule on the situation as it appeared to be presented by the Minister at that time.
      Many of us have found it difficult to understand in what form these figures might have been documented. Were they written in water or on parchment? Were they preserved in some way for the use of others? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has been able to prove that a document exists—
      Mr. Elystan Morgan Mr. Elystan Morgan indicated dissent.
      Mr. Foot:—and although my hon. Friend dissents. we accept my hon. Friend's statement that a document, or documents, is in existence.
      It would be a serious situation indeed for the Government and for others concerned if we were to proceed on the basis of the Under-Secretary shaking his head in dissent and saying that no documents exist if later documents were produced. If that occurred, it would mean that the Committee had been denied its right to documents. We have rules governing this matter precisely for the purpose of protecting hon. Members. Before dealing with subjects, we often need to be given documents which are otherwise available only to certain people. These rules exist to protect the House of Commons against Ministers who might seek to get the support of hon. Members on the basis of information which they possess but which they will not reveal.
      Until a few minutes ago, we had thought that no such situation arose because there were no such documents however difficult it was to discover how those figures could be tabulated, but now my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has given absolutely clear evidence that the documents are there. Why should we be denied them? The only way in which the Committee can proceed is to move to report Progress so that a Minister may be able to make a statement on these questions. If we are not to proceed by that method, further discussion of the Bill will be even more complicated than it might otherwise be in any case. So I hope very much that you will reconsider the question of whether we are able to press this Motion at present, because it is quite evident that before the Bill goes very much further those documents will have to be produced.
      We cannot have a situation in which documents of this character are apparently to be kept concealed and the House is to pass this Measure and it is to go to another place. We do not know whether another place might insist on its rights, which are similar to our rights. It may insist that it should have the documents. Then we would be in the humiliating position that the Government had passed a Measure on the basis of documents denied to us but given to the House
      238
      of Lords. This is a serious matter. I urge again that the best course to deal with it is to report Progress. During that debate, which might proceed for a little time, it would be possible for the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State to make an authoritative statement on these documents. We would then put the proceedings in order, but if we proceed on the basis of saying that we can discuss these matters while these documents are still concealed, we will be heading for a Parliamentary smash-up.
      The Deputy Chairman: The Chair is seized of the points of order dealing with a document. So far as the Chair is concerned, no document has been quoted in the Committee by any Minister. It is within the competence of a Minister to summarise any document without having to lay the document on the Table, as is the practice when a document is quoted.
      Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order. With the greatest respect, I do not think you have quite got the point. Not only has the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne been told that there is a document in the Library, but he has been told by some private arrangement that it is not for publication and he cannot have it. The House of Commons is supreme in these matters, but it is being told by the services that as a result of some arrangement, presumably a Ministerial diktat of some sort, this information is not available to the Committee. We are to carry on our debate deprived of the knowledge which the hon. Member, who has built up a reputation in this matter, is deprived" of the opportunity of presenting to the Committee. I canot see how we can reach a conclusion on the Amendment if the hon. Member is deprived of the information he wanted to give to the Committee. I cannot see how we can honestly and sensibly proceed with the Bill until that document is disclosed and released from the Library.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order. I have not myself seen these figures, but I understand that they go over a wider range than is covered by Clause 4. After researches have been made, the only figures relevant to the decision of the Government relating to one-third attendance qualifying for voting

      239
      rights, which is the matter we are discussing—are found to be those which have been given by the Secretary of State for Social Services, namely:
      "We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1844.]
      The Deputy Chairman: The point raised by the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Sir D. Glover) relating to the question of a document in the Library is certainly not a matter for the Chairman of this Committee. I have already indicated the Ruling with reference to laying a document on the Table. It is only when a Minister quotes from a document that it has to be laid on the Table. The Minister is allowed to summarise without laying the document.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that point of order. Have you considered what the Solicitor-General said, as reported at c. 1819 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February? When asked by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about these figures, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
      "I cannot produce as an exhibit the calculations or the formulae. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Why not?'] I am asked, 'Why not?' I merely tell the Committee that the position is I cannot produce them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1819.]
      That surely is the clearest admission by a Law Officer of the Crown that these documents exist.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not disputing their existence, but merely saying, for a reason he was not able to disclose to the Committee as to why he could not produce them, but he accepted their existence. In those circumstances, is it not quite contrary to the customs of this House and Rulings given by your predecessor in the Chair, that a Minister should seek to persuade the Committee of a point of view by reference to calculations embodied in a document which he nonetheless declines to produce? I submit that you would be acting in accordance with the traditions of the Chair you occupy were you now to order the Minister to produce that.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): Arising from that point of order, I am sure the Committee would wish to see this matter as it were compendiously and have regard to what I am reported to have said in c. 1821 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate:
      "To my knowledge, they …"
      I am referring to the matters brought forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a question he put earlier—
      "are not in any document that I can identify or have ever referred to in the course of our considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1821.]
      Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. I think this question of documentation could be settled by my reading from a letter I received from the Research Division of the Library on 4th March:
      "I obtained a list of peers' attendances in 1966 to 1967 in order to answer what was then a request for straightforward statistical information from you. I was provided with the document (which is marked 'Confidential') on the understanding that while it might be freely used for statistical purposes details of individual attendance should not be disclosed."
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: This adds to the remark I made earlier to which I did not receive a reply. We now have it from my hon. Friend that there is in fact a document available, it is in the Library and someone—at this stage we do not know who, but I assume someone acting on be-half of the Executive—is preventing hon. Members from having information which is necessary for them to carry out their Parliamentary duties. My knowledge of the history of this country is that the Executive should not be allowed to carry on any activity to prevent a Member of Parliament carrying out his Parliamentary duties.
      This has been proved. Someone acting on behalf of the Executive has prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and every other hon. Member from obtaining from the Library information which is there available. Mr. Speaker and his predecessors, and Chairmen of Ways and Means, have ruled on numerous occasions, when other not so serious questions have been raised of this type and when it has been said that there should be papers available in the Library, "I will

      241
      give orders that they are made available ". Unless someone gives that order now, we shall be precluded from carrying out our Parliamentary duties. That may well be a breach of privilege. I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to look at this with a view to seeing whether this is not the case in this instance.
      5.0 p.m.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. This raises another point. The Library belongs to the House of Commons. The authority in charge of the Library on our behalf is Mr. Speaker. If the Library has a document which is considered to be helpful to a Member carrying out his duties, and if the Library is not prepared to provide such document to any Member, have we not the right to call for Mr. Speaker and ask him whether he, who is in charge of the Library on our behalf, has given the Library instructions not to produce this document?
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: There is a serious point here concerning the rights of all Members as to documents in the Library. Either there should be a statement by the Government and the production of this document or the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee should be asked to report to the House immediately. This is a direct infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons. This is a very serious matter, and the right hon. Gentleman who is the custodian of Members' rights in the Library should be sent for.
      Mr. Charles Pannell: A reading of the document makes the position perfectly plain. It is certainly open to any hon. Member to get all this information by his own research. I understand why my hon. Friends have done it. There is no doubt that the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Stephens, gave this information to the Library on the basis of confidentiality. If he did not want it to be divulged, he should not have given it. Once the information is given to the Library, Sir David Stephens is not in a position to protect it. Information cannot be given for one reason and declined for another. It cannot be given for some statistical purpose—statistics can be used to prove any argument—and then be with-
      242
      held because it might be inconvenient to an individual peer.
      The House of Commons is a sovereign place. I therefore take it, Mr. Gourlay, that you will raise this matter with Mr. Speaker with a view to his informing the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Library that this information should be imparted to the House of Commons. No doubt Mr. Speaker will know his duty, which is to make this information available to Members. That is crystal clear. It may well be that the Clerk of the Parliaments is rather more sensitive to his own establishment than he would be for the rights of ours. To paraphrase a famous remark which Bonar Law made to a predecessor of Mr. Speakers, "I would not attempt to tell you your duty, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure I know my own ". I am sure that we know our own duty, which is to instruct the Library, which is our servant, to give us the information.
      Mr. Peyton: It seems an odd and bizarre situation that we have got into that in the Library which, at least notion-ally, belongs to the House of Commons there is a document which Members are not allowed to see because it has been issued to the Library as confidential. One is only led to assume from the fact that the Government will not give us this information that it must be embarrassing for them.
      Mr. Gourlay, you are being asked in this point of order to allow a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The least perceptive of us will understand that this is somewhat embaras-sing for you in the absence of much progress this afternoon. I want particularly to ask for your guidance as to whether there is not another remedy besides a Motion to report Progress. Could we have a Motion to send for persons and papers? I accept that such a Motion is not usual. It is very odd that the House of Commons should be forced into taking the formal step of sending for a piece of paper which, at any rate nominally, is already under its control.
      You will recollect, Mr. Gourlay, that on every occasion when the House of Commons appoints a Select Committee from among its membership it confers upon that Select Committee the power to send for persons and papers. Therefore, it would be of interest to the Committee if

      243
      we could have a ruling now as to whether a Motion to send for persons and this particular paper would be admissible as an alternative or as an addendum to the Motion to report Progress. The Committee would be very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Gourlay.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, and to your last Ruling, Mr. Gourlay. You said that it is not necessary for a Minister to produce a document if he summarised it and did not quote from it. This is not what happened, because, according to the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services told the Committee the only bits of the document which were relevant to the discussion then in hand. The right hon. Gentleman patently did not summarise the document, because he left out all the rest of the document relating to other matters. As he quoted figures, he quoted from the document. Therefore, according to the ordinary rules of the House of Commons, and in accordance with your last Ruling, now that it is established that a document exists it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to produce it.
      I once had the honour to serve on the Library Sub-Committee of the House. I always received the fullest co-operation from the Library. It never occurred to me or to any other member of the Library Sub-Committee that the Library was anything but the servant of the House of Commons as a whole. It certainly never occurred to any of us that the Executive by its say-so could prohibit an hon. Member from seeing a document that was in existence. I therefore hope, Mr. Gourlay, that by whatever means are most appropriate you will see that this does not happen again and that the document is now produced for us.
      The Deputy Chairman: I will deal with the two points of order which have been raised up to this stage. The point of order dealing with the document does not arise, since at no point has a Minister in the Chamber quoted from any document. Any reference has been made by way of summary or selection of figures from a document, so that the production of the document on the Table does not arise. The question of the document in the Library is not a matter for the Chair-
      244
      man of this Committee. It is a matter for the Services Committee.
      Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Will you deal with the very important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that there is clearly a document in the Library, that it relates to attendances of peers in a particular Session of Parliament, and that the only reason why Members cannot have access to it is that the figures might embarrass certain individual peers whose attendance is not what it might be? If there is a document containing that kind of information, it is clear that individual Members of the House of Commons can acquire that kind of information by long individual research themselves. Therefore, the only reason this document is not being produced is that presumably the authorities that be know that it will involve Members of the House of Commons in considerable and irrelevant research which they need not undertake if the document were made available.
      The Library is our property. Everything in it is our property. My right hon. Friend asked quite reasonably that Mr. Speaker should direct the staff of the Library to disclose this information, which in any event we could obtain for ourselves by our own considerable research.
      If that is not acceptable, an alternative which may be acceptable is that the House should now adjourn so that right hon. and hon. Members might do their own individual researches to obtain the information which is now denied to them but which is contained in the document. I hope, Mr. Gourlay, that you will address yourself to that solution to the problem.
      Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Surely, what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the document in the Library is entirely valid, and I should like to have your guidance on this matter. It is now a considerable time since the point was first raised, and there is no doubt that the Committee is at one in being seized of the matter on both sides—there is no division save, possibly, between the Front Benches—and in being very angry at being deprived of

      245
      services which it feels it has the right to expect and demand.
      If another Motion were moved, would you now reconsider the matter, Mr. Gourlay, in order to give the Committee a chance to take the necessary action through the usual channels to see that the document is released for the service of hon. and right hon. Members? Alternatively, if you are not prepared to accept such a Motion, I should like your advice on how we could go back into the House, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, who is, I believe, the only person who can take a decision in this matter. It must be the House sitting as a House, not as a Committee, and with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
      As we are now dealing with a matter of some constitutional importance, I urge that we should proceed no further with the Bill until Mr. Speaker in the Chair has given a Ruling about the document and said whether he would take steps, he being our protector in this matter, to see that the document is immediately released from the Library. Further consideration of the Bill in Committee cannot proceed otherwise.
      I ask now, Mr. Gourlay, whether the Clerk could help the Committee in seeing what sort of Motion would be necessary for that procedure to take place, so that Mr. Speaker might act, as he has done from time immemorial, as the protector of the rights and interests of individual Members.
      Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It is out of order to invoke the assistance of the Clerk in open Chamber. He gives what advice he likes, and it is up to the House or the Committee whether it accepts it. However, there is one other person who should be here, and that is the Leader of the House. In my view, the usual channels should bring in the Leader of the House without delay. What are they waiting for? Someone must fetch the Leader of the House. Otherwise, we shall not make any progress. That is what the usual channels are there for. I hope that someone will get on his way. Otherwise, I shall speak until the Leader of the House comes.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: That would be out of order.
      Mr. Pannell: All right. My hon. Friend has not been here long enough—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.
      Mr. Pannell: I am on my point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It is, in effect, the will of the House which is being expressed. If we were to move into a sitting of the House, with Mr. Speaker present, and if the Leader of the House expressed the will of the House, I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker would bow to it because he is our servant, if he is anything at all. I ask, therefore, that the Leader of the House come here. Otherwise, we shall face a procedural difficulty.
      I have been in this situation before, when someone has asked that the Leader of the House be present. Whoever has been the representative of the usual channels present on the Front Bench has taken himself off to acquaint the Leader of the House with what was happening in the Chamber. I think that it is a discourtesy unless the Lord Commissioner moves to do what we wish. We shall remain in great difficulty. No one wants to filibuster or hold up the Committee. You cannot leave the Chair easily, Mr. Gourlay—we understand that—and you cannot suddenly by Resolution meet what has been said. The only one who can unblock the usual channels and tell Mr. Speaker is, I suggest, the Leader of the House, who is the leader of Government business. I ask, therefore, that he be acquanited without further ado and that he comes here. I have no doubt that he will come, because he is an agreeable man.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to select hon. Members to speak. Sir Harmar Nicholls.
      5.15 p.m.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: There is a lot of point in the argument just submitted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It is within the recollection of the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, that you said that no Minister had quoted figures and, on that ground, you could not use your power as Chairman of the Committee to ask that a document be

      247
      produced. You went on to say that the existence of a document and our rights as Members to have it here is not a matter within your competence and that, as Chairman of the Committee, you could do nothing to rectify the omission, if, indeed, there be an omission.
      We recognise your impotence in these circumstances, Mr. Gourlay, and we have a lot of sympathy with you, but, that being the situation as you have explained it, it is unreasonable to expect the Committee to proceed until it has the matter settled or until it is satisfied that the document will not be relevant and helpful to it in the decisions which it has to take. On those new grounds, therefore, I suggest that it would be proper for the Chair favourably to consider accepting the Motion to report Progress, so that we could have the Mace back on the Table and Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Mr. Speaker has the competence and power, as the one in charge of the Library, to see that the document is put into the hands of those hon. Members who require it.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). All who have listened to these points of order during the past hour since the question of the document was first raised must recognise that the Committee is faced with a serious situation. We seek to extricate the Committee from its difficulty, within the rules of order. My right hon. Friend rightly said that the presence of the Leader of the House is essential to assist us, but, with the greatest respect, Mr. Gourlay, even if the Leader of the House were here, it would not necessarily be possible for him to assist us on a point of order. That might well be out of order. As far as I can see, the only way to deal with this matter is by acceptance of the Motion to report Progress.
      If the Leader of the House were here, and if he were to make a fairly lengthy statement about the document and his view in regard to it solely on a point of order, that might be ruled out of order. If we are to deal with the matter fully, and if the Leader of the House is to address us in order to allay the anxieties felt throughout the Committee, the only
      248
      way in which that can properly be done is on a Motion to report Progress.
      I suggest, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that new considerations have arisen since you last ruled on the matter. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West is of essential importance. Plainly, we must have a member of the Cabinet here to make a statement. Either the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Social Services should be here. I suggest that the best way to make it possible for one or other of them to assist the Committee would be on a Motion to report Progress. We should then be able to dispose of the question of the document, the Government would be able to state their view about it, and right hon. and hon. Members would have opportunity to comment. The discussion would then be in order. If, however, we continue trying to deal with a matter so complex as this on points of order, we shall not solve anything according to the rules of the House.
      Once again, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, in order to deal with the question and have a statement from the Front Bench which is in order, I urge that you accept the Motion put originally by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
      Mr. Powell: Before you rule on the submission that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has just made to you, Mr. Gourlay, may I put to you a further point which reinforces it? Since you last ruled on this question, the Committee has had a second brief intervention from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who made an important disclosure. He referred to the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services, reported at c. 1837 of HANSARD of 26th February, which has already been referred to several times. The right hon. Gentleman said that the calculations which he would make available to his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) were long and complicated. The Under-Secretary this afternoon, after a considerable time, disclosed, or appeared to disclose, that the only part of those long and complicated calculations which could be relevant to our debate on Clause 4 was that stated in six lines by the right hon. Gentleman in c. 1844.

      249
      In other words, not to put too fine a point upon it, on 26th February the Secretary of State for Social Services was bluffing the Committee, attempting to convey to his hon. Friend and the Committee that there was a vast series of information on the subject and bearing on the topic which could be made available. We thus have a contradiction which should be resolved, and which can only be resolved by a proper statement from the Government Front Bench on a matter which bears on the deliberations of the Committee.
      On this ground also, I would ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to enable us to put ourselves in order and have the matter clarified by accepting the Motion that we should report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have listened with considerable interest to the points raised, but, in my discretion, I am not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: Further to that point of order, the last thing I want to do is to question your decision, Mr. Gourlay. But a constitutional question is involved. The Minister has given us enough detail of a document which is within the confines of the Palace of Westminster and which should be in the control of us as a sovereign Parliament. But someone who is not even a member of the House of Commons has decided that Members of this Committee should not have the figures it contains available to them when discussing this matter now.
      I seem to remember that at the beginning of each Session we tend to suggest that actions such as this can constitute a grave misdemeanour when someone refuses to give the House information it requires. I believe that it is in order, and it ought to be in order, for us to take whatever action is necessary to make certain that that document, which is in the Library, should be available to every member of the Committee. Failing that, we should take the point made by an hon. Member opposite earlier and at least have time for each and every one of us to go to the Library to do our individual researches. Then we could individually find the figures, however long it may take us, which we could find if the document were made available.
      250
      Therefore, with all humility, I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to reconsider your decision purely on the constitutional question of whether it is possible for the Committee to continue discussing the matter intelligently before it has had before it the document which is obviously available in the Library. I quite understand your position. If it is impossible for you to give the necessary instructions that the document should be made available, the only thing we can do is to move to report progress and to bring in Mr. Speaker, who, being in charge of the Library, could give the necessary decision.
      We should not be doing the nation's business properly if we continued to discuss the Bill before having before us the document which we now have evidence is available within the Palace of Westminster and is in our control. Yet, by the action of an outside person, we are prevented from seeing it.
      Mr. Sheldon: Over the past two or three weeks I have spent some time in testing the assumption of the model on which the House of Lords was to be created, and which is particularly embodied in the Amendment under consideration. As a result, I set in chain a number of projects designed to assist us in trying to find whether the model selected by the Government was a good one, or even if it was just adequate.
      I have come to conclusions different from that of the Government, and I have a very strong factual background which I propose to use if I catch your eye in the debate on the Amendment, Mr. Gourlay. But the crucial document, that which is more important than any other, is a document that my right hon. Friend said he would make available, and its absence makes a really serious investigation extremely difficult. Now that he is here, I must ask him whether he will reconsider the matter and make the document available to us.
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I apologise to the Committee. I had a really unavoidable engagement outside, but I came back directly it was over.
      At no point did I talk about a document; I talked about figures we had, which I was prepared to make available, and did make available straight away that

      251
      evening. They were figures that we had in our notes. I gather that since then my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has been discussing the situation with our Librarian. He did not tell me about it. The first time I heard about it was this afternoon. It would have been easier for me if I had known. I understand that none of the figures with which we are dealing is secret.
      Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
      Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend asked me to reply to him.
      Mr. Sheldon: I should just like to intervene on this point. It was not a discourtesy to him. I took this matter up with the Leader of the House of Lords, who I thought was more directly responsible.
      Mr. Crossman: I was talking about our Librarian. My hon. Friend talked to the Librarian and I gather that he was told that in the Research Department of the Library there was a document which had been provided by the other place on the basis of confidence.
      I said from the start that I have no earthly interest in preventing people from seeing the basis of calculation on these subjects. I think that what my hon. Friend was told by the Library Clerk was very much in order. He was told that the document was available on a confidential basis, and that he could not reveal it here. The most sensible proposal would be—
      Mr. John Mendelson: It was confidential to whom?
      Mr. Crossman: It had been passed to the Research Department on a confidential basis. My hon. Friend will confirm that. I am explaining the situation as I have learnt it only in the course of this afternoon. My hon. Friend must not think that I am acting in bad faith here.
      Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
      Mr. Crossman: I think that it will be as well if I try to make a statement.
      Mr. Mendelson: Confidential to whom?
      Mr. Crossman: I gather that this research from the House of Lords is in the Research Department of the House of Commons, and has been lent for research purposes. When my hon. Friend requested the use of it, he was told that he could see it on a confidential basis, but that it was not a laid document.
      Mr. Mendelson: Confidential to whom?
      Mr. Crossman: I am making a suggestion to the Committee. I did not know of the existence of the document. If it is the feeling of the Committee that it should be laid and that we should study it, the most courteous thing for us to do would be to send a message to the other place suggesting that it should be laid as a document on the Table here. I would be prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to join me in sending the request to the House of Lords that it be made available as a document for the debate.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has been most helpful. It would be very useful, though the procedure he suggested is a little cumbrous, if a message were sent to another place asking for permission to use the document. I must seek your guidance, Mr. Gourlay, about what we are to do now. The contents of this document were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in our debate on the Amendment which is now before us. As the right hon. Gentleman quoted them and the then occupant of the Chair did not call him to order, I must assume that they are relevant to this Amendment.
      The procedure which the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated may take a little time. We are, nonetheless, told that something which is relevant to this Amendment can be made available to us at some moment in the future. But I seek your help, Mr. Gourlay, as to what the Committee are to do now. If we are to proceed with this Amendment, which we may discuss for some little time, it is unlikely that this document will be made available before the Patronage Secretary moves the Closure. Therefore, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, would you accept a Motion to report Progress, so that we may not

      253
      continue with this Amendment until information which the right hon. Gentleman himself has accepted as relevant to the Amendment is before the Committee?
      Mr. Crossman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I have, at present, no evidence that the figures I quoted were an extract from this document which is in our research place. They came from our document which we are using as the basis for research—[Interruption.]—Let me repeat: I quoted the figures that we had available here. I now hear, for the first time, this afternoon, that there is available in the Research Department here a document from the House of Lords which almost certainly also includes the same figures as I had. Therefore, I do not know how far this document, which my right hon. Friend heard was in the Library and which was offered to him for examination, is relevant. It may be a very relevant document. I took the figures which in our view were the relevant figures, and I still maintain that they were relevant. There may be others, but I quoted in good faith—[Interruption.]
      Sir Cyril Osborne: From what?
      Mr. Crossman: I had some notes here and I quoted from them. There seems to be an extraordinary desire to create mystery. In the debate some days ago, I was asked on what figures I based my statement. I then said that I would read aloud the figures that I had in my notes. I read the figures that we had and said that they were the essential extracts. My hon. Friend has gone into great research and discovered that in the Library there exists a document which I have not yet seen but which almost certainly, if it is on the same subject, has the same figures in it. There is no more mystery than that.
      Mr. Powell: On a point of order. Some time ago, Mr. Gourlay, you advised the Committee that, so far as the Chair was concerned, there was no document in existence and that no document had been quoted by the Minister, that the Minister had merely put certain figures before the Committee. If I may respectfully say so, many hon. Members would not have said otherwise than you did on
      254
      that occasion. Since then, the right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee two things perfectly clearly and perfectly definitely—that there was a document which he referred to in the hearing of the Committee as "our document", in contrast to a document in the Library, and that he quoted from that document—he used the word "quote"—and that he offered the House extracts. Now that it has been established, upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that a Minister has quoted extracts to this Committee from a document which exists in the possession of the Government, I ask that you should instruct that the Orders of the House in this respect are complied with.
      Mr. Michael Foot: The point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is extremely serious and returns to one of the original points of order this afternoon. I earnestly plead to you, Mr. Gourlay, that we should put our discussion in order. I submit seriously that the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services, although it has greatly assisted the Committee in more ways than one, was a statement which was barely in order, because it was not a discussion of how we should proceed immediately but a reference to the document itself and to a comparison between documents, and it was a statement that the Minister would be glad, at some future stage, to provide the Committee with certain facilities.
      I suggest that such a statement as that would have been much more in order if it had been made on the basis of the Minister himself moving to report Progress. That would also give the House the opportunity, which, after all, this Motion is designed to give the House in such circumstances, to comment upon a statement of a Minister of this importance. Therefore, if we are to avoid the difficulties of false points of order and people being prevented from elaborating serious arguments, if we are to address ourselves to the immediate question which arises from the Secretary of State's statement—that is, whether it is right and proper for the Committee to proceed with the Bill until we have received this information and until it is available to all hon. Members—it would be much better for this discussion to take place on the

      255
      Motion to report Progress. That is the only way in which this discussion can be put in order and the Committee can be enabled to proceed in an orderly manner.
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is a matter for the Chair to decide the application of the rules of order and not one for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I applied the same latitude to the Minister as to all other hon. Members who have raised points of order this afternoon; otherwise, possibly, the debate would have been much shorter.
      Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State turned round a few moments ago and said that he must not be accused of saying anything in bad faith. I do not know what gave him that idea. I simply interrupted when he used the term "confidential to them", and asked "Confidential to whom?" There was no question of bad faith, and if he came to that mistaken conclusion, I can only think that he was a little too sensitive.
      The point at issue is a simple one but my right hon Friend must answer it. That is, how can it be that another place or an officer of another place supplies a document to an administrator in this House and makes it, ipso facto, confidential? That is what my right hon. Friend has said—that it was given to the members of the Library or the Research Department, a sub-department of the Library, as being confidential. Does that mean that hon. Members of this House, in matters concerning their own business, are precluded from examining this kind of evidence?
      To whom is it confidential? For instance, the Library sometimes—rightly—gives scholars who are not Members of the House permission to come here and engage in research. Would it be open to the Librarian to give this document or show these facts and figures to such a research student while refusing them to others? Is it possible that it is confidential to an officer of the House, although there is no authority to any member of the administration of another place to make such a decision that it is confidential only to them? My right hon. Friend must clear up this point first before we discuss the major issue which is involved.
      Mr. Crossman: I am sorry if I was hasty. I have now checked again about the situation. It is difficult for me, because it is second-hand, but I think that this is the situation. The hon. Gentleman went to the Library, and asked for the information. The Library then approached the other place and the other place said that it would make the information available on a confidential basis. This I gather is exactly what happened. That is all I know. That is the so-called document. It was not there at the time when it was asked for. It was made available. My hon. Friend said that he would rather not read it on a confidential basis and that is why we are discussing it now. If there is this document, we should suggest to the House of Lords that it should be made available to us for public discussion.
      I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that, if there is a document, there is only one, for which he asked from the House of Lords. As for my reference, the document I was referring to was my notes.
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      Mr. Crossman: It happens to be true. It is difficult for me not to be impatient, because it is perfectly clear that there are some people who simply want to mystify for mystifications sake. There is no mystery at all. What happened the other night was that I said:
      "It may be for the convenience of the Committee to shorten the discussion. I made no reference to a document; I have referred to figures. There is no secrecy about these figures. They are figures which anyone can obtain by studying the attendances in the Lords during the last five or six years ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1842.]
      I then read aloud the section of the figures I thought relevant and which I had available.
      My hon. Friend now says that he has obtained from the Librarian knowledge that the other place could have made available to him, on a confidential basis, certain information which the House of Lords has. I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole.
      Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. All that may or may not be so, and to a certain extent the Secretary of State has helped the Committee in that, as was pointed out some time ago, he has now offered to send to another place to see whether we can get hold of this document. That is not the point. The point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) some time ago, and you will surely not be prepared to represent to the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, that we should continue, or that we are in a position to continue, this important discussion before seeing this document? No one who has listened to these points of order would deny that on both sides of the Committee there is great interest in what it contains. I cannot see how we can continue this debate without the document We are seeking your guidance now as to how to fill in the time. How else can we do so other than move to report Progress?
      The only other point of order I would seek to make is that when we were listening to the Secretary of State it seemed that he confounded confusion by producing yet another document, which he now calls his notes. It lies in the memory of most of us who were in Committee at the time that the right hon. Gentleman in referring to the figures quoted them as coming from "our document ".
      Mr. Crossman: I quoted verbatim exactly what I said.
      Mr. Hastings: The Secretary of State seemed to be accusing hon. Members on both sides, or some hon. Members on one or the other side of the Committee, of seeking in these points of order to mystify for the sake of mystification. That cannot go by without remark. In the last hour and a quarter I have not heard any point of order which could possibly lay itself open to the kind of accusation that has been made. In the interests of the progress of the Bill, and of the spirit in the Committee, which up to now, in spite of this very great difficulty we are in, has been remarkably temperate, the Secretary of State should withdraw that remark.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. In view of the statement
      258
      made by my right hon. Friend, that he agrees that the document ought to be made available to the Committee and should be laid on the Table of the House, and since it is quite obvious that such a document is absolutely essential before we begin to discuss the Amendments, and as all hon. Members would like to look at this document closely, it seems that we have reached a position where, while you are not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress, Mr. Gourlay, we really ought to suspend the Sitting while the document is obtained, laid before the House, duplicated and perused by all hon. Members. After a suitable period of time has elapsed, I suggest that we could proceed to discuss the Amendment.
      As to the very mystifying document, the other document which my right hon. Friend suggested was only his notes, I will not raise that, but I ask that in the circumstances the Committee should be suspended forthwith pending production of the document.
      5.45 p.m.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Before I make my point of order, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to put himself correct with the Committee. For him to suggest that he did not say that he referred to "our document" is wrong, and it is within the recollection of all of us. It may have been a slip of the tongue; if so, let him say so. To make that comment and then deny it when it is within the memory of all of us is not in the traditions of the Committee.
      My point of order, Mr. Gourlay, is that it has been made clear that there is a document in the Library. The Library belongs to the Committee and the Committee is of the opinion that the information in that document would help it carry out its duties. At that point the situation of the Chair comes into consideration. We are very jealous of the situation of the Chair, and of the reputation of its present occupant. We do not want that to come into question. If the Chair could see its way clear to accept the Motion to report Progress, which would be the same as a suspension, and then the Committee voted upon it, if the Committee voted against seeing the document the onus would rest upon the Committee and the Parliamentary position would be safeguarded.

      259
      But as at this minute it is the Chair which is frustrating the Committee in having sight of a doument which it ought to have, I would suggest to the Chair that it could perhaps reconsider its decision, accept the Motion, and then let a vote of the Committee decide what will happen. That would put the Chair in a much clearer and more satisfactory position.
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. Whoever may be frustrating the Committee, it is certainly not the Chair.
      Sir John Rodgers: I should like to ask for your judgment, Mr. Gourlay, on the remark of the Secretary of State, and whether it is in order to accuse hon. Members, in raising points of order, of mystifying for the sake of mystification. That seems to be an insult to all hon. Members. The Secretary of State has definitely said that there is a document—indeed that it is in the House of Commons—from the House of Lords, that he understands it is classified as "confidential" and that he is willing at some future date to approach the House of Lords and see whether this document can be downgraded from "confidential" and made available to members of the Committee. Arguments galore have been put forward proving that it is essential for the proper consideration of these Amendments that this document should be available. I therefore appeal to the Secretary of State to move the adjournment of the House so that he can go through the processes which he is willing to do, approach the other place to see whether the document can be declassified and then allow us two, three or four days to study the document. Then we can proceed with the Bill.
      Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I apologise to the Committee for having missed the first 25 minutes of the points of order. The Secretary of State has helped the Committee to some extent, but he has put us into greater confusion by referring to his notes. Where did he get the information contained in his notes? Did he get the confidential document in the Library?
      Having referred to the document, the Secretary of State did not say whether he would produce it. He said that he would ask for the document to be produced in the future. I do not see how
      260
      the Committee can proceed with its business until it has the document. Requests have been made to the Patronage Secretary, in his absence, that he should send for the Leader of the House, who is the only Cabinet Minister able effectively to deal with the problem. If I may have the attention of the Patronage Secretary—is he reading the document?—[Laughter.]. The Leader of the House is a courteous Member of the House whose one desire is to oblige the Committee. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the position we are in, but perhaps one of the Whips on duty could be asked to go for the Leader of the House, and if he were able to come along I am sure he would save a lot of time and many points of order.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the points of order. May I stress a further point which may not have occurred to those who have not participated so closely in the Bill? The figures refer directly to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), which at a later stage we may reach. If we proceed with that Amendment on the basis of not having obtained the figures, we shall be in the extremely invidious position of seeking to proceed with the debate upon the basis that the Minister in charge has said that he thinks it is right that such evidence should be available to us. He has tried to help the Committee in this matter.
      In parenthesis, I accept what my right hon. Friend says about which documents he has had and which he has not had, but nobody can deny, and he has said it as plainly as he can, that he thinks it is desirable, if the Committee wishes it, that the document should be at the disposal of the Committee. What the Minister has said was not referring to the procedure of the Bill as a whole; it was referring directly to the procedure of this Amendment. If we proceed with the Amendment now we shall be debating a matter in the absence of a document which the Minister has said should be available to us. We shall also be proceeding to debate it on the basis that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will have to recite again the procedure of what happened when he went to the Library and why he refused, in my belief rightly, to accept the document with the limitations of confidentiality.

      261
      Mr. Gourlay, with the utmost respect to the Chair, it would be most undesirable if this controversy should involve controversy about the attitude of the Chair. I do not make the proposition that any backbencher, least of all myself. would have the right to rule on any of these questions; of course not. But I seriously suggest that the only way in which we can escape from this difficulty is to have a discussion in which we are not merely raising matters on points of order but are enabled to discuss the ramifications which arise.
      If we do that, we shall put the proceedings in better order, and in such a way that points of order would not be pressed. We should then be able to discover, being fully in order, how soon the document would be available, and whether it would be available in time for us to proceed with the Amendment later today. We should be able to discover all these things according to the proper procedures of the House, procedures that have been designed precisely to deal with such emergencies as this. At certain times the House may reach a point when it cannot properly proceed with its business on the original basis and a Motion to report progress may be moved. The House is flexible, and I submit, with all respect, that the Chair must also be flexible.
      I hope that we can put the matter in order, but if we do not, and if it is ruled by the Chair that we must not debate this matter on the Motion to report Progress, we shall then have to proceed to the Amendment and discuss it on the basis of the absence of information which my hon. Friend thinks it is essential for the Committee to have, and which the Minister, who has also seen the information, says it is advisable for us to have. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the Secretary of State for Social Services know what is in the document. It may be that the Attorney-General knows something about it, but he has kept it very well concealed from the Committee if he does. However that may be, I earnestly plead that we should be enabled to put the matter in order, and, if nobody else will, the best thing would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to move the Motion, and we should then see whether he would have
      262
      a better chance of getting it accepted than would other hon. Members.
      Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend has said that his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) knew that the document was essential and that I did. I have no idea what is in the document, or even that it is a document. I know that my hon. Friend asked for certain data from the Research Department, that he was told that it was available on a confidential basis, and that he did not want to have it revealed on a confidential basis. I have no notion of what the information is, nor am I, therefore, aware whether or not it is relevant to the Amendment. All I was saying was that when any hon. Friend of mine says that he wants information made available I am on balance in favour of doing so, not because I know it to be relevant but because I want to be courteous to my hon. Friend and make such information available.
      Mr. J. C. Jennings: On a separate point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Like many other back-benchers, I have for a long time been worried about the restriction of rights of back-benchers. There is more to this question than the availability of statistics, although that is essentially important, and that is the restriction of the right of a back-bencher to have made available to him something which is in the House of Commons Library and which becomes our property.
      Mr. Gourlay, you said very rightly that you have no jurisdiction and no powers over matters affecting that document, but one person in this House has, and I refer to Mr. Speaker. He is the guardian of our rights. I think that the simplest way out of the deplorable mess into which the Committee has got itself is for you to look at the possibility of suspending this Sitting. Whether or not that is in your power, you have to decide. I think that it is within your power. If it is not and not within the rules of order, as we are ruled in this House largely by precedents I suggest that we create a precedent.
      I think that we should suspend for some time, that you should report to Mr. Speaker, that we should have Mr. Speaker back in the Chair, with the Leader of the House and the appropriate Ministers present, and settle this question

      263
      of the document once and for all so that the debate can proceed in the ordinary way.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. Gourlay, I wish to support the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and ask him that we should be allowed to put ourselves in order and under proper procedure.
      I notice that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has just left the Chamber—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reappear because his presence is relevant to this discussion. We have heard many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite proposing that the Committee should be allowed to put itself in order, but customarily such a request and such a Motion is not suggested from the back benches opposite. It carries much more weight if such a proposal is made from the Front Bench—
      Mr. Roy Roebuck: Why should it?
      Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) asks the relevant question, "Why should it?" There is, of course, no reason why it should. The fact remains that it does. Such a Motion carries more force if it is moved from one of the Front Benches.
      In the interests of putting the Committee in order and in proper procedure, the right hon. Member for Barnet should move the Motion. There may be something hindering him from that. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend are so much involved in this matter—I hesitate to use the expression "in cahoots", though it is a time-honoured Parliamentary phrase—that he does not wish to do his proper constitutional job and move this Motion. We cannot force him to, but I suggest that in normal circumstances if such a Motion came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you, Mr. Gourlay, following tradition and precedent, could give that much more attention and weight to it.
      If that does not happen, and if my right hon. Friend is not prepared to move such a Motion, then the only remaining course is for hon. Members to take matters
      264
      more into their own hands and press such a Motion. In view of the weight behind this request and the reluctance of both Front Benches to exercise their normal function and move a Motion to report Progress, I suggest that you, Mr. Gourlay, should give serious consideration to the proposal.
      Mr. Eric Lubbock: Mr. Gourlay, I wonder whether I can assist the Committee and you in particular in resolving this dilemma? I apologise for not having been present throughout the whole of the period covered by these points of order. I have been attending a steering meeting of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee which, I think, has done rather better work today than this Committee has done—
      Hon. Members: Oh.
      Sir D. Glover: That is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw.
      Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Gourlay, that was no reflection on the Chair. It was a remark addressed to the Committee on the basis of the speeches on points of order that I have heard since I entered the Chamber.
      As I understand it, we are dealing with points of order. We are not discussing a Motion to report progress. These points of order centre on whether a particular document which is in the Library of the House of Commons should be produced before the debates on this Amendment and those which follow it are allowed to proceed.
      Certain hon. Members have suggested to you that, if you wish to do so, you have the power to suspend the proceedings of the Committee. That, surely, is a matter of fact which can be settled easily—
      The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I might assist the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to suspend the sitting. However, it is within my power to accept a Motion to report Progress.
      Mr. Lubbock: That, at any rate, clears away one point which has been troubling the Committee. One hon. Member on this side suggested that you have the power to suspend the sitting and that you should exercise that power in order that the document might be produced. Now we know that you do not have any such

      265
      power. Therefore, we can come on to the other points of order raised by hon. Members on both sides, and it would be for the convenience of the Committee if those points of order could be disposed of as they occur. I have heard several hon. Members on each side of the Committee making the same point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
      The Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman would come quickly to his point of order, the Chair could give a Ruling in his case.
      Mr. Lubbock: I will come to my point of order. Hon. Members have all prefaced their remarks by saying that theirs is a fresh point of order. My point of order is this, and I trust that you will be able to give a Ruling on it without allowing hon. Members opposite to leap in and pursue it under the guise of making fresh points of order—
      Sir D. Glover: That is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw.
      Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am already being addressed on a point of order.
      Mr. Lubbock: This document has been referred to as being in the Library of the House of Commons, but the Secretary of State for Social Services assured the Committee that it was not within his knowledge that these figures existed and that he was merely quoting from his notes. Therefore, he is not compelled to produce this document, as provided by Erskine May, and no points of order arise—
      Sir D. Glover: We have had all this.
      Mr. Lubbock: No point of order arises as to that document—
      Sir D. Glover: We had all this hours ago.
      Mr. Lubbock: I am merely making a suggestion. If the Secretary of State quotes figures which he has in his notes, I do not see how he can be asked to lay those notes before the Committee in printed form. Yesterday evening, I made a very interesting speech on the number
      266
      of sites provided for gipsies. I did not have time to get out all the figures, but I was not asked to lay them before the House—
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and never will be.
      Mr. Lubbock: I was not—[Interruption.]
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Committee will allow the Chair to hear the point of order.
      Mr. Lubbock: My point of order is just as much a point of order as those to which I have listened this afternoon. I suggest that we are making very heavy weather of it if every time that a Minister produces figures out of courtesy to the House and because he thinks that they will assist hon. Members in arriving at a conclusion on an Amendment, he is asked to produce some non-existent document from which he is alleged to be quoting. The fact that some other document exists in the House of Commons Library, which may or may not contain figures similar to those used by the Secretary of State, is absolutely irrelevant.
      Mr. Heller: The hon. Gentleman might think so.
      Mr. Lubbock: Therefore, I suggest that the debate should be allowed to proceed on the Amendment—[Interruption.] If it then appears to the Committee, in its wisdom, that sufficient information has not been provided to enable it to arrive at a conclusion, then any hon. Member is at liberty to move the Motion to report progress, and if, having listened to the debate, you, Mr. Gourlay, in your wisdom, decide that not sufficient information has been provided to enable the Committee to reach a conclusion, you could accept such a Motion and the Committee could come to a decision whether to report Progress. Would not that be a much better way to approach this problem than having to listen to endless points of order throughout the night?
      The Deputy Chairman: I take it that the hon. Member is not moving to report Progress. Mr. Michael Foot.
      Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose—
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have called Mr. Michael Foot. Other hon. Members should resume their seats.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Gourlay, would you be prepared at this stage to accept a Motion to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again?
      The Deputy Chairman: Having considered the points of order which have been raised during the past hour or so, I am now prepared to accept such a Motion.
      Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move,
      That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      I think the Committee will be eternally grateful to you, Mr. Gourlay, for accepting the Motion. If there were any doubts about the desirability of such a Motion being accepted, the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) were conclusive. He made it clear that it would be impossible for the Committee to proceed in an orderly manner, particularly because some hon. Members who had not been present in the earlier part of these proceedings—and he has honourably admitted being one—were coming forward to tell us how we should proceed. I do not think that was a proper way for the Committee to proceed.
      We have been through a period during which we have had many revelations made which need to be sorted out and cleared up in the interests of the Committee both on this occasion and on future occasions. Therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services comes to speak on the Motion, as I presume he will, he will survey the events that have occurred over the past hour or so, relate them to what occurred before, and recognise the serious concern and reasons why we believe it is necessary for the matter to be reconsidered.
      As I said on an earlier point of order, I am not questioning the good faith of my right hon. Friend in the way that he has presented these matters to the Committee. I am sure that the reason why he intervened when we were reaching the end of our proceedings on 26th February was to enlighten the Committee and, as he believed, to assist the proceedings. But
      268
      I am sure that he will agree that those of us who have followed the proceedings and consider this to be a very important Bill—a Bill to which we are thoroughly opposed but which we propose to examine with care—have some reason to consider that there is, at any rate, a superficial contradiction between some of the things that he said on 26th February.
      My right hon. Friend said,
      "… I will consider making them "—
      the figures—
      "available to him "—
      my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—
      "although they are long and complicated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837.]
      6.15 p.m.
      Later, when he gave the figures, they proved to be brief and simple. Therefore, there was a conflict. This can happen to anybody late at night, but it happened to my right hon. Friend early in the evening.
      I do not wish to make anything of a slip of the tongue, which I am sure it was when my right hon. Friend referred to "our document ". We have been discussing in his absence whether there was a document. When my right hon. Friend referred to "our document ", it naturally caused a sensation on the Treasury Bench—and some of the casualties have now left. That was one difficulty.
      I am sure that was an entirely innocent remark. It was not done to deceive the Committee in any sense. Indeed, I believe that when the Committee considers what was said by my right hon. Friend in his interventions—and I think that they could have been even more extensive and clear had they been made on a Motion such as I am now moving rather than on points of order, and my right hon. Friend might not have found himself in these difficulties—in fairness it must be recognised by everyone that he had indeed offered to the Committee, in the plainest possible terms, a manner by which we should deal with this matter in a proper way.
      He said that he was not complaining, that he had not been able to examine all these matters, but he understood that there was a document in the Library

      269
      which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had talked about with the Librarian. My right hon. Friend said that he had not examined that document in detail and was not sure whether it accorded with his own notes, but if it contained important information he was strongly in favour, if the Committee wanted it, of its being made available.
      In a subsequent intervention my right hon. Friend said, "Of course, I cannot judge whether the information is relevant or not ". Some of us presume to judge that it is bound to be relevant, because this information deals with the numbers of those who have been attending the House of Lords during the period 1967–68. This information presumably elaborates that point, which is the precise point with which we shall be dealing at some time on the Amendment. Therefore, I cannot understand the part of my right hon. Friend's statement when he imagines there is any dubiety about these figures being directly relevant to the debate. I believe that the Committee will come to the conclusion that these figures must be relevant to the Amendment. If that is the case, I suggest that the argument for the Motion which I am now moving is overwhelming. It would be an extremely peculiar situation if we decided to proceed further with the Bill tonight, because, although we do not know for certain, this evidence cannot be summarised briefly. It can be summarised in the sense that my right hon. Friend summarised it on the evening of 26th February, but it is not evidence which can be dealt with in that way. There would not have been the complications if that was the case.
      The document contains lists of Members of the House of Lords, the occasions on which they have attended, and whether they were created peers or life peers. Presumably these are dissected in the document. Therefore, I submit that it is not a very brief document; it must be an elaborate affair. I suggest that we should have time to consider that document now.
      I hone to have the support of the Opposition Front Bench. At Question time today the Leader of the Opposition was very testy with me when I suggested that we might today have had the debate on mortgage interest rates and tomorrow
      270
      and on some other occasion have a further debate about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition jumped up and said that we should be interfering with the rights of hon. Members, that it would not give hon. Members time to consider the important questions that we are to debate tomorrow, and that it would be inconvenient for hon. Members. By that same test, how inconvenient is it that we should proceed tonight to discuss matters which will not have been properly assimilated by hon. Members?
      [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
      I hope very much that, on consideration, the Government will support the Motion. I am glad that the Leader of the House has come in to assist our proceedings. Some of us wish to examine the figures involved in this Amendment. In previous discussions we have done our best to discover how these figures might have been arrived at. These figures of one-third, 72, and 230, are all interlocked and interdependent, and we have been trying to discover how they were arrived at. If one figure is altered, the others are altered.
      Those three figures were involved with a fourth one, the figure of the amount of money which would be paid. Those four figures are, therefore, all dependent one on the other. The Government seem to have had a kind of four-pronged scale into which these figures were placed. One of the figures, the item dealing with salary to be paid, has been removed. Many of us argue that all the other figures are thereby altered, but in any case we have had no indication from the Government of how they arrived at these figures.
      Did the Government start by saying, "We want a House of Lords of about 230 Members "? Or did they start by saying that Members of the other House must retire at 72? Or did they say that they must have attended one-third of the sittings to qualify before continuing to retain voting rights? One can start from each direction and arrive at the same result. Which was the number the Government first thought of? That is what we have to discover. These documents may reveal the answers, but for the life of me I have not been able to discover how these figures were ever devised.
      I do not know whether they have such a common or garden utensil in Whitehall, but I think that it would have been much wiser to have settled all these matters with a Departmental pin. I think they would have arrived at much better results if they had done it that way. However, we are apparently advised by the Strabismical statisticians in Whitehall that this is the only way in which we can proceed. So much are we advised by them that this is the only way we can proceed that so far the Government have insisted that there shall be no Amendments to the Bill.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Dr. Strabismus of Utrecht?
      Mr. Foot: He got his name from the squint-eyed statisticians in Whitehall. What I am seeking to show is that the Government have proceeded with this Bill by saying that these are the only figures which will arrive at the results they want, and they have then proceeded further, and this is the second reason why we should not continue with the Bill today.
      The Government have suggested—or, shall we say, connived at?—an arrangement whereby no Amendments shall be accepted to the Bill. I can understand the sense of shock which goes through the Committee when I say that. It would be scandalous if a matter of such constitutional importance as this were to go through the Committee on the basis that no Amendments would be accepted, purely for the reason, as we shall all understand, that if the Government can get the Bill through on that basis they might be able to avoid a Report stage.
      Our suspicions are fed—I am not sure which of my right hon. Friends is responsible for this, but I imagine that the Leader of the House must take the primary responsibility, although he must share it with the Home Secretary who has been absent hurt from our debate today—by the fact that some Government Amendments were placed on the Notice Paper and then removed. We cannot understand why that occurred, unless, of course, our suspicions are justified. We cannot understand why the Government put down Amendments to the Bill and then withdrew them when they found
      272
      that the Bill might be in some difficulties. Perhaps the Official Opposition could assist us on this aspect of the matter. My invitation not having been accepted, it seems that once again we are to be disappointed, and are not to receive any help from the Opposition Front Bench.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It might reassure the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) if I tell him that three of the Home Secretary's deepest admirers have taken it upon themselves to replace on the Notice Paper two of those three Amendments, and, therefore, if the Chair in its wisdom decides in the process of selection to give the same attention to those three right hon. Members as it would have given to the Home Secretary it will be possible to debate those Amendments.
      Mr. Foot: If an association of the deepest admirers of the Home Secretary is active in the House, I am staggered and rather resentful that I was not approached. Be that as it may, I am glad that these Amendments have been put down. I trust that the Government will give us an assurance that there is no arrangement for, and no idea of, pushing the Bill through without Amendment. It would be a most extraordinary state of affairs if that were to happen, particularly when one looks at the figures we are discussing.
      It is suggested that the whole of the elaborate contrivance of the size of the future House of Lords, the age level of the future House of Lords and the attendance record of the future House of Lords should be dependent on some figures which refer to only one year's analysis. That is what it comes to. The figures that lie behind the analysis have so far been denied to the House, and on that extraordinary basis, on that tiny statistical point, this extraordinary pyramid in reverse has been erected. We are asked to accept this elaborate constitutional structure almost without Amendment, solely to suit the convenience of the Report stage which the Government may have in mind. This is the basis on which we are being asked to proceed.
      I think that the Committee would be best according with its dignity if it insisted that the proceedings of the Bill shall go on no longer today, certainly

      273
      not until we have all had an opportunity of examining this evidence. We should not proceed until we have an undertaking from the Government that they will be prepared to accept Amendments from the Committee on this Clause and on future Clauses.
      If we get all those undertakings from the Government it will not be necessary to proceed with the debate today. We can adjourn it to some future date, when many of those who have come into the discussion late will be able to acquaint themselves with the problems, and if there are merits in the case—although those who have attended these discussions most assiduously have not been able to discover them—we shall be able to discover them at some later stage.
      In the meantime, I suggest that the Motion which I have moved is for the benefit of the Government, for the benefit of the Committee and for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides, and I hope that it will be received with universal acclaim.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very glad indeed, Sir, that your predecessor in the Chair after admittedly giving the matter a certain amount of consideration did in due course decide to accept the Motion to report Progress as moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It was certainly an example of the happy coincidences that mark our proceedings that he did so more or less coincidently with the arrival in the Chamber of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons. This is very fortunate because, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying, this afternoon he has been rather like the Duke of Plaza Toro leading his regiment from behind. Now that he is present I am sure he will be able to sort out our troubles. Does he wish to do so now?
      The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of being discourteous in not being here. I was involved in another important Committee, as he knows. I was also due to be at another Committee, the Services Committee, which affects all Members of the House. But when news of the proceed-
      274
      ings here were conveyed to me I considered the situation and sought information and came down.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is always very courteous in his attendances upon the House. I was welcoming his arrival because I hoped at least that he might be more skilful than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or even his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in sorting out the tangles into which his colleagues have got the Committee. I very much hope that if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to listen to the proposal I am putting to him he may be successful in this, which would undoubtedly help the progress of the Bill.
      As I believe neither you, Sir, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will be aware, since neither of you were in the Committee at that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in what was, I am quite sure, an attempt to be helpful to the Committee said that he would be prepared to send a message to another place in respect of one of the documents we are discussing—the document under confidential cover in the Library—asking as I understand it to have the confidential limitation on it removed so that it could be disclosed to hon. Members. That was a helpful suggestion which carried with it the clear implication that in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman himself it is relevant to a discussion of the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
      Mr. Crossman: The suggestion carried the implication that if hon. Members felt there was a document relevant to this Bill in general which they thought should be made available, the contents of which I did not know, I saw no harm in seeking to make it available. It did not imply that it was relevant to this or any other Amendment.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will recall that it arose from a discussion of figures which he gave in our previous Sitting in a speech which at least purported to be relevant to this particular Amendment. It may well be that the Chairman nodded for a moment and let the right hon.

      275
      Gentleman go out of order. But unless the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he was out of order on the previous occasion, it is quite plain that this document in the context in which he mentioned it is a document which he accepts could be relevant to the discussion of the Amendment.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend think it possible that if the House of Lords, having placed a document in the Library of the House of Commons, seeks to impose upon the House of Commons an insistence that this document should remain confidential to us, that is the best reason in the world for reforming the House of Lords and getting on with the Bill?
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a fascinating argument but I would hesitate to share my hon. Friend's confidence that the contents of a document which neither he nor I have seen could conceivably be relevant to sweeping constitutional reform. I lack my hon. Friend's courage. Perhaps a little I lack his confidence to proceed in the absence of evidence. We come to the fact that this document which we and the Government must accept is relevant to our proceedings on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his helpful suggestion did not tell us how long it would take.
      Most of us who are familiar with the proceedings that take place in this building know that they proceed as a kind of stately minuet. There is no undue expedition about them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: how long will it be before the answer of another place will be available? Will it be available tonight? Will it be available tomorrow? It is really no good the right hon. Gentleman making this offer to the Committee unless he is prepared to tell us how soon he can produce results. Will it produce results tonight? If so, at what time? Will it produce results tomorrow? If so, will it be in time for our sitting tomorrow, because we cannot weigh the value of this contribution unless and until we know how soon it will produce results.
      Sir C. Osborne: Surely the document would have to be printed as an official
      276
      paper so that every hon. Member of the Committee could have a copy. There could not be just one copy which we could take it in turns to read, for that would take forever. Could it be printed tonight so that we might study it?
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not as worried about that aspect as my hon. Friend for there are processes by which instantaneous photography can take place and if the Leader of the House seriously wants to get the document he can do so. But I want to know his intentions.
      Mr. Roebuck: The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about having evidence and proceeding in the absence of evidence. What makes him so sure that this confidential document actually exists? Has he seen it or should we set up a Select Committee to investigate whether or not it exists? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) might have been given incorrect information.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have sufficient regard for that hon. Member whom I see in another capacity, to know that when he says he has seen a document it exists. This is almost the one certain point in an otherwise uncertain state of affairs. I accept that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has seen it but has been informed by the Office of the Library that it exists.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a number of eventualities on the assumption that the noble Lords will allow the document to be published. What happens if they say they will not allow it to be published, as it stands at the moment?
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I want to know when the request could operate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has made this offer to the Committee, I am sure quite seriously—and he must have some idea of the time scale involved—whether it will produce results tonight or tomorrow. There is the further point to which his hon. Friend has referred, whether there is any possibility that another place would refuse. Personally, I do not believe for a moment that it would, for the other place always acts with the greatest courtesy to this House, as this

      277
      House does to another place. But our position as to how we are going to vote on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale must depend on what information we get from the Government as to how soon this information will be available. If it was going to be available by eight o'clock tonight we might feel that it was reasonable, despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, to continue with the debate on the Amendment. If it is not to be available tonight we might take another view.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why does my right hon. Friend suppose the document was made confidential in the first place? Surely, the reason for it being made confidential is that another place in its wisdom felt it was best that this House should not know. Why does my right hon. Friend suppose that at the request of the Leader of the House the arguments for confidentiality which were compelling in the past will cease to be compelling? Why should there be any change?
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a point, but I have always found two things in public administration—one, that people are far too keen to make confidential, or, indeed, secret, documents which could perfectly safely be dropped on the Kremlin, and, second, that another place is generally anxious to comply with the wishes of this House. I assume that if the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Committee, asked for information, it is extremely improbable that another place would refuse it. But I agree that this is theoretically possible, at any rate.
      But what I must come back to is that our decision on what to do with this Motion is obviously closely related to how soon this information can be available. It would be outrageous to ask the Committee to proceed with the Amendment until this information, for better or worse, was available. As the lion. Member for Ebbw Vale rightly said, it is now the plain intention of the Government—whether it will be successful or not, I do not know—to avoid a Report stage. Consequently, when we part with this Amendment, we shall be parting with it, so far as this House is concerned, for good.
      It would be quite wrong to ask the Committee to part with an Amendment finally and irrevocably in the absence of
      278
      information which everyone concerned accepts to be relevant. This would be an abuse of the Parliamentary process and it would clearly be even worse to do this in respect of a Constitutional Bill.
      Sir D. Glover: Would it not be helpful if the Government gave an assurance that they would accept one of the Amendments which was originally theirs, so that there could be a Report stage, in which conditions we would perhaps be prepared to start discussing the Amendment?
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That also is a most helpful suggestion and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has noted it. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to assist the progress of the Bill. That might be a way out, but, in the absence of one or the other of these expedients, the Committee is being asked to make a final decision on an important constitutional matter in the absence of information which is known and accepted to be relevant to its decision. That is not the right way to treat a Committee of the House of Commons.
      There was a question also of another document, what the right hon. Gentleman called "our document". He told us that what he had in mind was his speech notes. It is curious that, if that was all that he had in mind, the right hon. Gentleman should have used the prefix "our". "My" notes, "my" document, might have been understandable, but not "our ". One knows that the right hon. Gentleman is very grand nowadays, but only monarchs or editors use "we"; ordinary citizens say "I". Unless he was in one of his grander moods, the use of the plural was a trifle curious.
      "Our" document suggests in common parlance a Government document, "our" being the Government. Of course it is common sense and well known that complicated and difficult calculations are embodied in some form alike more formal and more permanent than even the speech notes of the right hon. Gentleman. Complicated calculations on which are based a vital provision of this Bill—the numbers, the attendances and the rest, of another place—are themselves based on something more substantial than that. It is not the way of Governments to make elaborate, difficult and complicated calculations on a spare piece of writing-paper.

      279
      There plainly is a document giving these figures in the Government's possession. I asked, as the then occupant of the Chair may recall, on a previous occasion when the learned Solicitor-General referred to this document, for it to be produced. I think that it was the general suggestion that the learned Solicitor-General's argument was so airy-fairy that it could hardly be based on any document and that was a tenable point of view. But when we come not to the Solicitor-General, of whose happy inconsequenciality the Committee is very fond, but to a senior member of the Cabinet, responsible for the Bill, we must assume, if only to show proper respect for the Government, that vital Government decisions are made on a statistical and factual basis embodied in something a little more permanent even than the speech notes of the Secretary of State.
      Therefore, there are two documents which the Committee should see before being asked to come to a conclusion. It is fortunate that this Motion has been accepted: it gives the right hon. Gentleman a wonderful opportunity to come clean.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and this Motion. The Committee has got itself into a curious and difficult situation and we obviously need time away from this Chamber to reflect, first, upon the proceedings today and, second, upon the document when we get it.
      There is also a very good reason for passing the Motion. On 26th February, when my right hon. Friend intervened or had been interrupted, he said:
      "… I will consider making them available "—
      that is, the figures—
      "… although they are long and complicated."
      Then there was a Division, and we came back with bated breath to hear those "long and complicated" figures.
      When my right hon. Friend gave them to us, they amounted to this:
      "I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over
      280
      50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837, 1844.]
      That was all. These were the "long and complicated figures". I remember sitting here wondering when the next lot of figures would be coming to us, but we did not get any more. I thought at the time, "This is very strange. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend can talk about long and complicated figures and yet give us so few."
      Mr. John Wells: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat his HANSARD reference?
      Mr. Heffer: My quotations were from HANSARD of 26th February, c. 1837 and c. 1844.
      Naturally, I had some conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is as interested in the Bill as I am. He told me that there were other figures available and that he had made some attempt to get them, but that he had been refused on the basis of confidentiality. He could have seen them himself but they were not available for the whole Committee. Obviously there were some other figures. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon he has not seen the figures; he does not know whether they are relevant or not because he has not seen them, but we do know of their existence. It becomes more mystifying as we go along. We are in a very strange and curious situation. We ought to report Progress so that we could go away, examine these documents and sets of figures, study them carefully and come back to the Committee, discussing the Amendments on the basis of the document and figures that are available.
      This set of figures goes to the heart of of the Government's proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said he did not know how the Government arrived at their figures—whether it was the age of 72 or the other figures we have heard so often. Then it was whispered to me that perhaps the original figure was the payment of £2,000 and that everything revolved round that figure. That figure is eliminated altogether for the time being. We must have this set of figures. We must know what the Government's calculations were.

      281
      The right hon. Gentleman cannot really be suggesting that the proposals were based upon the figures, these "long and complicated" figures that he gave us, because if they were, what on earth are we talking about? They are what I would call "non-figures", because there is absolutely nothing in them at all. Surely there must be something else?
      There is another reason why we ought to report Progress. The best reason is that we have spent two hours on points of order. I have been in the House of Commons since 1964, and I cannot remember an occasion when this has happened. We are not being frivolous. We are deeply concerned about the rights of back-benchers. If there is a document relevant to our discussions, it is obvious the Committee feels strongly about it and wants to see it in order to proceed on the basis of all the available information. The Committee can then seriously discuss this without coming to a hasty conclusion as far as the proposals are concerned. The mere fact that we have had two hours of points of order is a good enough indication that we ought to report Progress before going on to discuss any other Amendments before the Committee.
      The series of Amendments before the Committee is decisive. We have had a series of important Amendments, but these Amendments in particular either make or break the Bill. On that basis, surely it is necessary for us to have all the relevant information before we vote on these Amendments or this Clause.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is very wise in moving this Motion. I hope the Government accept it without any further discussion. I do not want to stop other hon. Members from speaking, but it would be a good gesture on the part of the Government to say "We think it is a very wise and sensible Motion, and on that basis we are prepared to accept the back-bench opinion in the Committee ". This is back-bench opinion; it is certainly not Front Bench opposite opinion because they have gone again.
      I appeal to the Government to assist the Committee in bringing this discussion to a rapid conclusion by accepting the Motion.
      Mr. Peyton: It is not every day of the week that I have the pleasure of supporting the statesmanlike attitude of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), nor do I always have the opportunity of going on to say how much I support and respect the patient pleading of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). On this occasion I should like to do both.
      A stranger visiting the Committee this afternoon could be forgiven for wondering what on earth was happening in view of the total absence of any kind of friendly gesture towards the Bill itself. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale in the couretous and cordial welcome he paid to the Leader of the House. I now have the opportunity of repeating that welcome. We would never accuse the Leader of the House of discourtesy but sometimes of an excess of discretion, which he has shown this afternoon. It is not unimportant to ask where the Leader of the House has been. He may have been at a Select Committee. He threatened us with a visit to the Services Committee. It is not every Member of the House who is an enthusiastic, 100 per cent., sincere admirer of the Services Committee. He boasted he was going off to the Services Committee as though he were going to receive a vote of admiration on the spot. My attitude is one of admiration, definitely tinged by other feelings.
      We admire the way the Leader of the House has kept away, not out of discourtesy but simply because he did not want to be too closely associated with this rather nasty thing.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to what appeared to me to be the enthusiastic assent of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to his proposition that the Leader of the House wanted to have nothing to do with this horrible Bill.
      Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It might have been that if he had not said that I would have failed to notice the Pilate-like approach. Nobody would accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of wishing to be the pilot of this Bill.
      7.0 p.m.
      The Secretary of State was here for a brief spell while points of order were

      283
      being made, but everything became too much for him and he left, sadly and in unaccustomed silence. There followed a sadder intervention from the Under-Secretary, who I am sure has a long and distinguished Parliamentary career ahead of him but who has been saddled with this unfortunate Measure. It is a plain case of bullying by senior Ministers who, though not prepared to take the responsibility for this awful Bill themselves, are determined to push it through. We sympathise with the Under-Secretary in his unpleasant rôle in attempting to see this wretched Measure become law.
      We were then privileged by the return of the Secretary of State, who got himself into a worse mess by referring to "the document". I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that there is no question of the right hon. Gentleman's deliberately misleading the Committee. He simply let the cat out of the bag in that delicate way of his. Enthusiasms sometimes run away with him.
      One of our regrets today is the non-participation of the Law Officers of the Crown. They have not offered any help and your precursor in the Chair, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, had a difficult time, particularly since he was asked to accept a Motion to report Progress when no progress had either been made or was in prospect.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the Bill interferes with entrenched parts of the Act of Union, Scottish Law Officers have not been present?
      Mr. Peyton: I am not particularly well versed in the esoteric subject of Scottish law, but I do not believe that they do any harm, even from Scotland's point of view, by not being present.
      Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Bill and who presented it, has not come to support the Bill today?
      Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend is unreasonable in assuming that I did not intend to refer to that right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is my hon. Friend certain that the Treaty of Arbroath has
      284
      not been withdrawn from the Library? Is he aware that that is confidential to their Lordships' House?
      Mr. Peyton: That is a timely intervention, but I will leave the confidentiality of the Treaty of Arbroath to my right hon. Friend to deal with later.
      Mr. Ridley: Would my hon. Friend care to press the Solicitor-General to explain how the other place can make documents in our Library confidential? Is this not a grave matter, legally if not from a privilege point of view?
      Mr. Peyton: I have never seen any reason why any person should not make any document confidential. However, the document which interests me is the one which the Government plainly have in their custody, the information in which is vital to the Committee.
      I return to my rôle of dishonour among Ministers, and I come to the Home Secretary. I have not until today taken an active part in discussing the Bill. I recall entering the Chamber one afternoon to hear the Home Secretary in a petulant mood unable to understand why the Committee would not let him have his way. He and his colleagues had made it clear that they intended to pass the Bill into law. They were surprised when hon. Members did not make obeisance and say, "We will make a nominal protest and then you may have your way."
      Faced with this manifestation of opinion from both sides of the Committee, are the Government still prepared to force the Bill through? For two hours the Chair was faced with points of order, something I have never experienced. No voice expressed support for the Government, except when the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) emerged from another Committee and appeared to speak in support of getting on with the Bill. Whether or not that meant that he was in favour of the Measure, I was unable to detect.
      Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend does the Home Secretary an injustice. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is as much against the Bill as he is. I recall that on one occasion the Home Secretary said that he was not prepared to defend the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman has not, by his arguments, his presence or his absence, attempted to defend it.
      Mr. Peyton: I am immensely obliged to my hon. Friend for that piece of very valuable information. I had already deduced from the Home Secretary's facial expression that his enthusiasm was not running away with him. Nevertheless, we are deprived of his presence today and I am very sorry.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member should be fair. He should not single out the Home Secretary. Is it not true that none of the Ministers is enthusiastic about the Bill?
      Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member is quite right. I was in danger of being very unfair indeed. In the earlier part of my speech I commented briefly and most moderately on the parts played by the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Solicitor-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pulled in the Scottish Law Officers ever so gently. The only absent Minister I dealt with was the Home Secretary because he had been in charge of the Bill on the previous occasion when I was present.
      Mr. Roebuck: In the hon. Member's unaccustomed mood of benevolence, will he refer individually to right hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Front Bench, or who sometimes sit on the opposition Front Bench, and let us know whether they are in favour of this Measure?
      Mr. Peyton: I am obliged for that interesting observation. Modesty being one of my characteristics, psychoanalysis of Front Benches is not something in which I freely indulge. The only reason why I have been led to delve into the mental attitudes of occupants of the Government Front Bench on this occasion is that they are sponsors of the Bill.
      What the attitude of those on my Front Bench is on this subject I know not—[An HON. MEMBER: "They know not."]—but no one would accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in so far as he has been present this afternoon, of showing excessive enthusiasm for the Bill. We all know him to be a man of lively enthusiasms who would readily espouse a good cause if he recognised it. I will not dwell upon the indecencies which are represented by
      286
      the Prime Minister's processes of thought, except to say that the particular dish represented by this Bill comes well from a man who boasts of his happiness in the kitchen. One can only imagine that it has been distilled among a long series of rather drab, squalid kitchen recollections. I hope that this will be the last such Measure for which the Prime Minister is responsible.
      I hope that whoever is to reply to this very necessary debate will have the modesty to recognise that the House of Commons is totally against the Bill. I recognise that when the Division bells sound others will be called up and whipped through the Division Lobby to support a proposal which they have considered very little and of which they know practically nothing. I hope the Government will have the modesty and humility to admit what everyone else knows to be a fact—that they have made a mistake, misjudged the mood of the House of Commons and put forward some paltry, unnecessary and damaging proposals for reform of the House of Lords. In these uncomfortable days for them they would be better off with this load off their backs.
      [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Sheldon: I support the Motion. My interest in this matter started on an earlier Amendment when we were discussing the maximum age of retirement for voting peers. I intended to make one of my strongest arguments against the whole model of the construction of the House of Lords based as it is on a membership of 230 with a maximum age of 72, an attendance figure of one-third, with a £2,000 salary floating and being connected with all this.
      Despite a great deal of preparation in which I was engaged, I was not fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chairman, so I was unable to make those points which will now have to wait until Third Reading, if they can be made then. I considered that a number of those points were related points and could be dealt with on the Amendment to fix the attendance at one-third. It was from that that I started very considerable investigations, which are still not complete and which obviously will be best fitted in with the

      287
      Amendment when we resume debate on it later.
      One of the points I had to consider was whether there was any information which could guide me in deciding to my satisfaction whether the attendance figure of one-third was a good one or not. I obtained some information from the speech in the House of Lords by Lord Shackleton. He said on 21st November:
      "There has been some reference to the mathematical studies that were carried out."
      He went on to show a connection between those studies and the voting age. Later he spoke of the attendance requirement and said:
      "May I also say something about the attendance requirement? It has been suggested that the attendance requirement of 33⅓ per cent. is either too high or too low, and, furthermore, that it would be wrong to pay Peers a considerable salary (I still do not know what it will be) for attending for such a short part of the time."
      In a later passage he said:
      "…it will be necessary for voting Peers to put in a great deal more time than even many of the most regular attenders today are able to do. This must be inherent in what I may call the contract, the declaration of intention, of any Peer who undertakes these duties.
      The 33⅓ per cent. requirement is in this scheme for one purpose only. It is to provide an automatic drop-out to the Peer who for some reason or other totally fails to turn up. We rejected the idea that the Prime Minister, or the Party managers, or anyone else, should be in a position to say to a Peer, 'You are not doing your job; you will lose your voting rights'. It might well be that a Peer who failed to perform his duties might be pressed by his colleagues to give away his voting rights and allow somebody else to take his place while he could carry on …"
      The Chairman: Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.
      Mr. Sheldon: This is how I was led on to the action which followed. There are only another three lines, I thought it right for the convenience of the Committee to read this so that it should understand why my interest was directed in this way to the discussions we have had this afternoon. Lord Shackleton continued:
      "But we feel it necessary to establish some criterion in order to establish the viability of the two-tier system. If we do not have this, then I would say that there is no case
      288
      for a two-tier system at all. In that event it would be better to abandon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 1085–7.]
      That was the starting point for my discussion of why it was necessary to go into this question of a one-third attendance figure which we must decide in subsequent Amendments.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to help me, but I still cannot see the connection between his remarks and the Motion.
      Mr. Sheldon: I support the Motion, because I require that information so that I shall be able to present to the Committee in the discussions on the Amendment the central reason which I believe I can adduce for rejecting the figure of one-third.
      When we last debated this matter I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make the figures which had been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, available to the Committee. At an earlier stage I had asked my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to make them available, but it was to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that I made the strongest appeal, because of his expressed desire to make as much information available for public discussion as he could. I was more than delighted when my right hon. Friend accepted this plea and said that he would make the figures available, although I confess to being disappointed when I found that, instead of being given the very full figures which had been mentioned by the Leader of the House of Lords and which I knew existed, we were given a much shorter summary which was of little value to the detailed argument I wanted to pursue.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does my hon. Friend know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted from "their" document or whether it was from "his" brief?
      Mr. Sheldon: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton will obviously have quoted from the conclusions. The work was in this document, as I understand it. There was this document to which I want to refer later, and the conclusions were what

      289
      were quoted by Lord Shackleton. Indeed, other conclusions were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
      Following the adjourned debate on 26th February, I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discover what further information was available. I asked my right hon. Friend if he would lay before the House the full calculations the Government had made in this connection. I went on to specify matters on which I wanted information. I received no such figures, only a general answer.
      I then turned my attention to the Library, because I had asked the Library for certain statistics which I had been given in a general way. I realised that the Library could not have produced those statistics without having had a much greater background from which to obtain them. I therefore asked the Library for these figures. I received some correspondence. I quoted part of one letter earlier.
      Therefore, I was in a great dilemma, because central to the argument whether the model chosen by my right hon. Friend is a correct one is the basis of past practices. To determine past practices, we needed an entire breakdown of the attendances of various peers, their ages, their party affiliations, their interests, and other factors—a much more comprehensive study. I believe that this study has been conducted by the Department concerned. I have severe criticisms to make as to the way in which the whole matter has been approached. I also realised that these figures which were being kept secret were not real secrets. They are obtainable, as I obtained them, from the Journals of the House of Lords. I have them all here. I could theoretically go through all of this and tabulate them in the required form. I thought of doing this as something which might be worth while. The matter is complicated because the names of the peers do not appear in alphabetical order in the Journals. I reckoned that, if I could get the assistance of a friend of mine in a business school and borrow a punched card system—
      The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to speak more directly to the Motion which is before the Committee.
      Mr. Sheldon: I mention this only to illustrate the importance of these figures, which need a great deal of consideration. A Member cannot be told, having been presented with these figures, "Carry on with the debate now that you have these figures ". It will be necessary to consider these figures for many hours, perhaps for days, before extracting a proper meaning from them.
      The Chairman: Order. The Committee is seized of the importance of the figures. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself precisely enough to the Motion.
      Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. On entering the Chamber comparatively recently I was puzzled by the fact that there is a Motion to report Progress before the Committee. I could not think what progress the Committee would be asked to report. Nevertheless, as I have listened to hon. Members from both sides it has become clear to me that the whole matter has arisen out of a failure to produce a document which is essential for the proper conduct of the affairs of the Committee. The more I listen to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—
      The Chairman: Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is entering into the debate on the Motion and is not raising a point of order with the Chair.
      Mr. John Hall: My point of order is this. I find it difficult precisely to follow the real reasons why we should report Progress without having a fairly detailed background of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If by your Ruling, Mr. Irving, you prevent the hon. Gentleman from filling in the background, it will make it difficult for hon. Members to be sure that the Motion is justified.
      Mr. Chairman: Order. I hope that the lion. Gentleman will allow the Chair to decide matters of order. Mr. Sheldon.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Before my hon. Friend resumes his argument, may I ask him whether he supports the Motion because it will enable him to have time to go into all these matters that he intends to mention?
      Mr. Sheldon: Precisely. I think that the information should be available to all Members. The information is so central to the argument that we must have it if we are to be able to test the model presented by my right hon. Friend against views which we might possess. I have attempted to do this in a number of ways—by getting management consultants to go into the matter on a different basis; by consulting a firm which has undertaken a survey of the attitude of the House of Lords. However, these matters, crucial though I believe them to be, are not as important as this question of the document, because this is the factual background of what has happened, and it is undisputed.
      Although very good arguments can be adduced for doing things in a certain way in the future, and although important facts can be presented on which Members can make decisions, what has happened in the past is probably the most important factor. This is why I gave it so much attention when I sought to discover what attitude I should take and what view I should have on the important questions of attendance and age. Unfortunately, I was not able to discuss the question of age because I was unable to catch the eye of the Chair in that debate and was thus unable to deliver the considerable contribution that I had prepared.
      The importance of the figures now under consideration lies mainly in the light which they will shed on the figures which we prepare for the House of Lords. As I say, they are not secret. It is all available in the Journals of the House of Lords, but, when I began to look into it, I thought that the task would take me about 40 hours, with the assistance of a colleague at a business school. I felt that it was wrong to ask anyone to do that sort of research.
      It is said that there is no such thing as bad research, that any sort of research either produces results or shows those avenues where no useful results can be obtained, thus closing them to a subsequent investigator. But there is a bad kind of research, namely, that duplicating information which is already available though hidden. I felt that I should not devote 40 hours of my time to it, plus the time of someone in a business school, because the information was not being made available to the House as it should
      292
      have been. I refused to undertake the task, therefore, central though it is to the working of the Bill.
      I came to the conclusion that the only course open to me was to make clear to this Committee the extreme importance of the matter, so that the documents—
      7.30 p.m.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make clear to the Committee that he is addressing himself to the Motion before it. It is in some doubt at the moment. He is elaborating far too much.
      Mr. Sheldon: I support the Motion to report Progress, Mr. Irving, because I consider that we should have opportunity to investigate all the matters about which I have been speaking. I have tried to show their extreme importance, as I see it, as an argument in support of the Motion. If I did not regard these matters as of such importance, the case for the Motion would be considerably diminished in my eyes. But so important and central do I believe them to be that I regard the case for the Motion as enormously strengthened.
      The information is not secret, as I say, but it has been made secret. Those who made it secret know that there can be no possibility of an individual Member undertaking the task. I have done a great deal of work of one kind and another on the Bill, work which the Government should have done but did not do. But I did not feel able to do this piece of work, for it has been done already. That is what we should remember.
      I do not believe that we need fear that the House of Lords would refuse to give us the information. I do not accept that there is a problem there. If we wish, we can direct the Library of the House of Commons to prepare these figures in any way we desire. It was not open to me as a private Member to give that instruction because it would have put far too great a burden upon the Library, but the House of Commons collectively could readily give it, and with their usual efficiency, the staff of the Library would carry it out with little delay.
      Sir C. Osborne: Could the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how long it would take the Library of the House to

      293
      do the research for us? How long would it take before we could have a debate with the information in our possession?
      Mr. Sheldon: The time I gave was the time which it would take me, an untutored Member in these matters. With the facilities which the House of Commons could mobilise, it might be done in a day or two. I do not know. It would not take anything like so long as it would for someone like myself with limited resources.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: In order to preserve good relations between the two Houses, could the Secretary of State do a deal by supplying the Lords with information about our attendances in return for theirs?
      Mr. Sheldon: I should be happy to see our attendances revealed. I see no problem there. The real reason why there has been concealment of matters which are not really secret is, as we all know, to avoid giving offence to some peers, who come along, draw their 41/2 guineas, and are not seen all that frequently for the rest of the day. That is obvious to us all. In ordinary matters, we might be tender-hearted enough not to insist. I should not be prepared to do a great deal of investigation into the work or attendance of individual peers in the ordinary way, but when it is necessary to decide how a second House of Parliament should be constituted and organised, matters of tender concern should not seem to be more important than the provision of all the facts to the House of Commons. When we are considering the view one might take, on the one hand, on the importance of protecting certain individual peers or, on the other hand, the creation of a House of Parliament, we all know where our duty lies. It is wrong that a contrary view should even be expressed on a matter of such importance.
      In time to come, the way in which the whole preparation for the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was done will become a case study for how these things ought not to be done. I have had and shall have a considerable amount to say on the way that work was done; it will make the Stansted affair seem rather less bad than it really was. There is the whole ques-
      294
      tion of the way in which the Civil Service operated, the way in which decisions were taken completely contrary, first, to the way in which the Fulton Committee said that they should be taken, and, second, contrary to the way in which they ought to have been taken in the light of the most elementary knowledge of such matters. The Fulton Report came out strongly against government by amateurs—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is diverging considerably from the Motion.
      Mr. Sheldon: In a peroration, Mr. Irving, rather more latitude is frequently allowed, and I was tending to rely upon that. I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion in saying that the Fulton Committee came out strongly against administration by amateurs, the cult of the amateur. One could say that Fulton went too far, but the amateurs of which it spoke are experts compared with what we are speaking of here. There was no investigation of comparisons. One has only to read the speech of the Lord Chancellor to see that the international comparisons which ought to have been made were not even thought of. The whole background of investigation and survey, which I in a modest way have attempted to undertake and on which I hope to address the Committee on a subsequent occasion, was never tackled. It was not administration by amateurs. It was administration by dilettantes. That is what should be exposed and remedied.
      I strongly support the Motion to report Progress, so that we may consider the whole matter once again.
      Mr. Crossman: I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this point and made one or two comments on the debate thus far. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), as he rightly reminded us, started off, about 10 days ago, the chain of incidents which has culminated in this Motion. I was grateful to him for telling us in such detail what it is that he needs, because he has made it easier for me to intervene and give our view. My hon. Friend's case is that we should report Progress because we need more information. There is always a temptation to say that; one

      295
      can always say that one wants more information before discussing an Amendment if one is not very anxious to get on very fast. It is a good argument, which I have often heard before. Nevertheless, it is important to consider whether the case has been made, and I shall do so.
      It is important to realise that, as my hon. Friend says, the essential facts on which consideration not only of the Amendment but of all the Amendments to the Clause needs to be based are all public. The daily attendances are given in the Journal of the House of Lords and published each Session. The essential breakdown for the last complete Session is given on page 5 of the White Paper. So the facts are all available.
      My hon. Friend felt very strongly that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if the facts were tabulated, and said that they should be tabulated in the way he found convenient. I understand this, but the Committee is deciding whether we must report Progress in the absence of information. I understand that my hon. Friend is not saying that no information has been published but that it has not been organised in the way that is most convenient to him. I do not believe that that is a sufficient reason for reporting Progress now.
      In view of my hon. Friend's valuable speech assuring us of his knowledge that all the relevant information is already published, with all the relevant—[Interruption.]—I perhaps listened more carefully than hon. Members opposite. I heard him say clearly that all the records on which these calculations are based have been published.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. I consulted the Library and found that the document has 15 pages.
      The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.
      Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to my point, which is that the issue is whether essential information on which to base a judgment is not available to the Committee. It has been made clear by my hon. Friend that all the information has been made available, and therefore I oppose the Motion, and strongly advise others to do so.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: If the information is public, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will he explain why the document which went to the Library was marked "confidential "?
      Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me. I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 166; Noes 85.

      Division No. 121.]

      AYES

      [7.43 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Coleman, Donald

      Eadie, Alex

      Alldritt, Walter

      Concannon, J. D.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Archer, Peter

      Conlan, Bernard

      English, Michael

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Ennals, David

      Beaney, Alan

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Bence, Cyril

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Faulds, Andrew

      Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Fernyhough, E.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Finch, Harold

      Blackburn, F.

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Boy den, James

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bradley, Tom

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Forrester, John

      Brooks, Edwin

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

      Davies, lfor (Gower)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F' bury)

      Dell, Edmund

      Ginsburg, David

      Buchan, Norman

      Dempsey, James

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Dewar, Donald

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Cant, R. B.

      Doig, Peter

      Hannan, William

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dunnett, Jack

      Harper, Joseph

      Coe, Denis

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Haseldine, Norman

      Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Hazell, Bert

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

      Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

      Henig, Stanley

      Manuel, Archie

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Hilton, W. S.

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Rowlands, E.

      Hobden, Dernnis

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Millan, Bruce

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Hoy, James

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Silverman, Julius

      Hunter, Adam

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Small, William

      Hynd, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Taverne, Dick

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

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Tinn, James

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

      Moyle, Roland

      Tuck, Raphael

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Varley, Eric G.

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Ogden, Eric

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Lawson, George

      Orbach, Maurice

      Wallace, George

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Weitzman, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Whitaker, Ben

      Loughlin, Charles

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Luard, Evan

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Mabon, Dr. J Dickson

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      McBride, Neil

      Pentland, Norman

      Williams, Clifford (Aberttillery)

      McCann, John

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Winnick, David

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Mackie, John

      Probert, Arthur

      Maclennan, Robert

      Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Mr. loan L. Evans and

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Mr. Charles Grey.

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

      Murton, Oscar

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Astor, John

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Cower, Raymond

      Orme, Stanley

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Barnes, Michael

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Bell, Ronald

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Peyton, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hay, John

      Pym, Francis

      Bitten, John

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Robson Brown, Sir William

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Roebuck, Roy

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      lremonger, T. L.

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

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

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Smith, John (London & W' minster)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Clark, Henry

      Mag. nnis, John E.

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart

      Costain, A. P.

      Marquand, David

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Crouch, David

      Maude, Angus

      Waddington, David

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Dean, Paul

      Mawby, Ray

      Younger, Hn. George

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Driberg, Tom

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Eden, Sir John

      Monro, Hector

      Mr. Michael Foot and

      Eyre, Reginald

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Mr. Robert Sheldon.

      Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

      Morrison Charles (Devizes)

      Question put accordingly, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 88, Noes 162

      Division No. 122.]

      AYES

      [7.52 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Baker, W, H. K. (Banff)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Barnes, Michael

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Astor, John

      Bell, Ronald

      Biff en, John

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Body, Richard

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Park, Trevor

      Boyd-Carpenter, Fit. Hn. John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Peyton, John

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

      Robson Brown, Sir William

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Roebuck, Roy

      Costain, A. P.

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Crouch, David

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Dean, Paul

      Lubbock, Eric

      Smith, John (London & W' minster)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Driberg, Tom

      Marquand, David

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Eden, Sir John

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mawby, Ray

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendelson, J. J.

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

      Monro, Hector

      Waddington, David

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Cower, Raymond

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Murton, Oscar

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Mr. Michael Foot and

      Hastings, Stephen

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Mr. Robert Sheldon.

      Hay, John

      Norwood, Christopher

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Millan, Bruce

      Alldritt, Walter

      Freeson, Reginald

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Archer, Peter

      Ginsburg, David

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Beaney, Alan

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bence, Cyril

      Hannan, William

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Moyle, Roland

      Blackburn, F.

      Haseldine, Norman

      Ogden, Eric

      Boyden, James

      Hazell, Bert

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bradley, Tom

      Henig, Stanley

      Oswald, Thomas

      Brooks, Edwin

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Owens, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

      Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

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

      Hobden, Dennis

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Buchan, Norman

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

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

      Hoy, James

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Pentland Norman

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hynd, John

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Coe, Denis

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Probert, Arthur

      Concannon, J. D.

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

      Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Cullen, Mrs. Alice

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Robinson. Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lawson, George

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

      Rowlands, E.

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Luard, Evan

      Silverman, Julius

      Dell, Edmund

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Small, William

      Dempsey, James

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dewar, Donald

      McBride, Neil

      Taverne, Dick

      Doig, Peter

      McCann, John

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Dunnett, Jack

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Thornton, Ernest

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Tinn, James

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackie, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Urwin, T. W.

      English, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Ennals, David

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Wallace, George

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Manuel, Archie

      Weitzman, David

      Finch, Harold

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Whitaker, Ben

      Forrester, John

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Fowler, Gerry

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Williams, Alai Lee (Hornchurch)

      Winnick, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Williams, Clifford ford (Abertillery)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Mr. loan L. Evans and

      Willis, Rt. HM. George

      Mr. Charles Grey.

      The Chairman: The Question is—
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Irving, and I believe that the Committee is in grave need of it, for we are now in much greater difficulty than would have been the case if the Patronage Secretary had not seen fit to close the debate on the last Motion as rapidly as he did. If the debate had been allowed to continue, we might have been able to elicit some of the answers which are still not forthcoming to the many points of order raised over a period of two hours when your predecessor was in the Chair. I still feel that the Committee is dissatisfied in that we are now to be called upon to debate an Amendment—
      The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that, for better or worse, we have disposed of the last Motion.
      Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order—
      The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not really on a point of order. The hon. Member cannot speak further to it.
      Mr. Roebuck: I rise to seek your guidance and ruling on a very important matter. As a most diligent attender at these Committee proceedings I am rather surprised to find that we have an irregular visitor, who comes along just when hon. Members are getting to the kernel of the very serious and important problems that we have to discuss, who listens to none of our deliberations, who stands up and mumbles something which most of the Committee cannot hear and then the Division bells go and we all have to troop into the Lobby—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is not addressing the Chair on a point of order.
      Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not on a point of order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not addressing me on a point of order.
      Mr. Roebuck: With the greatest possible respect, I had not finished. Is there no protection for back-benchers?
      The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point very quickly. He had not succeeded in doing so in his opening remarks.
      Mr. Roebuck: I am greatly obliged. I entirely share the desire of the Chair for brevity. This is the point on which I wish to seek your guidance. It is generally understood in Committee, and throughout the country, that when the House of Commons is debating constitutional matters no Government ever closures those discussions. Yet constantly throughout this Committee our deliberations have been closured. I should be grateful if you could explain to us the point of principle involved here.
      The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. Nothing has happened so far that is out of order in relation to the Standing Orders of the House and this Committee.
      Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. Because of the shortness of the Minister's reply the Committee is still left in the dark as to what the Government propose to do—
      The Chairman: Order, I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed to debate further a Motion that the Committee has just disposed of. I hope that he will not proceed any further with it.
      Mr. Fraser: Our procedures have become slightly involved this afternoon, and there was a promise made by the Minister to lay a document. We wish to know when that promise will be fulfilled.
      The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Heffer: Further to this point of order—
      The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that the right hon. Gentleman had not raised a point of order at all. Unless the hon. Gentleman has another point of order—
      Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order—
      The Chairman: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman has been ruled out of order in relation to the submission that he was making. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak further to something that has been disposed of by the Chair. If he has a new point of order I will gladly hear it, but I am afraid that he has not at the moment.
      Mr. Heffer: I have not even had the chance to say anything.
      The Chairman: Order. May I make clear the position of the Chair? The hon. Gentleman sought to speak further on a point of order which had been ruled out of order. Unless he raises a new point of order he cannot be heard.
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. During the course of the discussion on the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), we were given the impression that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary would lay a document before the Committee. We were told also in reply that we would not get it at this stage and that was why my right hon. Friend was opposing that Motion. May I ask at what point we are to see this document—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to continue a debate which has been disposed of.
      Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance on a point which I hope that you will let me put to you. Those of us who are not constitutional lawyers, just ordinary Members, find a lot of these rules difficult to follow. Having listened to the whole debate, it seemed to me that we could not go on with the next item before the Committee unless certain information was available. Can you tell the Committee how this information, that is so vital to the proper discharge of our duties, can be made available and how soon?
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a submission which was the subject of the Motion that the Committee has just disposed of. I am afraid that I cannot allow it to be continued.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Could you help us in our difficulty? Some hon. Members were here for as long as two hours this afternoon without being able to raise a point of order, and for another two hours without being able to make a speech. I understand your difficulty in this matter. My point in mentioning the unexhausted points of order is that we have just been debating a Motion upon which you accepted the Closure. It would be quite wrong for me or anyone else to impugn that. I would ask you to accept a Motion which I seek to move, namely, to report Progress but not to ask leave to sit again. It was upon that addendum on the last Motion that most of the debate centred, and it caused a great deal of confusion when it came to voting.
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot accept that submission.
      Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I should be very grateful for your guidance. The Committee is in very great difficulty. We spent two hours, uniquely in my experience, under the jurisdiction of your predecessor, Mr. Gourlay, listening to points of order. At the end of that, he, I think justifiably and rightly, and I say this with great respect, came to the conclusion that the only thing that he could do—belatedly—was to accept a Motion to report Progress. I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said about that part of the Motion "and ask leave to sit again"—as if anyone wished to do that ! The difficulty we all find ourselves in is that the information relevant to the discussion was not available—
      The Chairman: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making a submission on two counts that have already been put to me and disposed of.
      Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. I accept without question the Chair's decision about the recent Division. The Chair having accepted the Closure and the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, which has been defeated, the Committee is now coming on to the important Amendments to be moved by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and others. I

      305
      ask the guidance of the Chair. As we have been unable to get from the Government the document that would help our deliberations, will the Chair allow the back benchers the protection of the right to elicit from the Government by question and answer during the debate the information that we need if we are to form an objective decision on the matters which we are now about to debate?
      The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and the Chair will take all circumstances into account.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Irving, may I raise with you a point of order to which I hope you will give favourable consideration, since it will help the Committee and the Government? The Government have admitted that the information should be made available. As it is admitted that we cannot properly discuss these Amendments without this information—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman so far appears to me to be making a submission upon which I have already ruled. Unless he has a new point of order, I clearly ought not to entertain any further submission.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am coming to the point of order now, Sir. As it is within the power of the Chair to decide which Amendments should be called and when, would it be possible for you, Sir, not to call those Amendments which are immediately on the Order Paper and which are connected with this matter, but to postpone those until the Secretary of State for Social Services has made available this information?
      The Chairman: We are on an Amendment at the moment. I cannot rule hypothetically for the future.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. I have observed in our Votes and Proceedings repeated reference to the House calling for certain documents to be laid on the table. I wonder, Sir, whether this procedure applies to a Committee and, if so, precisely how this should be done? I ask for your guidance, because on 26th February the Secretary of State—
      The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the Chair cannot help the hon. Gentleman. This matter has been gone into very thoroughly and I cannot help him further.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: I wish, if I may, to put a different point of order. Even you, Sir, must realise, after the six or eight points of order that have been made—although you have not accepted them they were made sincerely—that everyone is in great difficulty except yourself and the Leader of the House. It is extremely difficult for us to continue our proceedings. I have been informed that the mysterious document which was supposed to be in the Library has now disappeared—
      The Chairman: Order. That matter has been disposed of. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue any inquiries or make any representations, he may do so elsewhere, but I am afraid he cannot do it now.
      Sir A. V. Harvey: With great respect, I agree. In the advice which you have given, you are adhering strictly to the rules, but the Committee is in a dilemma on how to approach the matter. Unless the document can be produced, the whole proceedings are a farce.
      The Chairman: Order. That has been disposed of, and I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.
      Mr. Hastings: On another point of order. I hope it will be helpful for me to describe the dilemma in which the Committee is in this way. There exists, or there did exist, in the Library of the House of Commons a document of 15 pages, so we have now learnt, a compendium on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) would have needed to work for 40 hours with the services of management consultants and a computer.
      The Chairman: This matter has been gone into. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further. I cannot hear him fur-the; he is not making a new submission to me.
      Mr. Hastings: I have not yet reached the kernel of my new point of order, which is that there exists in the Library of the House of Commons a document

      307
      which is apparently protected by a request from the other place that it should be treated as confidential. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House sought earlier from your predecessors in the Chair guidance as to how we in the House of Commons can secure access to documents in our own Library. This would seem to me to be still as relevant now to our discussions as it was when it was originally raised.
      The Chairman: It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter which the Committee has dealt with very fully for some long time now.
      Mr. Roebuck: Will the Chair give the Committee some guidance about the length of time that will be available for us to discuss this important Amendment?
      The Chairman: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman guidance hypothetically.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Can you, Mr. Irving, help us with the difficulty in which many hon. Members feel they are placed by advising us whether, within our rules of order, there are any other dilatory Motions which have not yet been moved and which you might feel disposed to accept?
      The Chairman: I admire the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity, but I am afraid that he is outside the rules of order.
      The Question is, That the Amendment be made.
      Sir D. Glover: We have had a long debate, trying to get information from the Government. Despite spending two hours on points of order and a Motion, we have so far completely failed to get that information. The Committee is completely unable to make up its mind whether to accept the Amendment or the proposal put forward in the Bill until that information is available. I do not know who will reply for the Government, but so that the Committee can collect together the information, and no doubt use it in the Division Lobbies, I now ask the right hon. Gentleman about the voting records of the individual Members of another place.
      I refer first to Aberconway, the third baron. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell
      308
      the Committee whether this noble Lord has appeared in the other place for 33⅓ per cent., 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the time?
      Will the Government inform the Committee whether the Duke of Abercorn has appeared in the other place to carry out his duties for 25 per cent., 33⅓ per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the time? How can we form a judgment unless these figures are available?
      Then I see that the noble baron the Lord Abordare is also a Member of another place. Has the noble baron—
      The Chairman: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he intends to proceed through the whole of the Parliamentary Companion, he will be getting beyond the rules of order.
      Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect, we have asked the Government to allow the Committee to adjourn so that this information can be made available. The Government have refused to give us this information. Although it may be somewhat tedious for the Committee, the only way in which this information can be obtained is by Members of the Committee asking about the individual voting records. This is the basis of the Amendment which we are now discussing, whether the really valuable Members of the House of Lords attend 25 per cent., 33⅓ per cent. or 50 per cent. of the time. If we agree with the Government's proposal of 33⅓ per cent. of the time, shall we discover that in the process of doing so we shall deprive the other place of the most influential, the most informed and the most erudite Members of the other place because we have fixed the figure too high?
      Mr. Irving, I do this with a great deal of hesitation because I do not want to run through the Parliamentary Companion. That would be a very laborious job, but the Government are forcing me to take this action because, otherwise, how do I make up my mind when we come to divide on the matter? The Government have the information. They could have given it to the Committee. Each member of the Committee could have made an objective assessment. However, we have not got the information and, although it may appear to be slightly tedious, the only possible way of dealing with the matter is by asking the

      309
      Government, who have the knowledge, to give the Committee the record of each individual Member of the other place. It seems to me that the only way that I can do that is by asking for that information individually, naming each Member of the other place.
      The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman would be out of order in doing that.
      Sir D. Glover: Then, if I may intervene in my own speech, on a point of order. I should like the protection of the Chair. We have spent four and half hours trying to get this information. There is still a great deal of anger in the Committee that the Government moved the Closure. After four and half hours of battling against the Executive trying to get this information, we still have not got it.
      The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma, but this is not a matter for the Chair, and I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman will be going out of order if he embarks upon this elaboration.
      Sir D. Glover: Then, Mr. Irving, perhaps I may have your advice. May I choose a hundred names in order to get a cross-section? I know that this is tedious, but would it be helpful to the Committee if I were to pick out a hundred names? I am prepared to take the first two names at the beginning of each letter of the alphabet, for example, in order to get some concrete information on which to reach a conclusion.
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is seeking information and attempting to press an argument on the Government. If he were to repeat this, he would be repeating the argument over and over again in a degree of elaboration which would make him out of order. I understand his dilemma, but the Chair would have to rule him out of order.
      Sir D. Glover: Mr. Irving, I am sorry to press this, but it is a very important matter. The Committee is being asked to decide whether it accepts the Government's recommendation that one third of the possible attendances should be the right basis, for selecting voting peers in the other place. At the present moment,
      310
      we have no knowledge, because we do not know the names or the performances.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is debating the decision of the Chair, and I cannot allow him to do that. To submit a series of names would be to submit the same argument over and over again. Under Standing Orders, repetition of this kind is out of order.
      Sir D. Glover: With respect, Mr. Irving, I do not see how I can repeat myself since every name in the Peerage, apparently, is different.
      The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that the argument would be the same even though the names were different.
      Sir D. Glover: But the argument is not the same. The argument is a continuing process. If I might put a hypothetical case to the Chair, supposing—
      The Chairman: Order. I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, but I could not rule on a hypothetical case, anyway. I have sought to rule on his submissions so far, and I am afraid that he will have to accept those Rulings.
      Sir D. Glover: Mr. Irving, I am not trying to be awkward. I really want this information before I come to a conclusion.
      Supposing the Committee knew that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, would be deprived of his attendance as a voting peer in the other place because he had only managed to clock up 25 per cent. of attendances in the relevant period. I am sure that a great many hon. Members would be governed in that case in trying to support the Amendment to reduce it to 25 per cent.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking for the records of all members of the other place. I am suggesting that he would be out of order if he went on to ask for them all by name, individually.
      Sir D. Glover: I accept that, Mr. Irving. As I said at the beginning, I do not wish to do this, but the difficulty which the Committee have got into is a very real one, and it has got into it as a result of the Government's mismanagement of our affairs.

      311
      It is fair to assume that, at some stage of the proceedings, we shall finish with Clause 4. If we finish it without the information that we need—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing arguments to the Chair which ought to be addressed to the Government. I understand his difficulty, but I cannot help him. I must operate the rules of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now speak to the Amendment, and not raise further points of order.
      Sir D. Glover: I am in considerable difficulty in doing that because, while I support the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), largely through the discussions on this Bill, we are not only debating his Amendment but Amendment No. 28, which is to leave out "one third" and insert "two thirds", Amendment No. 119, which is to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-half", Amendment No. 148, which is to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-fifth" and Amendment No. 122, which provides for another composition of the other place. I do not see how this Committee can reach a decision unless the Government give us categorical information on the matter which, so far, they have flatly refused to do.
      I will not pursue the list in Dod's Parliamentary Companion. If I did that, I would be out of favour with the Chair. However, I want information to allow me to decide for which of the five Amendments I should plump.
      We back bench hon. Members now need the protection of the Chair. As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) said, it may be that an hon. Member will move the Closure on Amendment No. 120, which was moved so ably by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We may have a debate, the Chair will accept the Closure, and we shall then take a vote.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I am sure that he would not wish to mislead anybody about the situation. My hon. Friend gave way at one point so that the Secretary of State for Social
      312
      Services could make a statement. When my hon. Friend gave way it was quite clear that he would be seeking to address the Committee at a later stage because he had not then given the Committee anything like the information which he indicated he had in his possession at that time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the rest of the Committee about that.
      Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for that intervention. When I rose after the points of order and you, Mr. Irving, called me, I was a little astonished, because I thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) still had the Floor—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did not have the Floor. But hon. Members could help him to make another speech perhaps by proceeding as quickly as possible with their speeches.
      Sir D. Glover: As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done so much research, I was hoping he would have made another contribution. His contributions to the Committee have been very weighty, and I was looking forward to his elucidation of this problem, with which we are now dealing in a complete vacuum because we have no knowledge, no information—information having been refused by the Government.
      The Solicitor-General is sitting on the Government Front Bench. I am prepared to give way to him. Before we reach a conclusion on this group of Amendments, will he disclose to the Committee—not the position of the 1,000 Members of the House of Lords, because I understand there are only about 450 regular or semi-regular attenders—how many out of the 450 have attended 25 per cent. of the time, how many have attended 33⅓ per cent. of the time, how many have attended 50 per cent. of the time, how many have attended above that figure, how many have attended below that figure, and how many have attended 10 per cent. of the time, so that we can form a judgment?
      Will the Solicitor-General also, from his researches, tell the Committee who of the outstanding statesmen of the last

      313
      decade who are now Members of the other place would be deprived of their position of authority in the other place if we fixed the percentage too high? Or will he be able to show the Committee, so that we can form a proper judgment, that, because the great national figures in all parties who are now members of the other place are the best attenders, even if we fixed the figure at 75 per cent. of attendance we should not deprive it of the quality about which we who oppose the Bill are so worried in forming our conclusions?
      [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]
      The Committee has not only a right but a duty to demand this information from the Government before we try to reach a conclusion on the matters we are now debating. I have offered to give way twice to the Solicitor-General, because I think that the Committee has a right to know whether he is proposing at some stage in the debate to give the information for which I am asking and which every member of the Committee is demanding that the Government should give to enable us to form a conclusion. I will willingly give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he be giving us this information? If he does not give us this information, then it appears to me—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps it might short circuit the position, as the hon. Gentleman is not getting any response from the Government Front Bench, if he would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) whether, because of this secret agreement between the two Front Benches, he has this information and is willing to give it to the hon. Gentleman. Knowing how generous the hon. Gentleman is, he might then circulate it to the members of the Committee. I have a feeling that the Opposition Front Bench is also privy to the secret.
      Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interjection. I have no doubt that there is some unholy alliance in this business. I do not know which right hon. Member disappeared from the Chamber and went to the Library, but it is worrying that this important document should have disappeared.
      Mr. Reginald Maudling: I can reassure my hon. Friend that there are
      314
      no printed documents in the place that I visited.
      Sir D. Glover: I am sure that members of the Committee on both sides warmly welcome the statement just made by my right hon. Friend. We are encouraged in continuing our deliberations in the knowledge that he was not party to some nefarious plot to make this important document disappear as soon as it was realised that it might be of value to the Committee. I presume that this document, although it may have temporarily disappeared, will be produced by the other place at some stage in the future.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
      Sir D. Glover: I shall not give way for a moment. In due course I shall give the hon. Gentleman plenty of time.
      I think one can say that this document will appear after we have reached a conclusion in the Committee, and either won or lost as the case may be, but having done it with inadequate information.
      I come now to a matter of great substance—
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me a little about the problem of the document to which he is referring. Would I be correct in understanding that the object of the hon. Gentleman's desire to have a sight of this document is that he feels that if a document setting out records were available to the Committee we should be better able to judge whether the figures set out in the Clause to which he is suggesting an Amendment are correct, or whether the Amendment is correct? Is that the reason behind the hon. Gentleman's request for this document?
      Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I apologise for not making myself clear. That is the nub of my argument. Are the Government, or—and I give this to hon. Gentlemen opposite—the joint board, right in the assumption of 33⅓0 per cent.? Is that the right assumption, or is some other percentage or some other arrangement wiser and better in building up the new—
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have spent most of the afternoon in this Committee, in common with most hon. Members, and I have

      315
      listened to the general debate on points of order. The hon. Member is now debating whether he could be guided by 33½ per cent. 25 per cent., 10 per cent., or by some other percentage of attendance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whether hon. Members have knowledge of the paper or not, the Amendments have been tabled and there must have been some good valid reasons which led hon. Members to suggest these percentages.
      Sir D. Glover: With all humility, Sir Myer, I suggest that this is how a Committee works. Very often an Amendment, which is known as a probing Amendment, is put down with the object of getting information. This happens throughout our Parliamentary proceedings. The trouble here is that we have not found out anything and this is the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. I admit that I was perhaps led a wee bit astray by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), because I was coming on to what I think is an extremely important matter on which I think those who support the Bill should go into the Lobby with those who oppose it.
      Although we are debating these Amendments without the necessary knowledge to form a correct conclusion, and although the Government have said that they will try to obtain this document so that hon. Members on both sides can study it at some future date, because the Government seem determined that there shall be no Report stage of the Bill, even if, having got this information from this document, the Committee by an overwhelming majority wished to alter the basis of attendance in the other place we should have no further opportunity of altering the Bill. It would be scandalous for us to pass Clause 4, which deals with the attendance picture in the House of Lords, without a firm assurance from the Government that the Amendments which they originally tabled will be accepted by them so that the Committee knows, when it is dealing with this problem, that there will be a Report stage. Having got this further information that we are all seeking, we should be able to make a much more responsible, much more objective, much more deep-seated, and much wiser decision. I believe that that should be the reaction of everybody who
      316
      is a member of this Committee, whatever his attitude to the Bill.
      The Government are making protestations that they wish to help the Committee, that they wish the Committee to have this evidence which they admit exists. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Social Security was speaking from his notes. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made quite clear, this is not how Government Bills are produced. Of course there are documents with this information available and the Committee has a right—indeed, it goes further—we have a constitutional duty to fight this Clause word by word and hour by hour until we get from the Government some indication that we are not going to make an irrevocable decision on the question of attendance and so on in the House of Lords; because the Government have given us a promise that, whatever decision we make during the Committee stage, they will ensure that there is a Report stage of this Bill so that Parliament can take a second decision if the information then available makes this desirable.
      It is for this reason that today has been in many ways a great historic day from the constitutional point of view. Many hon. Members in the House today who perhaps at this moment may have thought they have taken part in some form of filibuster have probably done an enormous constitutional job in trying to force the Government of the day—and I do not mind which Government it is—to give the House of Commons the information it needs on which to form a conclusion and a view. I believe we have nothing for which we need apologise, and if this debate on Clause 4 goes on all night, then again I do not believe the Committee will have anything at all for which to apologise.
      We are not Lobby fodder. We are people elected by our constituents to form a view, and we cannot form a view unless the Government of the day give us the information on which to form that view. The Government have that information and they refuse to disclose it to us at a time when it is useful in debating these Amendments. Therefore, I am sure the Committee will be right to go on arguing this until the Government are much more forthcoming than

      317
      they have shown any sign of being during the last six hours of our debate.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Sheldon: You will, of course, be aware, Sir Myer, of the very strong feeling in the House and in this Committee that we are discussing a matter the central part of which has not been before us. Nevertheless, I carried on with a fair amount of my own personal, detailed research while I tried to remedy some of the deficiencies in the information that was before this Committee. I need hardly say how very much I deplore having to speak once again on this Amendment without the information which I understood would be given to me when I came to go into the arguments which I had at that stage only just begun. I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that my speech up to that stage occupied just one column. At that stage I had been so strongly opposed to the secrecy surrounding these documents that the Secretary of State said that he would make them available although they are long and complicated. It was at that stage, after thanking him very strongly and expressing my very deep gratitude to him for his information which would make so much better the contribution many hon. Members would be able to make, that I resumed my seat.
      When subsequently the information was not produced to the House I, like most hon. Members, was deeply upset and acquired the feeling that we had been fooled. I must say that today, after the constant changing of mind that we have seen, this dithering as to whether this document is to be put before us or not, I am not convinced that we shall get the information. In view of my right hon. Friend's last remarks. I am not sure that we shall get either the document that is in the Library of the House or any other document from which my right hon. Friend quoted. I am not even certain that, at this moment, that document is still in the House of Commons. We have our rights in dealing with our own Library, but if it has gone from there, those rights may not exist. So the Government should be open and let us know about this document, which is central to the Amendment.
      You said, Sir Myer, that hon. Members had formed their own conclusions
      318
      when putting down Amendments, but they were only interim conclusions. When I put down my three Amendments, I did so on the basis of the information then available: I had no other. It was only as our debates progressed that I became aware of further information and the realisation of projects which I had initiated enabled me to assess more precisely the changes that I might favour. This is not unknown in Committee. Hon. Members must put an Amendment down very early to have it selected and they hope that any final adjustments which are necessary will be made on Report.
      This was the basis of my Amendments, but I realised that, in the light of subsequent research, some modification of the figures might be necessary. We should be very obstinate if we put down figures and stood by them when subsequent research did not uphold them. We must always make the best estimate that we can, and should expect to modify our attitude in the light of the facts which become available. Many hon. Members might want to do this.
      But our difficulty here is that that information, which should have been available and analysed in great depth by this time to enable us to criticise the model of a second Chamber and the attendance figures, is not available. I argued that this was only one model of many possible ones. One had a system whereby the selection was of the attendance of one-third, the age limit at 72, the size of the Chamber at 230 and the salary at £2,000. I suggested one could have an entirely different model whereby the attendance was greater, but in order to obtain a higher attendance one would need to pay people more; on the other hand, because there was a high attendance the Chamber size could be reduced. One had a whole range of models. One could have for example—and this is only one of the very many models that one could select—an attendance of two-thirds, an age limit of 65, a Chamber size of 150 and a salary of £3,000. I should not like to defend that proposition because there could be information available to us against which it could be tested and found to be wrong. The point is that the Government's model ought to be tested and might also be found to be wrong. It has not been submitted to the test.

      319
      I can stand up and strongly claim my model as being superior to that of the Government, and the Government can stand up and claim that their model is superior to mine. This Committee will not be in a position to know which one is right. We should be arguing on the basis of irrelevancies as to whether 72 or 65 is the right age without knowing the facts which are determined and which are held by the Government but which have not been revealed to this Committee. This is the disgraceful part of the entire episode. On that basis the Government are determined to railroad this Bill through with no changes whatever and no justification.
      One might assume that the Government had acquired an absolute perfection—although absolute perfection, in my recollection, is usually claimed only by those people who are wholly in the wrong. It might be that they are able to claim this absolute perfection because it is true. If this is so it should be a very easy matter to lay those facts before this Committee on which we can decide for ourselves and fully accept that the Government have made the right decision. At this stage I can put forward a model that is more or less picked out of the air—attendance of two-thirds, 65 the age of retirement, a Chamber of 150, giving smaller accommodation, £3,000 a year—which works out cheaper, and claim for this model greater benefit than the model that the Government have selected. They are not in a position to deny that mine is better than theirs unless they start quoting selectively from a document that has not been laid before the Committee.
      This is the present situation. That that is extremely unsatisfactory has been stated again and again. It needs to be stated. It is quite scandalous that we should decide in this Amendment the shape of the House of Lords without the information that the Government are keeping from us.
      I considered at one stage trying to find out what information the Government had. There are certain kinds of information—and here I would contradict the Secretary of State when he said "It is all published "—and records that are not published and that may exist. I do
      320
      not know whether this is true or not. Looking through the journals of the House of Lords, one sees there the attendance of peers. They must sign in and therefore one can get a good idea of the figures involved.
      I took a 20 per cent. sample and discovered that the average figure for attendance was 210, although the voting figures were very much down on that. I did not have at my disposal the resources of the Government and was not able to make a full evaluation. It seemed from my sample that the voting figures were much smaller than the attendance figures, and there may here be a skeleton in the cupboard that gives one the impression that there is another piece of information which has not been revealed to the Committee.
      Mr. Nigel Birch: Based on that exercise, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the clocking-out figures are more important than the clocking-in ones in that, while they get their money by clocking-in, they cast their votes by clocking-out?
      Mr. Sheldon: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that interesting observation. I have made further calculations—one can gather the attitude of the House of Lords towards this matter from another survey that has been made—and I will come to them later.
      Although the average back-bencher does not have the resources of the Government available to him to conduct surveys of this kind, we have been forced, because of the Government's refusal to reveal vital information, to do our best in this connection. I examined the possibility of analysing a reformed House of Lords and I concluded that the best analysis that I could make was to study the relevant factors in reforming the other place.
      The figures which I put before hon. Members in considering such a reform—
      The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to be cooperative and to expedite our business. If he intends to give an indication of the kind of House of Lords that he would contemplate, I must remind him that the Amendment merely

      321
      seeks to amend the minimum attendance in "a" House of Lords. I should, therefore, have to rule out of order any attempt to describe the type of Upper Chamber that he would like to see.
      Mr. Sheldon: I appreciate your Ruling Sir Meyer, but in dealing with the question of attendances I must naturally refer to the figures of attendance, age, size of chamber and salary because these are all inter-related. If I were to say that there should be an attendance of two-thirds, I should have to make a change somewhere else. My remarks are obviously directed to the question of minimum attendance, but one must consider the consequential changes that this involves.
      I began my investigation by feeling that it must be a fact-finding operation. Since SC' many statistics have been concealed from us, a survey of this kind is vital. I made some sample tabulations of attendance, but was never confident enough to believe that they could be used as a basis for making a firm asssessment. Being such a complicated matter, I felt that such a wide-ranging examination was beyond the resources of the average back-bencher.
      9.0 p.m.
      I got co-operation from somebody in a business school who offered me certain facilities. I felt that I could engage him sufficiently to offer certain facilities, including the use of punch cards, but I felt that it would be unfair to impose this burden when the facilities should have been available to the Committee from the Government. There was the question of information which one could gather. I found that there was information of other kinds available, and this I made use of from time to time.
      The next thing was a survey of attitudes of Members of the House of Lords. When one makes a decision based purely on fact finding without attempting to make a survey, one has to deny oneself one of the fundamental aids of modern management. The Government make an assumption that 230 peers with a maximum age of 72 and a salary of £2,000 would mean that they would attend two-thirds of the time. What would happen if they attended for only 50 per cent. of the time, or if there were a larger Chamber? Six men sitting round a table
      322
      cannot decide these matters perfectly. What any ordinary management exercise would consist of is a certain survey to find just what peers think about it themselves and to find how many want to be peers.
      Do the Government know? Have the Government any indication of how many of the thousand or more peers would like to be voting peers? Is this not of crucial importance? Does it not have a bearing on attendance and a bearing on the size of the House of Lords? They did not do this. We are not talking about advanced managerial expertise, but about something which a simpleton in any firm concerned with these matters should be able to take on. These are matters on which, with the limited resources I have available, I was able to persuade a firm of research services, Mark Abrams, to undertake a survey of attitudes, the results of which I have with me.
      The next thing which I felt was fairly obvious that I should do and which is not a matter of advanced techniques but is again simple, was to make a comparative study. What about Houses of Lords elsewhere? How are they run? What are their attendances like? What tasks do they have to perform? How well do they perform and how do they vary from one part of a country to another? This has not been done. It is a crying disgrace that when we are to create a House of Parliament which is to determine how this country should be run we fail to do some of the most obvious things which could have been done. It is a scandal. It should be known how far short of what they could have done they have in fact done. On the question of international comparisons we find a deplorable lack of understanding of what goes on in other countries.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak): Does my hon. Friend agree that had this research been undertaken it might well have led the Government to the conclusion that a bicameral system is not an effective system? Is this a conclusion which might have been anticipated and have led to the decision not to undertake this research?
      Mr. Sheldon: I should not like to comment on that matter.
      The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for not offering to comment on that matter.
      Mr. Sheldon: Suffice it to say that there was an appalling lack of knowledge of international comparisons. The speech of the Lord Chancellor on 19th November, 1968, contained this profound statement:
      "…I think the unicameralism position is contradicted by all experience. There is no other Western democracy of anything like our size that has not found from experience that it is absolutely essential to have a Second Chamber. There are, of course, smaller ones which have one Chamber: New Zealand, Israel, Zambia, I believe Liechtenstein, and no doubt some others. General experience has been that it is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 19th November, 1968, Vol. 297, c. 642.]
      That was the investigation of international comparisons conducted by the Government. There should have been a full book. We are not talking about a minor Bill to improve the sewerage in one part of the country. We are talking about a House of Lords which is to play a crucial part in the government of Britain. To conduct the investigation on this third-form basis is a standing disgrace to the House of Lords. Had the Government conducted this investigation properly, they would have shown that most of the countries which have two chambers have copied our system—both the revolutionaries who admired us in the 18th century and the reactionaries who admired us subsequently because we had withstood Napoleon. If the Government had been looking in that direction and had followed through the fact that, had we been unicameralists, most countries would have been unicameralists, that had we been tricameralists a large number of countries would have been tricameralists, and then investigated—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. We must draw the line somewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman within his own heart knows full well that he has transcended the generous bounds of the Amendment. I ask him to return to the terms of the Amendment dealing with the question of the minimum attendance requirement.
      Mr. Sheldon: I am in some difficulty, as I am sure you appreciate, Sir Myer.
      The Temporary Chairman: Then the obvious solution is for the hon. Gentleman to throw the argument overboard.
      Mr. Sheldon: Only because one searches hard for a place to look at the technical aspects of some of these matters relating to size, composition and attendance—
      The Temporary Chairman: This is not the place to debate them. That is my ruling.
      Mr. Sheldon: I am trying to debate the attendance figures in so far as they relate to other countries and point out that in those other countries there are lessons to be learned which were available within the constraints of time, within the constraints upon availability, within the constraints of numbers of staff that could be deputed to this task. All this was available, but it was not gathered.
      Dr. Reginald Bennett: Have the Governments of other countries which have two chambers shown the same unaccountable reluctance as this Government to release attendance figures?
      Mr. Sheldon: I do not know. For a brief time I considered what I personally should do in the way of obtaining international comparisons of sizes of chambers, attendance, and so on. I soon realised that I did not have sufficient time available to me to enable me to undertake such a task. As a result, I did not proceed further.
      That left me with the approach which I intended to adopt in the time between the interruption of the debate and its resumption today in devoting myself to considering how the figures might have been determined with much greater precision. I thought that I had better secure some outside advice on how it should best be done. As the Committee knows, I was a member of the Fulton Committee which examined the Civil Service and its approach to matters of this kind. I asked the management consultant who was responsible for the exercise covered in the Fulton Report which examined the Civil Service if he would give his view on the approach which should be made in attempting to obtain the right model of the House of Lords and how it should be constituted.

      325
      I have his report here, and he has given me permission to quote from it and give his name. He is an eminent and able management consultant, Mr. John Garrett. I shall not quote all he says, but he makes some important points on how the Government could have put before us a rather better figure than the arbitrary one-third which seems to have been decided by half-a-dozen men asking one another's views. Mr. Garrett deals first with the way in which the task is commenced, the technical problems, the method of setting up the study, the terms of reference, allocation of responsibilities, how one secures accountable management in establishing responsibility for various parts of the study, and so on. He then comes to the fact gathering, the part which has been denied to us.
      First, he draws attention to the importance of statements of Government policy view, and one should include here, I suppose, the policy view of the Opposition. Then he covers an examination of the existing membership of the other place, how many attendances Members put in, and so on. All that should have been done. We know that part at least was done. Then he suggests an attitude survey of the Lords, I was pleased at that because I had already undertaken it. An attitude survey is valuable in determining what is acceptable. It is an important tool of Government, a tool which is not used anything like enough. At present, the way in which we go about such matters is to ask a few spokesmen who claim to represent an industry or an interest, though we know in our heart of hearts that they have no right to make that claim. One can find these matters out. The methods I am outlining are not perfect. They just happen to be better than those used by the Government, although they, equally, are available to the Government.
      One should then take into account the attitudes of other interested persons and bodies. Perhaps the attitudes of Members of Parliament might have been studied; the Government would at least have been a little more knowledgeable on that aspect of the matter.
      Next, Mr. Garrett points out the need for comparative studies, such as the one which I had hoped to set going and
      326
      could not, to see what goes on in foreign countries and institutions. After all the great fact gathering, one next assembles the published data and synthesises it, testing it again with some more surveys. His estimate was that the whole operation would take about three to six months. That is about fair. It gives plenty of time for an exhaustive analysis of one of the most important matters to come before the House of Commons, and it could and should have been done. The Government, who so heartily welcomed the Fulton approach, failed to recognise that here, right in our very midst, was an application that should have been made but was not.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I disagree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that an attitudinal survey of the type he mentioned could be undertaken within three to six months. Going by my knowledge of such surveys, I believe that it would be a rather slight survey if it took such a short time. I believe it would have to take much longer.
      I also want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the very interesting conclusions reported in the recent study by Professor Mackenzie and Dr. Silver of the London School of Economics in their book on the Conservative working-class voter, "Angels in Marble ". We know that there are many such voters. The study, which also considered Labour working class voters, reveals quite clearly that the majority of working class voters are—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that he is well outside the bounds of order. We are not concerned at this stage with the views expressed by other people. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment, and to remember that he is intervening in a speech by the non. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
      Mr. Jackson: I was drawing my hon. Friend's attention to research done in the field, Sir Myer. You allowed my hon. Friend to make the point that there should have been research into the attitude of the public, Members of Parliament and others on reform of the House of Lords. I am merely drawing his

      327
      attention to some research that has probably escaped his notice. I should like to end by drawing his attention to the conclusion in the book that the majority of Labour voters are opposed to the type of reform contained in the Bill, and are in favour of abolition.
      Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for that intervention.
      I should add that Mr. Garrett prepared the report in a great hurry. I rather pressed him. In his covering letter he states:
      "This "—
      the study—
      "would be an ideal project for a post-Fulton planning unit, and would take three to six months, I would think, excluding systems design."
      That would add a few months to the figure I quoted. This is something the Government should have undertaken if they really wanted their proposals to be taken seriously.
      The survey which I organised with Research Services Limited, using a random sample of Members of the House of Lords, was organised to have the details returned by Tuesday of last week. The most important point I had in mind was the level of attendance, because it came about during the interruption of the debate on the subject. But I naturally took the opportunity of putting a whole range of questions, which were prepared in conjunction with the firm. It was a sample survey of over 300, and we had more than 100 replies, which I and the firm consider to be a very reasonable response, from which one can draw conclusions of some value and close relevance to the decision as to the kind of House of Lords—
      The Solicitor-General: Will my hon. Friend indicate how he arrived at the figure of 300?
      Mr. Sheldon: This was a sample survey, and the results would have been the same, within broad statistical error, had it been 200 or 400. The House of Lords will not be the same body, on the other hand, if it is 150 as it will be if it is 300. There are occasions when figures are crucial and occasions when they are less important. We should really understand when the first is the case and when the
      328
      second is the case. We might then be able to come to rather better decisions than the guesswork which is so frequently involved, according to my inference from that intervention. There are much better ways of making decisions of crucial importance than by guesswork.
      The survey asked a number of questions. First, it asked whether the peer was a peer of succession, a life peer or a peer of first creation. It asked for details of age; they were broken down into five age brackets. It asked for attendances. In doing this, we realised that it would not be possible to expect Members of the House of Lords to draw upon their diaries; so we asked for approximate attendances, realising, of course, that obviously there would be a bias in favour of over-estimation. We hoped we might be able to allow for that subsequently.
      The survey asked for percentages of days on which the Member attended, the days when he obtained leave of absence and the days on which he did not attend. It also asked—and this is relevant to the following Amendment—what days lie would have attended had he not been prevented from doing so by illness or by Parliamentary or public business. It also asked the most important question of all. It pointed out that under the existing proposals there would be a number of possible choices for peers, and it asked whether the peer wished to be a voting peer, a non-voting peer with a right to attend, or to disclaim his right to attend.
      So we have the first indication which has been presented to the Committee as to how many peers want to be voting peers. The fact that the Government have come here without really knowing this, other than the conclusions of a cosy group of people sitting around a table and all claiming greater knowledge than they possess and greater ability and understanding than we know they did possess, is quite deplorable. This is an extraordinary lapse from what the Government should and could have done.
      The survey asked those who wished to be voting peers if they would be prepared to be non-voting peers if they were not successful—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely but I suggest that the only

      329
      portion relevant to the Amendment is that section of the survey which deals with the question of attendances. I must ask him to confine himself at this stage to that section.
      Mr. Sheldon: This part is the attendance part, Sir Myer.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman to be referring to the ascertainment of whether noble Lords wished to be voting peers or non-voting peers. That is not in order at this stage.
      Mr. Sheldon: Those peers who wanted to be non-voting were asked about their attendances. I was attempting to explain—perhaps not very well—that the survey asked the peers whether, if they were not selected as voting peers, they would be prepared to be non-voting, and, as nonvoting peers, how often they would attend. I apologise if I did not get it all out rather quicker, thus saving your intervention, Sir Myer.
      For the first time we have had an analysis of how many people would wish to attend, and how frequently. We all know that this does not produce certainty. The only thing that we know, and this is learnt by management organisations all over the world, is that the limitations upon this method are much less than the limitations imposed upon the collective thoughts of half a dozen people who claim to know more than they do. Although we need to read these conclusions with some care, this is the case with all examinations. This provides a much larger base from which to draw our conclusions.
      The next question dealt with attendance. It was asked:
      "What salary levels would be regarded as adequate for different levels of attendance? "
      If we had different minimum levels of attendance, we wanted to know how peers would expect the salary to be adjusted. We asked questions about retirement age, which is not relevant here, and factual questions to discover whether the respondent was a Government supporter, an Opposition supporter or a crossbencher. We have begun an analysis of the 100 replies, and so far we have got only preliminary conclusions. I hope that further studies of these replies will be made
      330
      and that we shall have some further information—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the final studies will be in before we have concluded the debate on this Amendment.
      Mr. Sheldon: That will not be possible, but there is even better news for you, Sir Myer, and it is that they will be in time for some subsequent Amendments. I do not intend to go through this in great detail, although it is all here.
      Mr. Michael Foot: Some of us think that my hon. Friend is rather skimping this. Will he not give us the interim figures about atendances? Some of us are on tenterhooks. We have heard the questions. We do not want him to pass on before he has read the answers dealing with attendances. I think he is doing a great service to the Committee.
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is certainly doing the Committee a great service, but I do not think he requires the hon. Member's assistance in his mathematical analysis of the situation.
      Mr. Sheldon: I will give some of the interim figures which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend. Anyone who has undertaken a survey knows that there are all sorts of interesting conclusions which can arise as a result of examination, but which may not be apparent on first consideration. It is conclusions of that kind that will be the result of subsequent examination. At this stage I should like to point out one or two important statistics. First, the salaries expected as being appropriate was one of my biggest surprises. It was discovered that the median salary of attendance for 31 per cent. to 40 per cent., which is the range covered by the Government's proposition, was £1,100—
      9.30 p.m.
      The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman continues to develop this argument of £11,000 per annum payment for membership of the other place, there will be nobody left to argue this Amendment.
      Mr. Sheldon: Perhaps I could end that rush straight away by pointing out that £1,100 was the figure suggested, although the figures ranged from £6,000 to £500.
      Of all the respondents, 72 per cent. wished to be voting peers. On analysis, and one cannot go too much by this because it is broadly within the limits of statistical error, there were 74 per cent. Government, 67 per cent. Opposition and 78 per cent. cross-benchers who wished to be voting peers.
      The biggest surprise of all, a matter which will affect attendance levels and to which my right hon. Friend will have to direct his attention, was that 95 per cent. of those wishing to be voting peers would be prepared to attend as nonvoting peers. I doubt whether the attendance figures that my right hon. Friend has assumed have taken into account this surprising figure of 95 per cent.
      There is a space for remarks, and the one which I have just picked up—it was not planned—has this remark:
      "I think Mr. Robert Sheldon, M.P., is very silly but I am very pleased to answer his questionnnaire."
      I am very pleased to use the results and do not pay too much attention to the reasons for filling in the questionnaires. If such a large number of frustrated voting peers will be attending as nonvoting peers, the Government will have to consider how they are to be accommodated and what services are available for them.
      My only indication of the reason why so many peers are prepared to stay on and not vote is that some of them have been convinced that the power of the House of Lords will be increased in a way that they welcome. They realise, as the Lord Chancellor said, that although the powers may be a little reduced from the massive powers which we know they dare not exercise, they will be used. It means that anyone attending the House of Lords in the future will have a more interesting job to do and, what concerns us most, a much more powerful job. It is that which Members of the other place find so interesting and what makes 72 per cent. of them, some of whom hardly attend at all now, wish to become voting peers. They know that they will have real power. Of those who are not going to be selected as voting peers, 95 per cent. are prepared to accept non-voting
      332
      status, because they know that the new House of Lords will be a centre of power. If one is not part of a power machine, it is not bad to be near the centre of power. These are my conclusions, drawn not from the statistical part of the survey but from reading some of the comments made in replies.
      The other aspect of attendance is that there is some difference between life peers and peers of succession, life peers wanting more salary and peers of succession tending to be more in favour of a daily allowance. I suppose that that can be tied in with certain levels of taxation.
      As to attendance up to the age of retirement, 54 per cent. of those filling in the questionnaire do not wish to have any retirement age.
      There is one feature of this survey to which I ought to draw attention. I have been able to detect a bias in favour of those more active peers. It was to be expected that peers who are more active in the House of Lords would tend to reply to the questionnaire more promptly. It is possible to remove this bias and present a true picture of the House of Lords as a body. However, it would require statistical information based on the present composition of the House of Lords, and that information is being denied to us.
      We have discussed the kind of information which would be required to relate the statistical sample that we have produced to an average typical sample in the House of Lords. One would require to have the present situation statistically analysed and related to the same survey before one could give a completely unbiased survey.
      Sir C. Osborne: It is obvious that a lot of the details in this very fine survey cannot be given to the Committee because of the rules of order. However, will the hon. Gentleman make the full details available so that we can have complete information before us when we come to further debates?
      Mr. Sheldon: I am hoping to do that, and I hope it will coincide with the publication of the document that my right hon. Friend has. I have no secrets in these matters. In asking peers to respond, I stated clearly that the information would be published but that there

      333
      was no question of identifying individual peers. If I do this, I am sure that my right hoi. Friend will make his document available, because that will result in a better understanding of this Bill.
      Mr. John Hay: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that statistical information is often given by a Minister requesting the eave of the House to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Would he consider asking leave to circulate details of this survey in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
      Mr. Sheldon: I should be happy to circulate this survey in the OFFICIAL REPORT if permission were given.
      There is one other aspect I should like to mention about attendances as a result of this survey. The recipients of the survey were asked what attendance they would put in with an adequate salary, on the one hand—it was not defined further than that—or, on the other hand, with a daily allowance. This was of very great importance to the Amendment. We discovered that, with an adequate salary, we could expect something over 70 per cent. attendance and, with a daily allowance, about 60 per cent. attendance. The difference is not as wide as we might think, but the difference existed and the Government should have borne it in mind.
      The 70 per cent., on the basis of an adequate salary, is well above the 33 per cent. attendance on which the White Paper was based. It might be assumed that when the Government come to pick their voting peers they will obviously have a great bias in favour of those who are dedicated and interested and, therefore, likely to attend the most. But, even on this sample survey, not picking the keenest Members, we found that there would be 70 per cent. attendance although the Government are assuming 33 per cent. attendance. There is no connection between these two figures.
      I thought some of the Amendments were over-optimistic. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) seeks to increase the figure to two-thirds—67 per cent. My hon. Friend is nearly bang on. On that basis I shall have to review my own Amendment which seeks to make it 50 per cent. That was only a guess. At that stage I had no information. However, my guess was better than that of the Government. Theirs was a rotten guess.
      334
      They are trying to create a House of Lords on the basis of a rotten guess. If they are to make a guess they should get it a little nearer right. There are ways to do this. They should do it. These are not secret methods. They are open and available. If they wanted to do the job properly they should have had enough understanding of the nature of the problem to make the right attempt at the beginning.
      Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend must be fair. The Opposition Front Bench, by some extraordinary process, made exactly the same guess.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Powell.
      Mr. Sheldon: I have not yet finished.
      The Temporary Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member. He seems to be the unfortunate victim of hon. Members intervening and the Chair assuming that he has finished his speech.
      Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for your kind consideration, Sir Myer.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has pointed out the deficiences of the Opposition Front Bench. He is right to do that. In this matter there was a conspiracy of incompetence between the two Front Benches. Neither side knew, wanted to know, or made any attempt to find out. They assumed that they were the recipients of all knowledge in this matter and they sat together cosily in that little room fortifying each other with the accuracy of their observations. But they failed to find out that the Bill was not founded on reality but on their own imaginations.
      Mr. Peyton: In stating, as he has done, that there has been a conspiracy between the two Front Benches, I think the hon. Gentleman is bound to admit that the superior parenthood belongs to his Front Bench, and that any responsibility on this side is at least redeemed by a very diminished enthusiasm for this filthy Bill which the Government persist in pursuing.
      Mr. Sheldon: We all know that the diminishing interest is due to the activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in this conspiracy of incompetence which

      335
      was entered into by the two Front Benches I do not think either side will get any real reward from it until the Bill is finally changed.
      [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair.]
      I should like, now, to deal with some of the other matters relating to the Amendment. One of the factors in asking for a higher attendance in the House of Lords is the reduction in the number of backwoodsmen. As we raise the level of attendance there, so we diminish the number of backwoodsmen who have rather less to contribute. The other factor relating to attendance is that we must beware that in fixing any attendance the minimum may tend very easily to become the maximum. A number of peers have commented on this, and perhaps I might quote one or two of their comments. One said that peers clock in just to draw their bonus. Another said that many Lords attend to make sure they are seen, and then go home. This should not surprise us. Whatever figure is finally accepted, it may, for a fair number of peers, tend to become the maximum rather than the minimum one.
      The important thing about attendance is that it is tied up with salary, and if we are going to pay members of the House of Lords we have a right to demand certain value for that money. They cannot avoid the obligation of giving the country and Parliament some value for that money.
      Mr. John Smith: Is not that a most dangerous idea to introduce? I think that it would be most unfortunate if that idea were extended to this Chamber.
      Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman knows that the safeguard here lies with the electorate. We are responsible to the people who send us here. If we do not do what is required, or what is thought to be of value, we are soon told of our shortcomings by people in our constituency. The point about the House of Lords is that the Members there are not responsible to the electorate, and if they want to regard the salary as a bonanza there is nobody to say them nay. If they want to attend only very rarely there is nobody to call them to account. Last year there were only 137 sitting days in the
      336
      House of Lords. One-third of that is 45 or 46. If we take away the days on which they are absent on Parliamentary business, on public business, or are ill, many people will get away with 20 or 25 days attendance throughout the year, and will be paid a salary for that, with nobody to call them to account.
      This could be a bonanza to a life peer who, when he went to the other place, never expected to receive it. He gave no undertaking. He went there on a quite different basis and if he attends hardly at all, no one can call him to account and his salary will be just money in his pocket. The House of Lords may have some claims to a greater knowledge of what is going on, but when we leave the House of Commons, we learn something about the country by going back to our constituencies—
      The Chairman: Order. I am having some difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment.
      Mr. Sheldon: So since they can get away with an attendance of as low as 45 days, or, if they make the permitted number of claims, 25 days a year, for which they receive £2,000, the ratio is £20,000 a year. It is worth their while to come in—
      The Chairman: Order. There is nothing about this in the Amendment. We are concerned with a percentage, a fraction, of attendances.
      Mr. Sheldon: I am also concerned with the number of days that they attend, Mr. Irving, which is part of the percentage. Although they may attend only for a few days, they can get large sums of money for a few hours' attendance. We should not accept this without question.
      My main concern has been with the whole approach to the House of Lords and the preparation of the model. Instead of using the normal tools of investigation, examination and comparison which are available to everyone—if they were available to back benchers, they should have been available to the Government—the Government preferred secrecy and the prevention of full discussion—
      The Chairman: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has already submitted this argument to the Committee more than once, he is now concerned, or should be

      337
      concerned, on this Amendment with minimum attendance.
      Mr. Powell: Not for the first time in these proceedings, I can assure the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that he has put the Committee very much in his debt not only by the thoroughness with which he has investigated such thinking as there is behind the scheme embodied in the Bill but by the research which he put in hand, which has at least shown up the shoddiness and artificiality of that scheme. We shall, of course, look forward to studying what he has said in HANSARD tomorrow and also to the data which we hope will be forthcoming later. Clearly, modifications and corrections will need to be applied to it, but I am sure that it will remain a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the present working of the constitution and certainly a standard by which we can judge the deplorable absence of any such thought and research behind the Government's scheme.
      The figure of one-third which these Amendments propose in various ways to alter is one of a group of interrelated figures in the Government's scheme. Two of those figures—one-third and the retirement age of 72—are in the Bill. A third figure, the size of the House, 230, is in the White Paper and the fourth figure mentioned in this debate, which is relevant and co-ordinate with the others, is not even mentioned in the White Paper. That is, the prospective theoretical figure of £2,000 per annum remuneration.
      As has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and earlier by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), these three or four figures are coordinate with one another. One cannot alter one without affecting the others; they hang together and are viewed by the Government as hanging together.
      The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put a very pertinent question earlier today in which he asked which of these figures came first. Which figure did the Government think of first and work from to arrive at the others? I will put my answer to that question. I believe it can be derived from the intervention which the Secretary of State made earlier in the debate on this question, for it is deplorably obvious that in considering these Amendments we are dependent solely
      338
      upon that scanty information which the right hon. Gentleman vouchsafed. Obviously the Government did look at some alternatives, though they did not do a tithe of the work which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done.
      The very word "calculation" which the right hon. Gentleman used in his speech on 26th February, and the word "model" which I notice occurred once or twice earlier today in connecton with the document we have not been able to see, show that alternatives were considered. It can be proved from the information which the Secretary of State gave in the course of the first part of the debate how extraordinarily simple was the sort of clockwork contraption which lies behind this Bill and which we are being asked to accept on trust.
      The Government have shown themselves somewhat secretive about their workings. There are two reasons for secretiveness. Sometimes people are secretive because they want to conceal something, but they may also be secretive because they have remarkably little to conceal and do not want it known how little there is to conceal. I suspect that that, and not the more sinister desire to withhold a great mass of detailed information from the Committee, lies behind the extraordinary coyness which we witnessed—
      Sir D. Glover: Is it in order for a member of the Government Front Bench to start throwing missiles across the Chamber?
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I did not throw anything across the Chamber.
      The Chairman: Order.
      Mr. Powell: The information given by the right hon. Gentleman to which I refer appears in c. 1844 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February. The right hon. Gentleman was giving the figures for the Session 1967–68 of peers, by succession and of first creation, who had attended for one-third of the sittings and for one-half of them. He also showed how those numbers would be reduced by the application of the retiring age of 72—
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
The House proceeded to a Division—
Sir Edward Boyle(seated and covered): On a point of order. I have never before raised a point or order in these circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not
hear anybody shout "Aye" when the Question was put and I defy any hon. Member to state categorically that "Aye" was shouted at that point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I was under the impression that "Aye" was called; but, having proceeded, I must carry on with the Division. There will be another opportunity to test the cries before long.
The House having divided: Ayes 161, Noes 76.

Division No. 123.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Moyle, Roland

Alldritt, Walter

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Neal, Harold

Anderson, Donald

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Ogden, Eric

Archer, Peter

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Oswald, Thomas

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Bence, Cyril

Hannan, William

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Bishop, E. S.

Haseldine, Norman

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Blackburn, F.

Hazell, Bert

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Boyden, James

Henig, Stanley

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Bradley, Tom

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Pentland, Norman

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Hilton, W. S.

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Brooks, Edwin

Hobden, Dennis

Price, William (Rugby)

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

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Probert, Arthur

Brown, B. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Buchan, Norman

Hoy, James

Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

Hunter, Adam

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cant, R, B.

Hynd, John

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Carmichael, Neil

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Coe, Denis

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Coleman, Donald

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

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Crawshaw, Richard

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

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

Cronin, John

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Silverman, Julius

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Kenyon, Clifford

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lawson, George

Spriggs, Leslie

Dalyell, Tam

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Taverne, Dick

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Loughlin, Charles

Tinn, James

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Luard, Evan

Tuck, Raphael

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Varley, Eric G.

Davies, lfor (Gower)

McBride, Neil

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dell, Edmund

McCann, John

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Dempsey, James

Macdonald, A. H.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Wallace, George

Dewar, Donald

Watkins, David (Consett)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Mackie, John

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Maclennan, Robert

Doig, Peter

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Weitzman, David

Dunnett, Jack

McNamara, J. Kevin

Wellbeloved, James

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Eadie, Alex

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Whitaker, Ben

English, Michael

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

Wilkins, W. A.

Ennals, David

Manuel, Archie

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Fernyhough, E.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Willis, Rt. Hn. George

Finch, Harold

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Millan, Bruce

Winnick, David

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Ford, Ben

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Forrester, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fowler, Gerry

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. J. D. Concannon and

Freeson, Reginald

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. J. Harper.

Ginsburg, David

Morris, John (Aberavon)

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Biffen, John

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bell, Ronald

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Astor, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Black, Sir Cyril

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Hooson, Emlyn

Peyton, John

Body, Richard

Iremonger, T. L.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Pym, Francis

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Kimball, Marcus

Roebuck, Roy

Chichester-Clark, R.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Crouch, David

Lane, David

Ryan, John

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lee, John (Reading)

Sheldon, Robert

Dean, Paul

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Silvester, Frederick

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Smith, John (London & W' minster)

Eden, Sir John

Lubbock, Eric

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Eyre, Reginald

Marten, Neil

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Maude, Angus

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

Gibson-Watt, David

Mendelson, J. J.

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mikardo, Ian

Waddington, David

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Monro, Hector

Weather ill, Bernard

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Younger, Hn. George

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Murton, Oscar

Hastings, Stephen

Osborn, John (Hallam)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Colonel Sir Douglas Glover and

Heffer, Eric S.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Dr. Bennett.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Park, Trevor

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
Mr. Powell: Before we took the decision to continue for a bit, I was talking about the only relevant information which has been vouchsafed to us, namely that given on 26th February by the Secretary of State for Social Services, in our task of considering whether one-third of possible total attendances is the right attendance qualification for a voting peer in the new Chamber. I was quoting the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. After applying the retiring age of 72, the right hon. Gentleman noted that in the last complete Session
"Ninety-nine created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 "
had fulfilled the one-third qualification. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say this:
"My conclusion is that, unless many more peers were created an attendance requirement of 50 per cent. would produce a much smaller voting House than the 230 thought desirable, if that is the figure we wanted."—[OFFICIAL RF. PORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1845.]
Before I come to the main deduction from those figures, I want to point out the interesting implication of those statistics when they are applied to the table in the White Paper.
Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Irving, that it is exceedingly hard to listen to the very closely knit arguments of my right hon. Friend against the background
342
of the constant parrot-like chatter which emanates uninterruptedly from the Front Bench opposite?
The Chairman: I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will wish to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Powell: The table on page 5 of the White Paper gives the total numbers, divided into peers by creation and peers by succession, who in that same Session attended the House of Lords for more than one-third of the sittings. Therefore, by applying the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, we can ascertain what proportion of the two categories were within retirement age. It gives the interesting result that of the peers of first creation, of whom a total of 153 attended at least one-third of the sittings, only 99 were under 72, whereas of the 138 peers by succession who so attended as many as 117 were under 72. This is a not uninteresting figure, because it illustrates the much lower average age of peers by succession and emphasises that over one-third of the noble Lords sitting in another place as peers of first creation are over the retirement age which is written into the Bill. It is one of the indications of how easily a Chamber by appointment would tend to become, if it be not too disrespectful an expression, a Chamber of dead-beats.
10.15 p.m.
However, the main point about the intervention on 26th February of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is that he showed clearly the reason why one-third had been adopted as the qualification figure. It was for the sake

343
of a House of 230. He said that it was in order to produce of House of 230—" If that is the figure we wanted ". In other words, the figure which we are debating is not one at which the Government arrived because, for example, they thought it reasonable that a voting peer should attend at least one sitting in three; it was not because they thought that one-third was a reasonable attendance record in itself; it was not because they thought that a peer who attended one sitting in three would have a current grasp of the business going through the House. It was not for any of those factual, decent, rational grounds that the one-third was written into the Bill. It was written in simply for a mathematical reason—no, for a mechanical reason—that it would make possible the production of a House of 230, 230 having been predetermined already. In other words, in this circular argument, the starting point at which the Government came into the circle was the assumption of a House of 230 Members.
That is cross-checked if we look at the second of the interlocked figures, namely, the retirement age, for although the Government have argued that there is some relationship between the retirement age of 72 and the practice in other walks of life, in reality there is one reason and one reason only for the choice of precisely that figure. There is one reason only why the age of 72, not 70, 73 or 75 is chosen, and that is the reason which I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General on 26th February, when I said to him:
"Given an assumed age structure of the new Chamber, and given certain mortality tables, presumably the age of retirement that is required to maintain a stable total membership is a unique and unambiguous figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February. 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1821.]
This must be so.
Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew your attention and that of the Committee to the noise emanating without cease from the Treasury Bench, and he remarked that it was particularly reprehensible when the Committee was trying to follow an important and intricate argument presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Since that time,
344
we have not been spared a second of that nattering, nattering by the Secretary of State for Social Services in particular, who is not only engaged in permanent conversation but has turned his back on the proceedings. Ought not he, above all, to be paying some attention to our proceedings?
The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will give attention to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Mr. Powell: I was pointing out that, given a certain mortality, which must be assumed and which is ascertainable from the mortality tables, and given an age composition of the House, which, again, is a basic assumption which can be made, there is only one age of retirement—
Hon. Members: Order.
Sir. D. Glover: On a point of order. Mr. Irving—
The Chairman: Order. I am watching hon. and right hon. Members. I do not think that, as yet, the right hon. Gentleman has disturbed the Committee. I shall draw attention to it if he does.
Mr. Powell: There is only one age of retirement which would keep that figure stable over—
Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is treating the Committee with contempt. You have just said that you are watching hon. and right hon. Members. But even before my right hon. Friend had started to speak, the right hon. Gentleman was still nattering away to his colleague on the Front Bench. It is disgraceful.
The Chairman: Order. As far as the Chair is concerned, the question is whether the right hon. Gentleman is disturbing the Committee. I cannot say that much so far.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Manners makyth man.
Mr. Powell: For the third or fourth time—and I hope not to trouble the Committee with a further unintended repetition of the statement—I repeat that the significance of the age of 72 is that it is the unique figure which, on those assumptions, would keep that stable figure of a 230 membership for the new Chamber.

345
Therefore, looking at the other two elements in this trinity of co-ordinated, interlocking figures, we are led inexorably to the conclusion that the starting figure was the 230. Accordingly, we cannot make up our minds either on the figure in the Bill or on any of the Amendments before the Committee unless we have gained some insight into the origin, and therefore the validity, of this assumed starting point of a Chamber of 230, from which everything else, including the one-third qualification, is derived.
We are all familiar with the passage in the White Paper in which the figure of 230 first struck our attention. It is a striking figure, because one would have thought that the Government, if they were just putting forward a specimen House as an example to show how it might be composed, would have hit on a round figure like 200 or 250. It is very natural to inquire, "Why 230?". This will presently appear. In paragraph 48 of the White Paper they give us a breakdown of the figure of 230 into the figures for the parties and cross-benchers—105 Government, 80 Conservative, 15 Liberal and 30 cross-benchers. Although those add up to 230, they have been constructed so as to add up to 230. The figure of 230 is not arrived at as the sum of those figures; those figures are arrived at as figures of which the sum will be 230.
So we are still looking for the origin of this crucial figure, which, although it is first put forward in the White Paper as a specimen, as just an example to show how such a restructured Chamber might work, on a take it or leave it basis—" Let us say 230 and see how it works "—and although that 230 is not in the Bill, it governs provisions written into the Bill, including the provision that the Committee is debating.
Therefore, it is absolutely crucial for us to discover how we came by this 230, by which we have been hag-ridden ever since. We begin to find the answer to that earlier in the White Paper, in paragraph 11, where the same figure appears in a most interesting context. The last sentence says:
"The average daily attendance for 1967–68 up to 1st August was about 230. …"
There—and I will prove this further as I go along—is the wizardry, there is the
346
scientific basis which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was desiderating for the figure of 230—not a specimen, not an example among many, but a governing consideration from which so much else has to be derived.
What the Government did, what the cabal between the two sides in the two Houses did, was to say, "Let us look and see how many people were attending for one-third of the time, say, in the present Session of 1967–68. It was 230—well, then, let us make that a starting point and work everything out from there. After all, the whole thing is arbitrary. One starting point is as arbitrary as another. No one's nose will be put out of joint if we do not change anything. In the present session there are 230 noble lords attending one-third of the time."
Why one-third of the time? That was one of the columns they got out in their statistical examination of attendance in the Session 1967–68. Anything higher would have given a derisory, much smaller figure. So they settled for 230. It is because of the attendance for one-third or more of the sittings of 230 peers on average daily attendance—average in the last complete Session—that 230 was made the starting point in the White Paper that the party composition and the crazy arrangement with crossbenchers were worked out so as to add up to 230; that the statistics were used to derive a retirement age of 72; and that by a kind of circulus vitiosus the figure we are discussing of one-third as the qualifying attendance was written back into the Bill in this subsection.
But it went much further than that. So many more things become clear to us at last from the revelation of the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion when we were discussing this Amendment. Day after day during the proceedings on the Bill, the Committee has puzzled over the figure of 77—not the number of the beast but the number of peers by succession who some gift of second sight had apparently informed the Government would become voting peers in the new Chamber. We could not understand it. We puzzled about it and asked about it at sitting after sitting.
We got a breakdown from the Home Secretary on 19th February. It is in

347
column 513 of HANSARD of that date. But that only increased our astonishment. Seventy-seven, in all conscience, was a specific figure. It was exactly 77—not 76 or 78—peers by succession who would have to be voting peers in order to make up the tale of the new House. It was more than that. He knew exactly what party they would each belong to, that it would be necessary to take 24 Labour peers by succession and make them voting peers, 42 Conservatives, seven Liberals and four crossbenchers. It all adds up to 77.
The right hon. Gentleman did not give us the explanation but the figures given by the Secretary of State for the Social Services earlier in the debate on this Amendment, the disclosure of the train of reasoning, explain everything. What we have to do is to read these figures together with the left-hand column in the table on page 5, which analyses the peers who attended in the present House for more than one-third of the sittings in 1967–68. So the Government, by assuming a House of 230—a voting House—Members retiring at 72, sitting for at least one-third of the sittings, arrived at a means of working from the existing House to their hypothetical House. Let us just run briefly through the figures and see what they disclose.
In the White Paper, there are to be 105 Labour peers in the new House. There are 81 Labour peers of first creation in the existing House who sit more than one-third of the time. Take 81 from 105 and we get 24. We therefore have to make 24 hereditary Labour peers into voting peers by making them peers of first creation.
10.30 p.m.
But this is a very strange thing, too. The Home Secretary had not noticed that there were not as many as 24 Labour peers by succession available; there are only 14 of them who sit for one-third of the time, and there are only 21 altogether. Hon. Members opposite may be especially pleased to know that it is the intention of their Government, in order to preserve the integrity of the scheme, to create three more Labour hereditary peers in order that 24 may be converted from hereditary peers into life peers and thus make up the tale of 105.
348
I do not want to weary the Committee by going through all the figures. Anyone can amuse himself by taking page 5 of the White Paper and column 531 of HANSARD of 19th February and getting out the figures for himself. There are to be 80 Conservative peers. There are already 38 Conservative peers of first creation sitting one-third of the time; 38 from 80 is 42 and that is the figure of Conservative peers by succession who are to be made voting peers in the new Chamber.
Here I have an apology to make. I am delighted that it should chance that sentry duty on the Opposition Front Bench is being done at the moment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I have an apology to make to him and to my other right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have to confess an unworthy thought which I and some of my colleagues had entertained.
When we were told that there were to be precisely 77 present successionary peers who were to be given voting peerages and that 42 were to be Conservatives, I must admit, and I repent of it, that an unworthy thought entered our minds. We imagined as the only way of explain-such precise figures that the cabal must have gone through the nominal list together marking off those whom the respective Whips thought suitable to receive this accolade and had arrived in that arbitrary manner at 42. The right hon. Gentleman's disclosure earlier in the debate has absolutely acquitted my right hon. Friend and his colleagues of any possible suspicion of this crime.
Indeed, we begin to understand how astonished the Opposition Front Bench was, no less astonished than ourselves, when it heard of these figures. There is a simple and complete alibi which my right hon. Friends possess. These figures are derived from the attendances in the upper House up to 1st August, 1968, and that is well after the conversations between the two sides were broken off. It is therefore evident that this hair-raising piece of arithmetic was being done by the Government long after they had ceased to be in contact with my right hon. Friends, and thus, both because the figures are explicable on other grounds and on the chronological alibi, I take this opportunity, and I am happy to be able to do so,

349
of saying that I and, I am sure, everyone else on this side of the Committee absolutely acquit the Opposition Front Bench of any complicity in this nonsense and of any unworthy motives which may have lain behind it.
For the sake of completeness, I will add that the Liberals work out at 15 Liberals in the new House, which would be a strong representation compared with the House of Commons. There are to be 15 Liberals in the new House. Minus eight Literals peers of first creation who already attend one-third of the time, this leaves seven Liberal peers by succession to be made voting peers. This is very lucky for them, because the proportion is as high as 65 per cent., of the Liberal peers by succession who attend regularly. Even of the total it is 45 per cent., which is far better than any other party.
It is better to belong to a party than to no party at all—I am sure a sentiment universally entertained in this Committee—because when we come to the C.B.s—I mean the cross-benchers—they fare terribly badly. There are about 30 C.B.s in the new House, and there are already 26 C.B.s of first creation, who are attending assiduously in the present House of Lords, which leaves only four to be made, out of the 52 who attend one-third of the time or the 413 C.B.s by succession who are in the present House. So it is a mouldy ration for a C.B. unless he happens also to be a Law Lord, to which we shall come later.
As a result of the adoption of this arbitrary starting point of 230, the existing figure of one-third attendance in one Session, which is the latest Session, we have not only arrived at the arbitrary figures for retirement and the arbitrary figure of one-third attendance as the qualification for voting, but we have also arrived at these ludicrous intentions for the translation of successionary peers into voting peers.
The Government, so slipshod has been their way, have not even done this simple, clockwork sort of arithmetic correctly. They have not applied the correction for retirement at 72 to the figures in the left-hand column of the table on page 5, which they are using to arrive at the number of translations from hereditary into new voting peers. They have been working upon the totals of one-third attendance in the new House in each case, and
350
not upon the totals of one-third attendance under 72. The joyous consequence of this will be that if this thing ever were set up—which please God it never will be—then the number of hereditary peers who would have to be translated into voting peers to make the thing work would be substantially larger even than the figures which the Government have put forward. Even on this simple arithmetic, this clockwork, child arithmetic, they have not even then been able to put their own assumptions into the sum to get the right figures.
The whole thing, and this is the conclusion to which an examination of every provision in the Bill brings us back, is grotesque. Just for the sake of constructing an artificial Chamber with an artificial balance which would present us all the time with a conundrum or dilemma between irrestible obstinacy and absolute subservience, we have to go through all this rigmarole of imposing conditions, qualifications and regulations. We have to introduce an attendance qualification for voting which none of us really believes is sound. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne showed how absurd the one-third attendance is. He showed how out of line with reality it is. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who would seriously attempt to justify, on merits, this particular choice of figure.
We have been driven into this absurdity, and hon. Members opposite will be driven through the Lobby in defence of this absurdity, in order to construct a Chamber which will not work, a Chamber which will confer on us no benefits that we cannot get from the present Chamber, but which, if it could be brought into existence, would constantly be causing anxiety, interruption and frustration both to this House and to itself.
Wherever it is tested, this scheme breaks down. I forget how many days we have so far spent in testing it in each of its particulars and arriving uniformily experimentally at the same result. Hon. Members, those who vote with and those who vote against the Government, and people out of doors with more serious things to think about and to worry about, are asking ever more insistently, how much longer do we have to go on before the Government admit that the thing is grotesque nonsense and take it away?
Mr. Heffer: I approach the Amendment differently from the way in which it has been approached by other hon. Members. After listening to the speeches of some hon. Members I am beginning to wonder why I am opposing this Bill. The more one looks at it, the more attractive it becomes.
The total number of days during which the other place sat last Session was 137. On the basis of one-third attendance, that means attendance on 45 or 46 days during a Session. I would not mind having a job where I was expected to attend only for 45 or 46 days a year. The rush by the average person in the street to enter the House of Lords on that basis would be phenomenal.
We know that consideration of the salary is being held back for the time being, but ultimately this would mean a £2,000 a year job for 45 days. The other place starts at 2.30 p.m. and usually tries to finish its business so that members can get home for dinner by 8 o'clock.
Mr. Birch: Sometimes they have an interval for dinner.
Mr. Heffer: That is a 5½-hour day. So for £2,000 they will put in 45 5½-hour days a year. That is not a bad job, and I am wondering why I am opposing the Bill. I ought to be one of the three extra peers who will have to be created by the Labour Party; anyone with real intelligence would be trying to get into the other place.
10.45 p.m.
In the Amendment which I am supporting, we are being a little harsh on the noble Lords, because we say that it should go up to two-thirds. That would mean their working 90 days a year. Again, I think that most building operatives, dockers and factory workers would be very pleased to work for only 90 days a year and receive ultimately the sort of remuneration which noble Lords are likely to receive.
Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has been a great ally of mine during our consideration of the Bill. But, before he pursues his argument too far, may I remind him that, in the last Division, barely half the total number of hon. Members, who are paid on a full-time basis, were present to vote?
Mr. Heffer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members are not voting because they are so disinterested in the Bill. Those of us who are here are opposing it because we realise that it must be fought, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are here to sustain it. In most Divisions so far, something like 130 hon. Members have voted. The great mass of hon. Members are not interested. They do not believe that it is worth while and, in a sense, I agree with them, because I do not think that it is worth while. My disagreement with them arises from the undoubted fact that, if they joined with us to oppose the Bill, it would get no further.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be discussing the minimum attendance. I hope that he will come to the Amendment.
Mr. Heffer: Mr. Irving, a comparison was made with the attendance in this Committee. I think that there was some relevance to the Amendment, though perhaps not much.
I approach this matter a little differently from other hon. Members. With this attractive situation, it seems to me that people would want to go into the other Chamber, particularly on the basis proposed.
In paragraph 4 of the White Paper, we are told by the Government:
"The Government considers that any reform of the House of Lords should be based on the following propositions: (a) in the framework of a modern parliamentary system the second chamber has an essential rôle to play, complementary to but not rivalling that of the Commons; (b) the present composition and powers of the House of Lords prevent it from performing that rôle as effectively as it should "—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Amendment, which is concerned with minimum attendances.
Mr. Heffer: I am just coming to that very point. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made the point that, with a figure of 230, an attendance of one-third is based upon what happens today. There are 230 peers who attend regularly one-third of the time. We are told that the

353
intention is to reform the other Chamber to make it more efficient. But this is what happens now.
We have the suggestion in paragraph 4 of the White Paper that the composition of the House of Lords prevents it from performing its rôle as effectively as it should. At the same time as we have this argument, the reality of the figures and the one-third attendance is based upon what happens now. I do not see how the argument can be sustained that these proposals will make it a more efficient House of Lords which can be complementary to the work of this Chamber. If that is not the object, what is it? What are we talking about? What is the purpose of this if it is not to make the House of Lords more efficient so that it can assist and be complementary to this Chamber?
The House of Lords will have extra powers, and those powers will be determined by the patronage of the two Front Benches. That is what is behind this proposal. That is what we are talking about when we talk about attendance. That is how this figure has been arrived at, and I do not think that we can accept it, because no genuine agreement is being put forward to support it.
The only way to test whether we are concerned with making the other place more efficient and giving it a rôle complementary to that of this House is to raise the attendance figure. Some hon. Members have suggested a half, but I do not think that is enough. I think that two-thirds is about right.
Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of a higher attendance figure, but is not he one of those who do not want the peers to attend at all?
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is right if he means that I should like to see the second Chamber abolished and an elected—
The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member will be out of order if he pursues that one.
Mr. Heffer: I am very sorry. The answer to that question will never be known. It can be guessed. I think that hon. Members are pretty good guessers, and that they have a vague idea of what I feel about the other place.
354
Some hon. Members have suggested a half, and others have suggested that it should be only one-fifth, which is about 28 days in the year. That makes it all the more attractive. To attend for only one-fifth of the time, or 28 days in a year, would be exceedingly attractive, especially if one were to receive £2,000 a year for doing so, and with no constituency problems. If one subtracts from that days off for illness, for attending to Parliamentary duties, and for other Governmental duties, it becomes a very attractive proposition indeed. I do not know why I am arguing against it. I really ought to be arguing for getting in there at the earliest possible moment. I really ought to support the Amendment, because this would make it a very attractive proposition.
Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member is dealing very ably with the question of minimum attendance, but perhaps I might remind him that there is nothing in the White Paper or in the Bill about the number of hours of attendance when someone is supposed to be there.
The Chairman: Order. There is nothing in the Amendment about that, either.
Mr. Heffer: It is relevant, because it is true. Figures of one-third and two-thirds have been suggested, but there is nothing which says that, having clocked in, a Member of the other place has to stay there for the whole of the sitting and clock out at the end. It is merely a question of clocking in.
Mr. Mendelson: It would not be accepted for the Ford's agreement, would it?
Mr. Heffer: No. And there is no penalty clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did the Committee a great service when he outlined the survey. For the first time we have some idea of the figures and the noble Lords' feelings. His proposal that this should be entered into the records of the Committee should be taken up, and we might also enter the mysterious document which was in the Library but may not be there now, which may contain 15 pages or may not, which we have not seen and are not likely to see. Both these documents would help us: unfortunately we do not have them now.
The Amendment raising the attendance from one-third to two-thirds should be supported, but I hope that we will reject the Amendment lowering it to one-fifth, although I understand the reasons for it. If the Government are serious about making the other place an efficient organism, complementary to this House, to help improve our Parliamentary system, they should accept this sensible, logical and modest proposal. It is a test of their sincerity. It is hardly sincere to stick to the figures of 230 and one-third purely on the basis that that is what happens now.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: You have directed, Mr. Irving, that Amendment No. 148, in my name, should be debated with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashton under Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It is in the opposite sense, so I hope that you will call it for a separate Division. If you were unhappily to decide to the contrary, hon. Members would have to accept either the Bill as it stands or the proposal of the hon. Member to tighten up the attendance qualification. That would put in some difficulty those of us who want to lower the qualification. I put firmly to you, Mr. Irving, the request that you should call Amendment No. 148 at the end of this debate for a Division only.
11.0 p.m.
Many hon. Members dislike the proposed attendance qualification in the Bill, and while this is not the opportunity—such an opportunity will arise on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill—to discuss whether or not there should be such a qualification, it is open to those who wish to discuss Amendment No. 148 to argue, accepting for this purpose that there should be an attendance qualification, that the one proposed in the Measure is too high and that a lower one should be inserted.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that, even with the attendance qualification proposed in the Bill, membership of another place will be a cosy and agreeable life. But his suggestion was based on the assumption that it would be paid. But if one is to believe the Prime Minister, which is an exercise of faith as against experience, as was once said of a second marriage—
Mr. Birch: Hope over experience.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, but in the case of the Prime Minister it is faith against experience. If one believes the Prime Minister in this matter, it is doubtful whether there will be any remuneration. One need only consult the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech. For once the Prime Minister may be 50 per cent. right; and even the spectacle of the ermine figure of "the Lord Heffer of Walton" would not compensate the Committee for the loss we would suffer from the benches opposite.
There is importance in the degree of clock-punching which is to be imposed on noble Lords, because it will affect the character and quality of membership of the other place. The more we insist on a high degree of attendance, the lower will be the field of selection. Many people are prepared to accept life in this Chamber because this is the effective one—they are prepared to come here and attend a great deal—but if we invite people to join a House which, particularly under the scheme proposed by the Bill will be a poor affair anyway, and insist on such an attendance qualification, our field of selection will be smaller.
Or do the Government intend to resort to direction and compulsion? As they have taken powers to direct the level of wages and so many other things, they can hardly be expected to hesitate to take compulsory powers to ennoble people. Unless, as in wages, trade union affairs and labour matters generally, they will resort to direction, they will get the less able sort of person to join a House which will have little power; and that will particularly apply if a high measure of attendance is made a necessary qualification for continued voting and, therefore, for continued salary, if any.
My Amendment proposes that the rate of attendance should be only one in five. Assuming that another place will sit, under the new dispensation, on five days a week, there would need to be a weekly attendance, and I believe that that would be sufficient.
Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the higher the degree of attendance insisted upon, the lower would be the field of selection. Did he mean "narrower" or "lower "?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There will be fewer people in the field and they will be of lower quality. We are concerned here with getting people of some standing in the national life and many with other responsibilities and commitments in the national life. The more we make this compulsory punching of the clock a condition, the more we reduce the field of selection. This will be particularly true of the cross-bench peers. No doubt worthy and respectable party men will be proposed by the party Whips to be the Government army, the Opposition army—the question of attendance in the context of the Liberal Party is so delicate that I was not going to refer to it, but no doubt the Liberal army as well—but what about the cross-bench peers? The essence of the present cross-bench peers is that they include a number of extremely eminent and distinguished men. Does anyone, even the hopeful Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, think that we shall get those very distinguished cross-bench peers of today to turn up on the basis of one in three compulsory attendance knowing that if they do not make these necessary attendances they will be excluded from their voting rights?
Yet it is upon these 30 famous cross-bench peers that the whole elaborate structure of the balance between Government and Opposition is based. Ministers have paid a great deal of attention to the argument that they are not giving the Government an automatic majority. If cross-bench peers vote against them, the Government will not have an automatic majority. That argument depends on the quality of these 30 men. Are they to be men of standing and independence or the sort of docile chap who always votes for the Government of the day? This is a criticism of the one-third attendance. I simply do not believe that we will get the eminent figures who at present sit on the cross benches in another place to be voting peers on this basis.
I should be straying from the comparatively narrow field of my Amendment if on the general question of attendance I said more than that the whole attendance qualification is a most degrading one. It is one which no hon. Member has suggested should apply to Members of this House. No doubt from the point of view of the Patronage Secre-
358
tary it would be jolly convenient and it would perhaps be convenient to the Deputy Chief Whip of the Opposition, but no one has seriously suggested it. We would all regard it as an affront and would reject it. We take the view that we are answerable to our constituents for attendance and activities here and that it is no one else's business how frequently we attend or vote.
Yet it is proposed by the Government to inflict this supreme insult on another place that members who are to vote in another place are not only to be carefully selected so that their party alignment is in right proportions, but they are to be sacked if they do not punch the clock. This is an indication of the squalid concept that this Government have of another place.
The Chairman: Order. In view of the statement of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made and the fact that his Amendment is exceptional, I will concede a Division on it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: In the span of the last four hours we have had a considerable amount of rhetoric and argument. If it were not for the agreeable charm characteristic of my nation, I might describe it in another way, or perhaps if I were the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party I might use different words.
Be that as it may, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with that frankness which is sometimes characteristic of him, has made it clear—and it was suggested by other hon. Members—that there is little attempt in the Amendments to improve this part of the Clause. The Amendments have been tabled by hon. Members who admit openly that they are displeased with the whole of the Clause, with the whole rationale of a qualification for the exercise of voting rights in the Lords. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the Committee that it is impossible, even if it were so minded, for it to accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and accept all four Amendments, because they are diametrically opposed to each other.
Mr. Heffer: I did not advise the Committee to accept all four Amendments. I suggested that the Committee should accept that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
Mr. Elystan Morgan: When my hon. Friend reads HANSARD tomorrow he may well find that he said what I have attributed to him, although he may not have meant it. All four Amendments would alter the attendance requirement in any Session. That requirement is defined in subsection (2) as
"attendance at the sittings of the House (or sittings of Committees of the House) on a number of days equal to not less than one-third of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session (other than days on which it meets for judicial business only) ".
We have for a number of hours been invited to consider all manner of systems of compilations which would enable us to arrive at a proper basis for determining the voting qualification. What the proper attendance requirement should be is basically and fundamentally a matter of judgment. Account must be taken not only of the need for voting peers who are not paid to have private means or to be able to earn their living outside the House but also of the desirability of including amongst the voting peers those who have jobs outside the House or who live a substantial distance from London and of the importance of securing sufficient voting peers to fulfil the tasks of a second Chamber. The past records of attendance which have been alluded to more than once give a rough estimate of what might be a reasonable requirement. In the Session 1967–68 up to 1st August, 1968, 161 peers under the age of 72 attended over 50 per cent. and 216 peers under the age of 72 over 333⅓ per cent. of the sittings.
Mr. Powell: The Under-Secretary said that one factor to be taken into account in arriving at the one-third was that peers would not be paid. The one-third was already in the scheme when peers were to be paid.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: It seems to have been part of the case of nearly everyone who has spoken on these Amendments that there is of necessity a triangle or
360
quadrilateral of forces interconnected, and it is from that basic hypothesis that right hon. and hon. Members have argued. Of course there is a certain connection between the number of peers who might attend if one takes a certain age as a retiring age, and, again, if one is to consider what conditions might be laid down for membership. But I say that it is no more than a loose connection, and that it is right and proper, as far as this Clause is concerned, that we should direct our minds to the question: assuming that the second Chamber is reformed and that it carries out the duties envisaged in the White Paper and in the Bill at large, is a one-third qualification a reasonable rule or not?
Mr. John Lee: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point whether or not there should be different standards of attendance as between cross-benchers on the one hand and the more sophisticated politicians on the other, and if he cannot deal with this now, will he give an undertaking to deal with it in the "Clause stand part" debate?
Mr. Elystan Morgan: That certainly does not arise on this Amendment, and for my part I do not think that this is a distinction which could properly be drawn.
I wish to put it to the Committee that it is reasonable to assume that in a reformed House most voting peers will wish to attend fairly regularly, and it is expected that many would attend at least half and that a good number would attend two-thirds of the sittings. But so as not to exclude peers who have jobs outside the House or who live away from London, it is desired that the minimum requirement should not be too onerous. I am sure the Committee would regard it as wholly unreasonable to have a qualification of two-thirds attendance. The one-third level proposed in the Bill is, I submit, about right. It is intended not as an optimum level of attendance but only as a drop-out point at which a member should not expect to exercise voting rights.
I would point out to the Committee that Amendment No. 120 is undesirable because it discriminates between different aspects of the work of the House of Lords. It treats certain legislative work

361
based on legislation passed by the House of Commons as more valuable than other legislative work—for example, Bills starting in the House of Lords—or other debates.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames on having directed his speech wholly to the Amendment that stands in his name. Nevertheless I put it to the Committee that a one-fifth qualification is not really consistent with the status of being a voting peer and part of the working House in the other place.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Mr. Elystan Morgan: We have had a number of suggestions put to us about what the basis of compilation should be. We have had fascinating dissertations on all the mathematical legerdemain which might be employed in order to arrive at certain solutions. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that this is really a matter for computerisation. I put it to him that his remarks, although delivered at very great length and with considerable wit and charm, nevertheless contain this fallacy. When persons draft the articles of association of a company they do not resort to computers. They do not have comparative studies of what is done in other companies and other countries. They resort to common sense. This is an issue which turns on a matter of judgment and a matter of common sense. I put it to the Committee—I hope I shall not be thought patronising to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—
Mr. Sheldon: If my hon. Friend holds that investigation does not produce results, why did his right hon. Friend go to considerable length in providing information which was then concealed?
Mr. Roebuck: What about the 15-page document?
Mr. Elystan Morgan: I should be the last to argue that research is not valuable in this connection. Of course it has a certain persuasive relevance, but at the end of the day it is basically a question of judgment. With the sole exception of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, not one hon. or right hon. Member has argued that a one-third attendance is unreasonable in this connection.
On that account, and also upon merit, bearing in mind that there will be a broad regional representation, that there will be Members, as the Bill now stands, who are not paid, and that there will be Members having a valuable contribution to make who have jobs outside, it is right and proper that the level should remain at one-third. I warmly invite the Committee, therefore, to reject all four Amendments.
Mr. John Silkin Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 61.

Division No. 124.]

AYES

[11.23 p.m

Albu, Austen

Coe, Denis

Ennals, David

Alldritt, Walter

Coleman, Donald

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Anderson, Donald

Concannon, J. D.

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Archer, Peter

Crawshaw, Richard

Fernyhough, E.

Ashton, Joe (Basset law)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Finch, Harold

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Ford, Ben

Bence, Cyril

Dalyell, Tam

Forrester John

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Fowler, Gerry

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Blackburn, F.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rnondda, E.)

Freeson, Reginald

Boyden, James

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Ginsburg, David

Bradley, Tom

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Davies, I for (Gower)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Brooks, Edwin

Dell, Edmund

Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

Dempsey, James

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Dewar, Donald

Hamling, William

Buchan, Norman

Doig, Peter

Hannan, William

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

Dunnett, Jack

Harper, Joseph

Cant, R. B.

Eadie, Alex

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Carmichael, Neil

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Haseldine, Norman

Carter-Jones, Lewis

English, Michael

Hazell, Bert

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Hilton, W. S.

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

Rowlands, E.

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Manuel, Archie

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Marks, Kenneth

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hoy, James

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Silverman, Julius

Hunter, Adam

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Small, William

Hynd, John

Millan, Bruce

Spriggs, Leslie

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Taverne, Dick

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

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

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

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Tinn, James

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Urwin, T. W.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Moyle, Roland

Varley, Eric G.

Lawson, George

Ogden, Eric

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Oswald, Thomas

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'ton)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Loughlin, Charles

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Luard, Evan

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Whitaker, Ben

Lubbock, Eric

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Wilkins, W. A.

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Pentland, Norman

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

McBride, Neil

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Williams Clifford (Abertillery)

McCann, John

Price, William (Rugby)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Macdonald, A. H.

Probert, Arthur

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Mackie, John

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Maclennan, Robert

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Mr. Alan Fitch and

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Dr. Miller.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Goodhew, Victor

Norwood, Christopher

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Orme, Stanley

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Hastings, Stephen

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hay, John

Peyton, John

Biffen, John

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pym, Francis

Black, Sir Cyril

Hooson, Emlyn

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

lremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Booth, Albert

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Roebuck, Roy

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ryan, John

Clegg, Walter

Lee, John (Reading)

Sheldon, Robert

Crouch, David

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Silvester, Frederick

Dalkeith, Earl of

Marten, Neil

Smith, John (London & W'minster)

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Maude, Angus

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

Eyre, Reginald

Mendelson, J. J.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mikardo, Ian

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

More, Jasper

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Mr. Eric S. Heffer and

Glover, Sir Douglas

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Mr. Michael Foot.

Goodhart, Philip

Murton, Oscar

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes, 18, Noes 142.

Division No. 125.]

AYES

[11.31 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Roebuck, Roy

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Ryan, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Sheldon, Robert

Booth, Albert

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Mikardo, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Dickens, James

Norwood, Christopher

Mr. Michael Foot and

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Orme, Stanley

Mr. Eric S. Heffer.

NOES

Albu, Austen

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

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Alldritt, Walter

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Anderson, Donald

Buchan, Norman

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Archer, Peter

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

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cant, R. B.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Bence, Cyril

Carmichael, Neil

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Coe, Denis

Dell, Edmund

Bishop, E. S.

Coleman, Donald

Dempsey, James

Blackburn, F.

Concannon, J. D.

Dewar, Donald

Boyden, James

Crawshaw, Richard

Doig, Peter

Bradley, Tom

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Dunnett, Jack

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Eadie, Alex

Brooks, Edwin

Dalyell, Tam

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

English, Michael

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Price, William (Rugby)

Ennals, David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Probert, Arthur

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Loughlin, Charles

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Luard, Evan

Robert, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (C'rn'von)

Fernyhough, E.

Lubbock, Eric

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Finch, Harold

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Ford, Ben

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Forrester, John

McBride, Neil

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Fowler, Gerry

McCann, John

Rowlands, E.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Macdonald, A. H.

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

Freeson, Reginald

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Ginsburg, David

Mackie, John

Silverman, Julius

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Maclennan, Robert

Small, William

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Grey, Charles (Durham)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Taverne, Dick

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Hamling, William

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

Tinn, James

Hannan, William

Manuel, Archie

Urwin, T. W.

Harper, Joseph

Marks, Kenneth

Varley, Eric G.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Haseldine, Norman

Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Hazell, Bert

Millan, Bruce

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Hilton, W. S.

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Hooson, Emlyn

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Whitaker, Ben

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Wilkins, W. A.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Moyle, Roland

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Hoy, James

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Hunter, Adam

Oswald, Thomas

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Hynd, John

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

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

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Pentland, Norman

Dr. Miller.

Lawson, George

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fifth'.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 151.

Division No. 126.]

AYES

[11.38 p.m

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Goodhart, Philip

Murton, Oscar

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Biff en, John

Hastings, Stephen

Peyton, John

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hay, John

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Black, Sir Cyril

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Ridley, Hn, Nicholas

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Iremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Clegg, Walter

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Russell, Sir Ronald

Crouch, David

Marten, Neil

Smith, John (London & W' minster)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Maude, Angus

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Sir Douglas Glover and

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

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Mr. Victor Goodhew.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Coe, Denis

English, Michael

Alldritt, Walter

Coleman, Donald

Ennals, David

Anderson, Donald

Concannon, J. D.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Archer, Peter

Crawshaw, Richard

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fernyhough, E.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Finch, Harold

Bence, Cyril

Dalyell, Tam

Ford, Ben

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Forrester, John

Bishop, E. S.

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Fowler, Gerry

Blackburn, F.

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Booth, Albert

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Freeson, Reginald

Boyden, James

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Ginsburg, David

Bradley, Tom

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Dell, Edmund

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Brooks, Edwin

Dempsey, James

Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

Dewar, Donald

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Doig, Peter

Hamling, William

Buchan, Norman

Dunnett, Jack

Hannan, William

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

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Harper, Joseph

Cant, R. B.

Eadie, Alex

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Carmichael, Neil

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Haseldine, Norman

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Ellis, John

Hazell, Bert

Heffer, Eric S.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Hilton, W. S.

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

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Hooson, Emlyn

Manuel, Archie

Sheldon, Robert

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Marks, Kenneth

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

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Hoy, James

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Silverman, Julius

Hunter, Adam

Mendelson, J. J,

Small, William

Hynd, John

Mikardo, Ian

Spriggs, Leslie

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Millan, Bruce

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Taverne, Dick

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

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Tinn, James

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Urwin, T. W.

Lawson, George

Moyle, Roland

Varley, Eric G.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Norwood, Christopher

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Ogden, Eric

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Oswald, Thomas

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Loughlin, Charles

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'ton)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Luard, Evan

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Lubbock, Eric

Whitaker, Ben

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

McBride, Neil

Pentland, Norman

Williams, Clifford (Aberttillery)

McCann, John

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Macdonald, A. H.

Price, William (Rugby)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutnerglen)

Probert, Arthur

Mackie, John

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Maclennan, Robert

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Mr. Alan Fitch and Dr. Miller.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)).
That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended.—[Mr. Harper.]
The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 49.

Division No. 127.1

AYES

[11.45 p.m.

Alldritt, Walter

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Maclennan, Robert

Anderson, Donald

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Archer, Peter

Fernyhough, E.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Finch, Harold

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ford, Ben

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

Bence, Cyril

Forrester, John

Manuel, Archie

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Fowler, Gerry

Marks, Kenneth

Bishop, E. S.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Blackburn, F.

Freeson, Reginald

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Boy den, James

Ginsburg, David

Mendelson, J. J.

Bradley, Tom

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Millan, Bruce

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Brooks, Edwin

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Hamling, William

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Buchan, Norman

Hannan, William

Moyle, Roland

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

Harper, Joseph

Ogden, Eric

Cant, R. B.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Oswald, Thomas

Carmichael, Neil

Haseldine, Norman

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hazell, Bert

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Coe, Denis

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Coleman, Donald

Hilton, W. S.

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Concannon, J. D.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Crawshaw, Richard

Hoy, James

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hunter, Adam

Pentland, Norman

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Hynd, John

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Price, William (Rugby)

Dalyell, Tam

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hell)

Probert, Arthur

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

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

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

Lawson, George

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Dell, Edmund

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rowlands, E.

Dempsey, James

Loughlin, Charles

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

Dewar, Donald

Luard, Evan

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Doig, Peter

Lubbock, Eric

Silverman, Julius

Dunnett, Jack

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Small, William

Eadie, Alex

McBride, Neil

Spriggs, Leslie

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McCann, John

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Ellis, John

Macdonald, A. H.

Taverne, Dick

English, Michael

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Ennals, David

Mackie, John

Tinn, James

Urwin, T. W.

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Varley, Eric G.

Whitaker, Ben

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Watkins, David (Consett)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Mr. Alan Fitch and Dr. Miller.

NOES

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pym. Francis

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Biff en, John

Hirst, Geoffrey

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Hooson, Emlyn

Ridley, Hn Nicholas

Black, Sir Cyril

lremonger, T. L.

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Roebuck, Roy

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Boyle, Rt. Hn, Sir Edward

Marten, Neil

Ryan, John

Crouch, David

Maude, Angus

Sheldon, Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Mikardo, Ian

Silvester, Frederick

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

More, Jasper

Smith, John (London & W' minster)

Eyre, Reginald P

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Murton, Oscar

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

Norwood, Christopher

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Sir Douglas Glover and

Hastings, Stephen

Peyton, John

Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Hay, John

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
Committee report Proceedings suspended.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order
(Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended:—
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 43.

Division No. 128.]

AYES

[11.56 p.m.

Alldritt, Walter

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Anderson, Donald

Fowler, Gerry

Millan, Bruce

Archer, Peter

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

Freeson, Reginald

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Ginsburg, David

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Bence, Cyril

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Moyle, Roland

Bishop, E. S.

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Oswald, Thomas

Blackburn, F.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Boyden, James

Hamling, William

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bradley, Tom

Hannan, William

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Harper, Joseph

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Brooks, Edwin

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Pentland, Norman

Haseldine, Norman

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

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

Hazell, Bert

Price, William (Rugby)

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Probert, Arthur

Buchan, Norman

Hilton, W. S.

Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

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

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

Cant, R. B.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Carmichael, Neil

Hoy, James

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hunter, Adam

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Coe, Denis

Hynd, John

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Rowlands, E.

Coleman, Donald

Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

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

Concannon, J. D.

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

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silverman, Julius

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Small, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Lawson, George

Spriggs, Leslie

Dalyell, Tam

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Start, David (Roxburgh)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Taverne, Dick

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Loughlin, Charles

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Luard, Evan

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Lubbock, Eric

Tinn, James

Davies, Rt. Hn Harold (Leek)

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Varley, Eric G.

Dell, Edmund

McCann, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dempsey, James

Macdonald, A. H.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Dewar, Donald

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Dunnett, Jack

Mackie, John

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Eadie, Alex

Maclennan, Robert

Whitaker, Ben

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Ells, John

McNamara, J. Kevin

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

English, Michael

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Ennals, David

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

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Manuel, Archie

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Marks, Kenneth

Fernyhough, E.

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ford, Ben

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pym, Francis

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Bitten, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Birch Rt. Hn. Nigel

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Black, Sir Cyril

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Marten, Neil

Roebuck, Roy

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Maude, Angus

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dalkeith, Earl of

Mikardo, Ian

Ryan, John

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

More, Jasper

Silvester, Frederick

Eyre, Reginald

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Smith, John (London & W' minster)

Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipsw'ch)

Murton, Oscar

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

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

Norwood, Christopher

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Hastings, Stephen

Peyton, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hay, John

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Sir Douglas Glover and

Mr. Victor Goodhew.

SCOTLAND (SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]
12.5 a.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to try to scrutinise the Scottish Education Department's rôle in the provision of school playing fields. If I start with the particular case of St. Columba's Roman Catholic Primary School at Bathgate, it is not so much to try to identify how an unsatisfactory situation has come about as to ask what can be done to ensure that it does not repeat itself.
The facts are now familiar to my hon. Friend. St. Columba's opened in February, 1967, and at that time it was thought that the playing fields, which were not ready when the school opened, would soon be ready. It now looks as though they will not be ready until at least August, 1969. On 26th February I put a Written Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, asking
"…what advice his Department gives local authorities to encourage them to have playing fields for new schools available to coincide with the opening of the school."
My right hon. Friend replied:
"This is so obviously desirable that I do not think education authorities require advice about it."
Obvious or not, my impression, and a rather informed impression, is that, whereas the situation is by no means typical, that of St. Columba's at least does show that playing fields are not ready at the time new buildings are completed.
I also asked my right hon. Friend
"…if he will give details of the information regarding costs made available by West
372
Lothian County Council to his Department of the playing fields of St. Columba's Roman Catholic Primary School, Bathgate."
He replied:
"The estimated cost of the playing field submitted in 1964 was £3,092. In 1967, after the school had been opened, it became clear that additional work would be needed because of difficult conditions encountered in part of the playing field. I understand that this work was later undertaken at a cost of about £1,800."
This escalation in costs is of the percentage that we normally associate with the aircraft industry and not with school building.
I also asked my right hon. Friend
"…what advice he has given to local authorities in relation to the inclusion of penalty clauses in agreements between local authorities and contractors in the provision of school playing fields."
He replied:
"Authorities have been recommended to include in building contracts generally a liquidated damages clause providing for the reimbursement of identifiable losses if delay occurs."
I should like to know how often the liquidated damages clause has been used and whether, on reflection, my hon. Friends think that this form of penalty works satisfactorily.
Again, on this point, I asked my right hon. Friend
"…if he will outline his cost control system for the construction of school playing fields."
He replied:
"The School Building Code requires education authorities to submit the estimated costs and plans of school playing fields for approval."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 309, 308, 309–10.]
What progress-chasing does the Department do once approval has been given?
I am also bothered about the whole question of the rôle of the inspectorate

373
and about what is called its "readily available technical advice ". I was told by the Minister
"Largely through the Inspectorate, problems such as this can be dealt with on a day-to-day basis by discussions between the education authority and the Inspectorate and also formally in discussions between the authority and the Department as a Department. I do not think that there is any difficulty in the procedure, whether formal or informal, for dealing with a matter of this sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 4th February, 1969; c. 99.]
I have been informed, however, that only once since the opening of this school, on 20th February, 1968, has an inspector visited the school. Mr. Burnett, of the architects Alison & Hutchison, has told me that the Department
"… will simply not come out."
Whose fault has this been? Was it the fault of the Scottish Education Department, the West Lothian County Council, Alison & Hutchison, or the sub-contracting architect, Collett from Lonehead? Did the fault lie with Harrisons, the main contractors, or was it a combination of faults on behalf of two or more of these parties? It is clear that the buck in this kind of situation must stop somewhere, for there was no correct grading and investigation into the problems of top soil.
Having mentioned that case, of which I have given the Department much notice in recent weeks, certain conclusions must be drawn, and I do this in question form. Should not my hon. Friend reflect on his relations with contractors? Would it not be sensible to talk in terms of a round-table conference with big contractors since perhaps the laying down of playing fields, which requires much expertise, can be done only by really big firms? If this is the case, might not it be wise for the Government to select two, three or four of the major Scottish contractors by which such work would be done?
On 26th February I put another Written Question to the Minister and asked my right hon. Friend:
"…what discussions have taken place between his Department's technical officers and large contractors on the general problems of laying out playing fields in the last 12 months; and if he will name the contractors."
The Secretary of State replied:
"None, but the Department's technical officers have at times discussed specific cases with contractors. Detailed advice about the laying out of playing fields is available to
374
contractors in the Department of Education and Science Building Bulletin No. 28, and this is thought to cover most of the problems that experience suggests are likely to arise."
If that was not a complacent Answer, perhaps it was a bit self-satisfied. I want the Department to play a more positive rôle in this respect.
On the subject of school playing fields, more attention should be given to both indoor facilities—I appreciate the expense involved—and all-weather pitches, and I am not naive about the expense involved in these, either, particularly since in Questions I recently drew this matter to the attention of the Minister responsible for sport.
Again, on 26th February, I put a Question to the Secretary of State asking
"…if he will give details of the improvements in the design of playing fields in the last five years initiated by central government"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778 c. 309.]
Again, reference was made to the Department of Education and Science Bulletin, 1966, on playing fields and hard surface areas providing guidance based on developments since the previous decision of 1955. A great deal more can be done to find some standardised all-weather pitch at reasonable cost. Again I emphasise that this involves cooperation by big contractors, rather than the contrary point of view held by many of my hon. Friends that there should be some sort of national playing fields corporation. I do not favour that proposition.
My hon. Friend has previously argued that it might not be an ideal situation to tie youth clubs to schools in order to save expense because those who have left school perhaps do not want to return there. Both on financial grounds and on the proposition that the situation and the whole attitude to school has rather changed in the last 10 years, I invite him to reconsider this judgment and to bear in mind that there is a strong feeling now that it is quite legitimate to attach youth facilities to schools.
My hon. Friend should perhaps reflect, certainly when the Royal Commission on Local Government Report is published, whether small authorities have the cost control mechanism necessary for the provision of sports facilities, both indoor and outdoor. Perhaps one of the main purposes of this debate is

375
to ask him to review his own control of cost machinery inside his Department, because although the Scottish Education Department does many things extremely well and is a Department to be proud of, I have yet to be convinced that the cost control machinery is all that it might be. I understand that this raises the whole question of the relationship between central and local government.
On a previous occasion my hon. Friends have been asked what study they have made of international experience in this sphere. Part of my dissatisfaction arises from having taken football teams abroad and having seen, seven or eight years ago, what can be done, for example, in Western Germany and other parts of Europe. There is a feeling that many countries do things so much better than we do in the provision of sports facilities. I think it worth using the time of the House to draw attention to this matter.
12.17 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has on other occasions recently raised some of the matters that he has been talking about. I am glad to go over some of them again. Perhaps I may deal with what he said in the reverse order to that which he used because if I explain the general background coherently what happened in the particular case of St. Columba's, Bathgate, will become rather clearer.
Perhaps I may start by explaining the general system of school building control at central government level. The general system I describe applies in the way I shall outline to the construction of playing fields. In 1967 the Secretary of State made new regulations, the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations, to govern the general requirements and standards to be applied to schools. At the same time he published the new School Building Code setting out in some detail the forms to be submitted and the procedures to be followed by education authorities to obtain his approval to their proposals.
The aim of these new regulations and code was to replace the detailed over- 376
Sight previously maintained by the Department by a more flexible system which would give authorities greater freedom—and, therefore, greater responsibility—in designing their schools to meet the needs of a period of experiment and advance in educational methods and practices. At the same time, however, it was obviously necessary for the Secretary of State to retain certain controls at key points in individual projects. It will make the position clearer if I describe what these control points are.
First, there is the approval in principle stage, at which the Secretary of State approves the need for a school and the size and type to be provided. At this point the Secretary of State also approves any proposals to include social and recreational facilities of the kind my hon. Friend has mentioned.
The second approval stage is at the site stage, at which the Secretary of State ensures that the site for a school meets the "minimum area" requirements of the regulations. The third stage is the approval of sketch plans and estimated costs, at which the Secretary of State satisfies himself that the plans conform to the requirements of the regulations and that the estimated costs are acceptable. The fourth stage is the approval of tenders. This is a stage which comes into operation where tenders are in excess of the approved estimated costs. In that case, the Secretary of State's approval is required.
Even that brief outline of the procedure demonstrates that the Secretary of State, through his Department, is interested at a number of points in the control of projects, and particularly in the actual cost concerned. Therefore, there is not any question of the Secretary of State under the new procedure giving up completely his former responsibilities and taking no interest in these very important matters. What is new in the present procedure is that a good deal more flexibility and responsibility is allowed to the education authority.
The Secretary of State's rôle in providing advice and guidance in the design and planning of schools through Her Majesty's Inspectors, architects and quantity surveyors becomes even more important. Perhaps I should make it clear that if architects, quantity surveyors or

377
professional staff of that type are required we have the resources of the Scottish Development Department. It is not a question of the Scottish Education Department doing this separately. We have the full resources of the Scottish Development Department in this matter.
Advice and guidance in the design and planning of schools is also provided through a number of formal documents, such as the Educational Building Notes produced by the Scottish Education Department and, in the case of playing fields particularly, through Bulletin No. 28 issued by the Department of Education and Science. This bulletin is not a brief document which does not go into any of the detailed proposals which can be involved in the provision of playing fields. It is a very detailed document running to 84 pages and containing a tremendous amount of detail. I believe that this document covers the range of problems which are likely to be met, at least in normal circumstances and in some abnormal circumstances as well, in the provision of playing fields. I could not guarantee that every circumstance is covered there, but the document gives a fairly comprehensive cover of the type of problems which are likely to be met.
Apart from that, guidance is available in design matters generally to education authorities at any time. Circular No. 654 issued in August, 1967, with the new School Premises Regulations and School Building Code, has a section on design guidance making that point particularly clear. I quote a short passage from it, because it demonstrates the kind of relationship between the central Department, on the one hand, and the education authority, on the other:
"It is the Department's aim to reduce the amount of architectural effort taken up by oversight of the planning of individual projects so that more effort may be devoted to the production of design guidance available to all.
Authorities will be free to continue, where appropriate, to consult the District Inspector and the Department's architect for advice on the preparation of a schedule of accommodation, architect's brief and sketch plans…"
The various documents which are provided for in the School Building Code are normally channelled through the local Her Majesly's Inspectors, so that on the spot we have the opportunity of having the inspector's advice on the proposals as they come up to the tender stage.
378
Now so far as playing fields specifically are concerned, the School Building Code requires education authorities at the sketch plan and estimated cost stage, the third stage I mentioned earlier, to provide details of the type and number of pitches and other facilities provided, and also to submit a contoured plan showing the layout of the playing field, details of the costs of construction, layout and planting, levelling, excavation and filling and drainage works, as well as specifying the buildings to be erected and their cost. These are examined by the Department's specialist advisers before approval to ensure that the proposals are reasonable and the estimated costs acceptable.
But the responsibility for seeing that the plans are implemented—and this is the point which I think my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about—and that the costs are kept under control is that of the authority. This has always been so, even under the previous more detailed procedure. So, so far as the control of the project is concerned, once final approval has been given, the responsibility is the authority's. That is where the buck stops, in the phrase which my hon. Friend used.
There is no doubt about this, and the education authorities accept that responsibility. It is for them to progress chase, as my hon. Friend said. It is for them to see that the work is carried out satisfactorily by the architects, the surveyors, and the contractors they employ, whether they are employing their own architects or whether, as in the case of St. Columba's, they have gone to an outside firm. I have no evidence generally that authorities are not vigilant in seeing that this oversight of projects is carried on during the whole process of the project, and, of course, it is very much in the interests of the education authorities that they should do so. I think we must allow a certain degree of trust at least to them, as responsible bodies, and accept that if they are left to do a job they will do the job adequately, as in my experience they do.
That is why the Department as such does not have these relations with contractors which my hon. Friend mentioned. Neither individually nor generally do we have relations with contractors because the contractual relationships

379
are essentially between the education authority and the contractors rather than with the Department in matters of this sort. But all the advice is available to contractors as well as to architects, and we make a point of ensuring that the Building Notes of the Department are made known to the people responsible for carrying out school building projects.
So far as St. Columba's is concerned, when the sketch plans and estimated costs were submitted in 1964 approval was given to the cost of £3,092 for the playing field. Tenders for the school as a whole, including the playing field, were approved in October, 1965. In August, 1967, which was five months after the school was opened, the Director of Education wrote to the Department to say he had been informed by the architects for the school that extremely difficult conditions had been encountered at the south-west corner of the grass playing pitch which made it impossible for the area to be cultivated as proposed.
He put three proposals to the Department for putting matters right, and asked which the Department would be prepared to approve: (1) to tarmac the area at an estimated cost of £8,600; (2) to provide extra drainage and form a blaes playing area at an estimated cost of £6,700; and (3) to install further field drainage to enable special machinery to be put on to lightly cultivate the area and sow grass at an estimated cost of £250.
The choice was between quite expensive projects on the one hand and a very cheap one on the other. After consulting our technical advisers, we informed the authority that for the time being remedial measures should be restricted to alternative (3) to see whether that would work. In the event, that was not successful, and the playing field, as my hon. Friend said, was not ready when the school opened. Grass seed was first sown in the summer of 1967, and the difficulties due to the peat in the south-west corner came to light, as I have said. Subsequently, the authority called in two experts to advise it. One was from the East of Scotland College of Agriculture, one of the regular advisers to the county council, and the other was an expert on peat.
380
It is worth making the point that, apart from the advice which is available from the Department directly, the Departmental advisers themselves can draw on outside sources for advice. It is open to an authority as well to take in any kind of outside advice which it thinks may be relevant in the particular case. Many authorities do this, calling on the S.C.P.R., the Sports Council, or whoever it may be. There is advice available outside Government circles as well, and it is perfectly appropriate for an authority to take it.
The two experts to whom I have referred recommended that the peat should be dug up and a blaes surface used for the effective part of the playing field. This was done in the summer of 1968, at a cost of about £1,800. I understand that the headmaster of the school is now said to be reasonably satisfied with the playing field. Although there are other areas around the school where conditions are still unsatisfactory, I do not think they are of direct relevance to the point which my hon. Friend has raised.
It is a little unfair to say that the £1,800 is an increase in costs over the original figure of £3,092 which I mentioned. It is not an escalation of costs in the normal sense; it is putting right a defect which was not expected at the time when the original estimates of cost were submitted. It is not always profitable in a case of this sort to look, as my hon. Friend did, at the question of whose fault it was that things did not go as well as they might have done. Inevitably in operations of this sort there are occasions when problems come to light which were not expected at the beginning of the project, and I do not believe that any system of relationships between the Department, on the one hand, and education authorities, on the other, can ever obviate circumstances like that arising.
Although what has happened in this case is, plainly, not the most fortunate of circumstances, I certainly would not call it in aid as any sort of criticism of the arrangements, and it does not invalidate the general philosophy of the relationship between the central Government and the education authorities which I described earlier.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has given me a detailed and courteous answer. May he not reflect—I do not ask for an immediate—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Press will wish to hear what is said. Will the hon. Gentleman please speak up?
Mr. Dalyell: May my hon. Friend not reflect that, had there been three or four contractors who had the expertise, these problems would have been anticipated?
Mr. Millan: I do not believe that that is a practical proposition, and I should regard it as undesirable, too, that we should adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion that only a few contractors in Scotland ought to carry out this kind of work. Our experience of playing field construction is not such as could lead me to believe that anything like that is necessary. In any case, I do not think that even doing that would necessarily avoid the sort of problem which we had at St. Columba's.
Turning to the other matters which my hon. Friend mentioned, I agreed with several of the points he made, for example, about indoor facilities. He will be aware of the games hall programme, a new development in 1968, which will help to increase indoor facilities for games in a way which the conventional gymnasium to which we are accustomed in schools cannot do. I am glad to say that authorities generally are interested in the games hall concept, and I
382
hope to see a considerable development of it in new schools and extensions to existing schools in the years to come.
I do not take a dogmatic view about youth facilities attached to schools. The important need is that we increase the number of youth facilities and the extent of them as rapidly as we can. I am glad to say that a good deal of progress has been made to that end in the last year or two.
Next, my hon. Friend referred to the need for all-weather surfaces. Obviously, there is a considerable case for these in Scotland, with our weather conditions. However, as my hon. Friend knows from correspondence and other contact that he has had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science, one of the difficulties here is that some of the all-weather surfaces are extremely expensive compared with the conventional grass surface, and they could not be adopted on anything like a wide scale without involving us in expense which would, I think, be unjustified.
The debate having continued for half an hour, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Standing Order.

COAL
  Stocks
  Stocks
  Mining Machinery Suppliers (Representations)
  Mining Machinery Suppliers (Representations)
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Open-cast Mining (North Warwickshire)
  Open-cast Mining (North Warwickshire)
  National Coal Board (Pricing Policy)
  National Coal Board (Pricing Policy)
  Fluidised-Bed Combustion
  Fluidised-Bed Combustion
  Coal Board Suppliers (Mergers)
  Coal Board Suppliers (Mergers)
ELECTRICITY
  Supplies (France)
  Supplies (France)
  Nuclear Power Station Programme
  Nuclear Power Station Programme
  Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor Power Station, Hartlepool
  Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor Power Station, Hartlepool
  Dungeness B Power Station
  Dungeness B Power Station
  Generating Capacity
  Generating Capacity
GAS
  Frozen Ground Storage Units
  Frozen Ground Storage Units
  North Sea Oil Rigs (Safety)
  North Sea Oil Rigs (Safety)
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
  Domestic Consumers (Scotland)
  Domestic Consumers (Scotland)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Corporation (Capacity)
  Steel Corporation (Capacity)
  Wales (Investment)
  Wales (Investment)
  North Sea (Production Licences)
  North Sea (Production Licences)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Investment Programme)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Investment Programme)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Leasehold Enfranchisement Act
  Leasehold Enfranchisement Act
  York and Bath (Historic Cities Reports)
  York and Bath (Historic Cities Reports)
  Private Zoos
  Private Zoos
HOUSING
  Central Heating Installations (Improvement Grants)
  Central Heating Installations (Improvement Grants)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Advertisements)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Advertisements)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Teachers)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Teachers)
  Botswana (Aid)
  Botswana (Aid)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  House Prices, Manorbier and Haverfordwest
  House Prices, Manorbier and Haverfordwest
  Finance Act, 1965
  Finance Act, 1965
  Private Transport Operator (Borrowing Facilities)
  Private Transport Operator (Borrowing Facilities)
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
TECHNOLOGY
  Enriched Uranium (Gas Centrifuge Process)
  Enriched Uranium (Gas Centrifuge Process)
  Dounreay Experimental Reactor Establishment
  Dounreay Experimental Reactor Establishment
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford
WALES
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  Prince of Wales (Investiture)
  General Improvement Areas
  General Improvement Areas
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  President de Gaulle and British Ambassador
  President de Gaulle and British Ambassador
CIVIL SERVICE
  Chairmen of Nationalised Boards (Salaries)
  Chairmen of Nationalised Boards (Salaries)
POST OFFICE
  London-Belfast Mail
  London-Belfast Mail
  NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION (DISCUSSIONS)
  NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION (DISCUSSIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cheddar Cheese
  Cheddar Cheese
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  North-East Scotland
  North-East Scotland
  Development Areas (Employment)
  Development Areas (Employment)
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
BOARD OF TRADE
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  Eastern Europe (British Businessmen)
  Eastern Europe (British Businessmen)
  British Citizens Abroad (Blackmail)
  British Citizens Abroad (Blackmail)
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Noise Nuisance
  Noise Nuisance
  North-East Scotland
  North-East Scotland
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
AVIATION
  Foreign-Registered Aircraft (Landing Regulations)
  Foreign-Registered Aircraft (Landing Regulations)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Hadrian's Camp, Carlisle
  Hadrian's Camp, Carlisle
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Firearms Offences
  Firearms Offences
  Assaults on Drivers (Alarm Device)
  Assaults on Drivers (Alarm Device)
  Thefts (Domestic Pets)
  Thefts (Domestic Pets)
  Prisoners (Family Links)
  Prisoners (Family Links)
  Drugs (Havering)
  Drugs (Havering)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Royal Mint Project, Llantrisant
  Royal Mint Project, Llantrisant
  Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments (Damage)
  Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments (Damage)
  Government Building, Edinburgh (Heating)
  Government Building, Edinburgh (Heating)
  Sir Winston Churchill Memorial (Committee)
  Sir Winston Churchill Memorial (Committee)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Government Training Centres (Wales)
  Government Training Centres (Wales)
  Willesden
  Willesden
HOSPITALS
  Axminster, Sidmouth, Honiton and Ottery St. Mary
  Axminster, Sidmouth, Honiton and Ottery St. Mary
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Widows' Benefits and Death Grant
  Widows' Benefits and Death Grant
  Health and Welfare Services (Wales)
  Health and Welfare Services (Wales)
  Old People's Homes (Sheffield)
  Old People's Homes (Sheffield)
ROADS
  Pedestrian Crossing (Coventry)
  Pedestrian Crossing (Coventry)
  Parking Meters (Income and Expenditure)
  Parking Meters (Income and Expenditure)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Trees
  Trees
RAILWAYS
  Stations (Taxi Bays)
  Stations (Taxi Bays)
  Route Mileage
  Route Mileage
TRANSPORT
  Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)
  Vehicles (Abnormal Loads)
  Approved Driving Instructors
  Approved Driving Instructors

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

EMIGRATION OF DOCTORS
LORD SORENSEN: 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, in view of the pressing need for doctors and surgeons in our hospitals and the fact that without the large proportion of doctors from Commonwealth and other countries now serving in our hospitals the position would be more acute, how many British doctors have emigrated permanently, or temporarily, for service in other countries during the past five and ten years; and how many of these have returned to this country to ease the shortage in our hospitals.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I am afraid that information is not available in the form requested by the noble Lord, but it is estimated that over the two years 1962–63 and 1963–64 a total of about 1,600 British and Irish born doctors emigrated from Great Britain and 1,100 returned; in 1964–65 about 1,000 emigrated and 500 returned; and in 1965–66 about 850 emigrated and 550 returned. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in another place on January 27 that his aim is to improve still further, in consultation with representatives of the profession, working conditions throughout the National Health Service as the best means of encouraging doctors to remain in this country.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask her what steps are being taken to discourage unfair denigration of
684
doctors from overseas who take the place of many of our doctors, and instead to express our appreciation of their services at the present time?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the Government, as do all noble Lords in this House, deplore any generalised criticism which is being made of the services that are given by doctors from overseas, but we share the view of the Royal Commission on Medical Education that excessive reliance on this source of manpower is undesirable, and we are taking this into account in reviewing the needs of both British and overseas doctors.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has just said, can she tell me what steps are being taken, first to increase the number of medical students in this country, and secondly to remove the discrimination against women medical students in London hospitals?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the Government agree that there is a great need to increase the number of medical school places for training British doctors—men as well as women. The annual intake to medical schools in Britain has risen from 2,020 in 1960–61 to 2,554 in 1967–68. Our final decisions on the number of places to be made available by 1975 have not yet been taken, but the expansion schemes already publicly announced so far provide for 3,300 places by that year. I can assure my noble friend—and I know that she and I will not disagree on this matter—that for my part I should be happy to see far more women being accepted in our medical schools.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, further to what my noble friend has just said—I am sorry to press her—is she aware that only a tiny proportion of women are now permitted to enter the London medical schools and that unless this limit is removed the position will remain as it is?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I shall be very happy to convey to the Secretary of State the sense of my noble friend's remarks.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in taking all these important points into consideration will Her Majesty's Government bear

685
in mind that this question of junior hospital staffing is not purely a national question, and that in the City of New York more than half the junior hospital doctors are of foreign origin, coming as they do from Puerto Rico and the Philippines?

B.B.C. RADIO DURHAM AND POLICE NETWORK
2.39 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that broadcasts from the Durham Constabulary Radio Network continue to interfere seriously with the reception of B.B.C. Radio Durham throughout the whole area of the county, and that this interference constitutes a serious obstacle to the station's progress, and whether they can inform the House of what steps have been taken to solve this problem, what yet remains to be done and when it is likely that the difficulties will be overcome.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, my right honourable friend much regrets the interference in question. I understand that new frequencies will be brought into use by the radio network of the Durham Constabularly within the next month or so and that the interference will then cease.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her informative Answer, especially as I believe it is her first Answer in your Lordships' House, may I ask this question? Since the phrase "during the next two months", or "during the next month or so" has been familiar currency in County Durham for a very long time, can the noble Baroness say whether Her Majesty's Government can guarantee that the change will have been made by May 18? Also, I wonder whether the noble Baroness agrees that it was initially a major blunder on someone's part to allocate to Radio Durham a frequency virtually the same as that of the local police radio, and certainly one that it is impossible ever to separate on
686
an ordinary V.H.F. set costing something in the region of £20?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I can give the right reverend Prelate the guarantee for which he asks. The change will undoubtedly be confirmed and completed before the date which he mentioned. With reference to the particular frequency selected, I may say that the network of the Constabulary was separated by 350,000 cycles from that of the local radio, and this ought to have been sufficient. In fact, as the right reverend Prelate will know, this was an experiment and we have learned a great deal from it. I think there will be no further difficulties on this station in the future.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, may I suggest—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, may I suggest that the person who paid for the experiment was in fact the consumer?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate wishes to ask a question, but he cannot just "suggest" something.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Baroness agrees with that?

BROADCASTS TO SOVIET UNION
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: 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 increase of broadcasting to the Soviet Union in the languages of the constituent republics, and in particular in the Byelorussian language, could be put into operation by the B.B.C.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the case for the B.B.C. broadcasting to the Soviet Union in languages other than

687
Russian and English has been considered from time to time. The conclusion has always been that the cost could not be justified in terms of our priorities.
THE EARL or BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer I should like to ask two supplementary Questions. Is he aware that there are 45 million Ukranians and 50 million Byelorussians, and that the present policy of the B.B.C. is based on the assumption that all nationalities within the Soviet Union are conversant with Russian and there is consequently no need for broadcasts in any other languages, such as Byelorussian? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that both "Radio Liberty" and the Vatican already broadcast in Byelorussian and that similar broadcasts by the B.B.C. will give great encouragement to the people of Byelorussia, who are looking to the West for understanding and support in their fight for free expression and in defence of their native language?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the population of the Ukraine comes outside the terms of reference of my noble friend's original Question. I am not quite sure where he got his figure for the Byelorussian population from. There are in fact only 8 million Byelorussians, out of a total Soviet population of well over 200 million—230 million-odd. As it is estimated that the cost of even only a half-hour daily broadcast in this language would be about £25,000 a year, we think that it does not accord with the present priorities, either for broadcasting or for the allocation of national funds at a time of financial stringency.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: I thank my noble friend.

ANGUILLA
2.44 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 what conclusions were reached regarding the future of Anguilla at the Bridgetown conference of the High Commissioners of Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana and Barbados with Mr. William Whitlock (Under-Secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and Mr. Anthony Lee (British representative in the discussions with St. Kitts).]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the conference to which the noble Lord refers was a routine meeting in Barbados of United Kingdom Government representatives in the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. It was not, in fact, a meeting of the High Commissioners of the Caribbean Commonwealth countries. As noble Lords are aware, the proceedings of such meetings are not normally made public. I can, however, say that the purpose of the conference was to enable my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to meet our diplomatic representatives in the area and to exchange views with them. Anguilla was only one of several subjects discussed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him this question? Is it not the case that Anguilla is now the most dominant issue in the Caribbean? Is it not the case that the Under-Secretary was taking the proposals from that conference to Anguilla when he met with the treatment which we all very much resent? Is my noble friend aware of the very great disquiet occasioned by the imminent military and naval intervention in Anguilla, and will not the Government seek another way? Might not this matter be referred to the Commonwealth Secretariat to try to bring about an agreement by diplomatic means?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will bear with me if I say that, with the leave of your Lordships' House, I will defer further answers on this subject until I reply to a Private Notice Question which I understand is to be asked later this afternoon. I

689
entirely understand that the question of Anguilla has become very topical, but I trust that my noble friend will have patience for a while, when I hope that his curiosity may be to some extent satisfied.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that of course my patience will be satisfied? May I ask him another question which is not so related to the immediate situation? Would Her Majesty's Government look again at this problem of the smaller islands, and think in terms of some United Nations Commission which might deal in a co-ordinated economic way with their needs, scattered as they are all over the world?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we in the new, merged Foreign and Commonwealth Office are very much aware of the problems of the remaining dependent territories to which my noble friend has made reference, and we have their future and their best interests constantly under review.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which he has given Private Notice. The Question is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the situation in Anguilla".
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I have just indicated in answer to my noble friend Lord Brockway, I will, with leave, answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope that it will be to the general convenience of the House if we try to complete the debate this evening by around 10 o'clock. Dinner will be available between 7 and 8.30 p.m. I am sure that I shall carry the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee with me if I say that we hope not only that noble Lords will remain for the conclusion of the debate but that they will avail themselves of the facilities provided by the Refreshment Department.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; to provide for the closing of the Yorkshire deeds registries; to amend the law relating to dispositions of estates and interests in land and to land charges; and for purposes connected with those matters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next for the purpose of allowing the Lord Ferrier's Motion on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House to be taken before the Horserace Betting Levy Bill.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: "IN PLACE OF STRIFE"
2.50 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper, In Place of Strife (Cmnd. 3888). The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I am profoundly aware both of the importance and of the difficulty of the subject we are to discuss. The question is one of which we are all too conscious. This is a subject on which men of good will can disagree, and disagree profoundly. Principle, judgment and the law of practical politics are all mixed up. Our discussion takes place against a long background of history in which prejudice and politics have been involved.
When we survey the history of industrial relations in this country we can look back with shame at the intolerance of the past and also with admiration at the farsightedness and devotion of many people in a more difficult period of our history. Above all, we can admire the loyalty of these many people to the cause of trade unionism and unity with their fellow workers. I am well aware that taking part in this debate are a number of noble Lords on this side of the House who have lived and fought for, and indeed have given a life-time of service to, their fellow workers. Those of us who have not had that experience need to feel a little humble; and in putting forward the Government's proposals, I shall certainly not seek to preach to them, any more than to those on the other side of the House—and we know that there are some on the employers' side who have taken the lead in striving for good industrial relations. There are noble Lords throughout the House who have had long experience of industry, but none with experience quite as long as that of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, who was apprenticed, I believe, some seventy years ago in the Leith shipyard.
I would ask all noble Lords to recognise that it is the firm belief of the Government that, despite the difficulties of the problems in front of us, we really believe that the proposals we are putting forward are in the best interests both of the workers and of the country as a whole. One thing on which I think we are all now agreed is that this is an area
692
where it is high time that the Government should fairly face the issues, and that it is right that a Labour Government should undertake this task. Indeed, when we took office we decided that our system of industrial relations needed a very thorough re-examination, thorough enough to challenge the conventional wisdom; and to this end the Government appointed a Royal Commission under Lord Donovan. I would take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the Government, and indeed of the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, for his labours. I hope that many noble Lords will remain to the end of the debate. My noble friend Lord Beswick has done his best to tempt noble Lords to do so. May I add the further temptation that the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, as well as other very distinguished and experienced noble Lords will be speaking towards the end of the debate? We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donovan.
My Lords, the White Paper provided an independent analysis and prescription, a consultant's report, which was invaluable to all of us. Indeed, I think it is possible that the Conservative document, Fair Deal, on this subject might have been very different if it had been written after they had had the benefit of the Donovan Report. But it is on the Government alone that there rests the responsibility of deciding what action they need to take in the field of industrial relations in the light of the Government's view of the country's economic and social needs, the Government's other policies and, indeed, our vision of the future. The White Paper we are debating to-day, which marks the second stage in the process of reexamination and reform, sets out the Government's proposals for action and legislation.
Let me deal first of all with the Government's major objective in the field of industrial relations. It is to see that people employed in industry have confidence in themselves in face of their employers and can truly take part as of right and in a responsible fashion in the important decisions which affect their working lives; and it is to see that British industry is as efficient as possible. Joint decision-taking and industrial efficiency are not incompatible objectives; they are complementary. This

693
is the view which informs the White Paper. The Government accept the Donovan Report view that:
"Properly conducted, collective bargaining is the most effective means of giving workers the right to representation in decisions affecting their working lives, a right which is or should be the prerogative of every worker in a democratic society."
Accordingly, the main objective of the White Paper is to reform and strengthen Britain's system of collective bargaining, using as a guide the Donovan Report's valuable critique of the present state of collective bargaining in British industry.
My Lords, we must all accept the fact that conflict is unavoidable in industry. There are real differences of interest, not just misunderstandings and failures by the employees to see what is best for them. The first need for managements is to recognise this—and many of the most progressive do so—and to accept that they are not just dealing with subordinates. Negotiating procedures and disputes procedures are needed as a way of working through this conflict. So too, if things cannot be settled promptly in other ways, is the freedom to strike. Managements have a responsibility for seeing that there are quick and fair ways of settling disputes. Nothing that I say in this context in any way derogates from the responsibilities of management in this matter. They should not just see those procedures as something to be gone through if they have made changes unilaterally and the union has objected. The good procedure is a way of reaching agreement, not a court of appeal.
The Government's analysis of the problems of industrial relations has had to go beyond what is in the Donovan Report in two directions. First, the Royal Commission did not seek to advance any general view of what should be the role of Government in industrial relations. It left this to be deduced from its proposals for action. No one suggests to-day, except rhetorically, that the Government should stay out altogether. Without Government intervention, there would be no legal protection for trade unions; no wages councils; inadequate conciliation and arbitration facilities; no industrial training boards; no redundancy payments scheme. Some people say they want the Government to stay out, but I think they really mean that they want
694
the Government to stay out except when it suits them. But most of us, I think, recognise that there are areas where the Government not only can but must seek to play a constructive role. I acknowledge, as do the Government—I hope we all do—that there are delicate issues of freedom in the matters we are discussing. The Donovan Report implicitly accepted the fact that the Government should play a constructive rôle and the Government have explicitly adopted this.
And this brings me to the second point on which the Government's analysis goes beyond that of the Royal Commission. The Donovan Report gives us what I am convinced are the only satisfactory long-term answers to our basic problems of industrial relations; but it offers no immediate relief to the symptoms of these problems, however serious. The Government for their part, cannot avoid facing up to the fact that some strikes cause harm to numerous other people—often other trade unionists and their families—and to the economy and therefore the prosperity of this country. While they recognise that strikes are unavoidable in an industrial relations system designed to express and resolve conflict, and see the right to strike as an essential safeguard for employees, the Government have sometimes to say, both to employer and employees, that wider considerations must come before their wish to fight things out on the spot. I believe that many of my trade union colleagues on the Benches behind me will agree, because it has been my experience when I have discussed the problem of strikes with responsible trade union leaders that there was not one who did not prefer to find a settlement rather than go for a strike. This is not a new opportunity for interference which the Government are happily seizing; it is a duty which has become unavoidable if grave harm is to be avoided.
The Government's strategy is to reform collective bargaining. We have to advance towards that goal mainly by bringing home to managements their responsibility for initiating change and by strengthening the trade unions. The Government's proposals for legislation are only one of a number of instruments, and our proposals for taking new discretionary powers in certain strikes are best seen as a tactical measure to protect the

695
main advance. The immediate responsibility for reforming collective bargaining rests mainly with the parties concerned, and the Government have welcomed and endorsed the encouragement which the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. gave in their joint statement for reviews of industrial relations at the levels of the industry and the undertaking.
For the Government's part, the Department of Employment and Productivity will be embarking on a continuous review of firms' industrial relations procedures as part of the work of its Manpower and Productivity Service. For this purpose it is setting up a register of agreements. It is inviting large undertakings, employing over 5,000 people, to register their procedure agreements. Later, the Government propose to put the register on a statutory basis. Besides helping the Department's advisory work, registration will emphasise to employers their responsibility for the procedures regulating industrial relations within the undertaking. The Government have also set up, under Royal Warrant for the present, the Commission on Industrial Relations to assist in the improvement and extension of negotiating procedures and collective bargaining. This was one of the major recommendations of the Donovan Commission and one which I am sure we all agree was a most constructive proposal. The Commission will be an independent body which will examine problems and cases referred to it by the Secretary of State. The White Paper says:
"The Government expects that the work of the C.I.R. will help to bring about a general move towards the reform and re-structuring of collective bargaining arrangements, not least because it will be able to suggest to the parties mutually beneficial improvements from practices which have been tried and found to work in other industries and undertakings."
My Lords, I am sure we all wish the C.I.R. good fortune, and I should like to pay a personal tribute to a man for whom for many years, twenty-five years or more, I have had a great admiration: that is Mr. George Woodcock. I think it a most onerous responsibility that he has taken on after his years of responsibility in the T.U.C.
In practical terms, effective collective bargaining is impossible without strong trade unionism. The White Paper therefor proposes measures which will
696
strengthen trade unionism in a number of ways. First, there should be legislation laying down the principle that no employer may prevent or obstruct an employee from belonging to a trade union. Secondly, on the advice of the C.I.R., the Government will be enabled to resolve cases where an employer unreasonably refuses to recognise a union. Where the C.I.R. has considered such a case and recommends recognition but the employer refuses to comply, the Secretary of State will be given power to order the employer to do so; and if a further refusal is met the union concerned will be allowed itself to take the employer to arbitration before the Industrial Court.
Where there is a dispute between two or more unions over recognition, the Government will look primarily to the T.U.C. to seek a solution. Only if it is unable to find one will the matter be referred to the C.I.R. The Commission will be able to recommend that one union should be recognised and another excluded from recognition; and in this case the proposed powers would be to make an order requiring everyone concerned to observe the C.I.R.'s recommendations, subject to penalties if they do not.
The third measure proposed by the Government in order to enable unions to become stronger is the Trade Union Development Scheme. I should like to say a few words on this aspect of the proposals which has not attracted as much attention as it might and therefore has been somewhat misunderstood. This scheme, financed from Government funds but administered by a Committee of the independent and trade union members of the C.I.R., would be available towards the special financial needs of trade unions arising out of, say, an amalgamation, or the development of new research activities, or an expansion of training for shop stewards, or the employment of consultants to examine some aspect of the union's activities. There will have to be suitable accounting arrangements for grants or loans under the scheme, but apart from this it would be run so as to make it absolutely clear that there was no element of Government control over unions. Hence the role of the independent C.I.R. in administering the scheme. There should therefore never be any question of beneficiary unions feeling morally in the Government's debt, for

697
the scheme is designed as a positive recognition of the value of well-organised and well-serviced trade unions to the country, and not as any sort of charity for indigent trade unions.
All these measures, then, are designed to strengthen and reform collective bargaining, and particularly to support the right of trade unions to take their proper place in a system of industrial relations which will serve the country's social and economic needs as a whole. But along with these rights there are of course responsibilities—the responsibilities of trade unions to their members, and to society, and of managements to their employees. The rights of the individual are certainly not less important than those of the organisations which represent or employ him. The White Paper proposes that an employee should have a right of appeal against unfair dismissal—a man's employment should be, and will be, recognised as something of the greatest value and importance to him, something not to be treated lightly by his employer.
This brings us again to the all-important question of procedure. The intention is that the procedures including appeal procedures will be introduced generally. But where firms have proper procedures, which are satisfactory, there is provision in the White Paper for these to be operated voluntarily. It is also proposed that any individual who has a complaint against a union should, if he has pursued this complaint unsuccessfully through the union's own appeals machinery, be able to raise it with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and before the Industrial Board. In this connection the Government believe it is right that unions should be required to have satisfactory rules on certain subjects as a safeguard for their members. For this purpose unions will be required to register their rules with the Registrar of Trade Unions as a check on the adequacy of these rules, although of course they will be free within broad limits to frame their rules to fit their particular needs and objectives.
This brings me to the thorny issue of legal sanctions, on which I know some of my noble friends and other noble Lords have considerable anxiety, both as to the equity and the workability of the
698
White Paper proposals, particularly those for pre-strike ballots and the conciliation pause. It is essential to put discussion of these measures in the right perspective. The powers envisaged are for use in exceptional situations, and where there is danger of serious and widespread damage to the economy. First, there is the power to order a ballot before an official strike. Before the Secretary of State exercises this power, she will of course have reason to believe that the majority of trade union members concerned do not want a strike; and the only purpose of the ballot would be to give members a chance to have their say. The power would be used only after consultations with the union; and at the end of the day the union could, if it wished, go ahead and call a strike, however the vote went. It is therefore not in any sense to be seen as a measure against strikes.
Secondly, there is the conciliation pause. I am very conscious, in arguing this, as in arguing the other controversial issues, that we could discuss them at great length, but I can deal with them only briefly. The conciliation pause is intended more directly as a safeguard for the community. Two criteria will have to be met before it can be used: first, that the strike was unconstitutional; that is, in breach of the procedures agreed by the employer or his association and the union; or—if there was no agreed procedure or for other reasons—adequate joint discussions had not taken place; and secondly, that if the strike or lock-out continued, the effects would be likely to have serious consequences for the economy. This means, for a start, that there would virtually never be any question of applying the conciliation pause in an official strike. Such strikes normally follow the exhaustion of agreed procedure. They have thus been through negotiations, and there really is not much to be gained—though we can argue this—by insisting on another four weeks of negotiations. Indeed a union which strikes in these circumstances is exercising a perfectly legitimate freedom. It may cause inconvenience to the rest of us, but none the less we recognise that it is essential to preserve this freedom. On the whole, this country has a good record in the matter of official strikes.
One objective of the proposal for a conciliation pause is to see that the most

699
serious unofficial strikes, most of which at present are unconstitutional—that is, proper procedures have not been followed—are conducted in the way that unions normally accept as essential in official strikes: that is, that there are full negotiations following an agreed procedure, and that the Department of Employment has an opportunity to conciliate and if necessary to hold or arrange an inquiry. The other objective of the conciliation pause—and I would emphasise that this is no more than a pause: it does not rule out strike action—is to provide an acceptable alternative to this sort of sudden strike as a sanction against unreasonable action by management. When garbled reports of the proposal first appeared in the Press, some trade unionists reacted by saying, "It's not us you ought to get at; it's the boss who provokes the strike". The Government entirely agree that thoughtless and ill-considered actions inevitably follow this sort of reaction. If the employer is at fault, if he has made unilateral changes when he should have been prepared to discuss matters, or if he has paid no attention to a reasonable complaint, then he must be made to return to the status quo. Even if there is some right and some wrong on both sides, the status quo is normally a fairer basis to apply while negotiation and conciliation are tried. But the "quid pro status quo" (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will not mind my using this phrase), is that there should be a return to work. We must remember that the proposed powers are intended to safeguard the community. When they were used to stop an employer who took provocative action, the community would not be safeguarded unless there was also a return to work.
We do not suggest that this is the answer to the problem of strikes. It is a necessary safeguard; no more and no less. I do not think that there is any easy answer. Few noble Lords will think that. As the White Paper makes clear, the Government believe that
"the fundamental solution lies in the restructuring of our present system of collective bargaining when it is disordered and defective";
and that can be achieved only by the full implementation of the Government's major policies for the reform of collective bargaining and the strengthening of trade unions.
There is one other controversial matter to which I will refer briefly. Here, again, I know that there are strong feelings. This is the proposal that in cases such as a refusal to return to work during a conciliation pause, there should be an attachment of earnings. A number of people who are otherwise well disposed towards the White Paper have taken some exception to the proposal that attachment of wages should be available as a method of enforcing payment of a fine imposed on an unconstitutional striker by the Industrial Board. There seem to be two main grounds for concern: first, that the proposal strikes a blow at the integrity of the wage packet; and, secondly, that the procedure is ineffective, particularly if unsupported by the threat of imprisonment. I will not discuss the desirability of the threat of imprisonment because the Government have firmly ruled this out and I think that most noble Lords will agree.
So far as the first objection is concerned, it is fair to note that no less a body than the T.U.C., in their evidence to the Payne Committee, were strongly of the view that attachment of earnings was the most suitable and least objectionable method of enforcing the payment of judgment debts. I do not suggest, and nobody suggests, that any one method is infallible. We shall certainly listen with the deepest attention to what noble Lords have to say, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Hughes will, if necessary, deal with this subject more fully at the end.
Let me now briefly deal with the only other set of proposals which is, in a sense, in front of us. These are the Conservative proposals, as set out in a pamphlet, Fair Deal on Work. I acknowledge, as I have said already, that the Conservative Research Department and those who produced this pamphlet did not have the benefit of the Donovan Report to guide them in their proposals. The key difference between the Government's White Paper and the official Conservative view concerns the legal status of collective agreements. There are other aspects in the proposals, on some of which we should be agreed, and one or two which we find more objectionable, but the main proposal is on the emphasis of the legal status of collective agreements. The Tory Party attach great importance to this as

701
the key to improving industrial relations, while we, for our part, do not think it matters very much compared with a lot of other things. I am trying to put this point quite fairly. The Government's view is very easily stated. We see no reason at all why art employer or an employers' association should not seek to make with a trade union a collective agreement which is directly legally enforceable. A quirk of the law at present prevents this where employers' associations are concerned, and the Government propose that this particular bar in relation to employers' associations counting as trade unions for the purpose of the Act in question will be removed.
The Opposition seem somehow to have spread what I can only call a mistaken impression, that their whole detailed scheme for the legal enforcement of collective agreements would grind into operation if only Section 4(4) of the Trade Unions Act 1871 were repealed. They think, like the Government but unlike the C.B.I., that a collective agreement is only an agreement if all aspects of it, including its legal status, are freely agreed; and they say that collective agreements ought to be legally binding unless the parties decide otherwise. But they do not face up squarely to the fact that on many occasions the unions do not want legally binding agreements; that employers show little interest in them, and, in particular, that employers are most reluctant to start legal proceedings against employees or trade unions. I wonder how many noble Lords who are employers have ever brought an action against an employee who has walked out in breach of an agreement. I should be very surprised if there are many in your Lordships' House. This is one example where it is open to employers to take action; but they do not.
As the Donovan Report has clearly shown—and I press this on noble Lords—clearly there are enormous difficulties in having legally binding agreements. I would say that the Opposition (I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says on this) are taking a far too simple view on what is a very complex problem. If anyone doubts this they have only to read (and I commend this to your Lordships) what Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane has said in relation to the Ford agreement—an agreement which could have been made
702
legally enforceable had the parties to it wished and to which, in any case, the 1871 Act has no application. This is a most illuminating explanation of the nature of such agreements. I very much hope that noble Lords who support this view will again study what the Donovan Report had to say on the subject of collective agreements.
There is a disposition in some quarters to look for quick and relatively painless remedies for our industrial relations problems—for short cuts, as it were, to industrial peace. Lord Donovan's Report has shown clearly how misconceived, unworkable or inadequate are most of the remedies and short cuts that one hears people in the street and others putting forward. The reform of procedures or institutions, changes in long established attitudes, and the development of greater skills in handling industrial negotiations take time and patience and a large amount of goodwill. I believe that in many parts of industry that good will is strongly manifest on both sides. We are now set on the path towards these changes, and the Government intend to do all they can to encourage them through the C.I.R., the Trade Union Development Fund and their own Manpower and Productivity Service. We are confident that improvements are best achieved, and conflicts of interest best settled, through the strengthening of what has come to be called the "voluntary system". I ask your Lordships to consider the Government's proposals as a whole, and I am sure your Lordships will judge them fairly. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the White Paper, In Place of Strife (Cmnd. 3888).—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that I shall be echoing the feeling of the House as a whole if I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the extremely reasonable and, indeed, conciliatory way in which he has introduced this debate. This is, as he has said, a subject of great importance and difficulty, and I suppose that we shall find men of good will disagreeing in the course of the debate. I only hope that we shall be able to keep the debate on lines which one would expect from men of good will; and I see no reason why we should not.

703
We have been asked to "take note" of the Government's White Paper In Place of Strife. The Government wisely have not asked us to approve it in its entirety, so they are not asking us to take it or leave it, but to consider it. That, my Lords, is sensible, for I think we are agreed on the objectives: first, on the need to reduce the causes of strife; secondly, when strife does arise, on the need to contain it so as to cause the least possible damage to the economy and to the lives and interests of those not primarily involved in it; and thirdly, on the need to establish confidence in the means of avoiding disputes and of settling disputes that are not avoided.
The decision of the Government that the time has conic to take action to deal with our creaking and groaning system of industrial relations is much to be welcomed. It did not take the Government very long to come round to our view that a start could not be made on this without first having a Royal Commission. We thought, and we still think, that it would have been wrong to appoint a Royal Commission just before the 1964 General Election. The Prime Minister then thought it wrong to appoint one at all. Inevitably, the Royal Commission needed time to consider so vast and important a subject; and it took three years. Nobody need complain about that: on the contrary, as the noble Lord has said, we owe a big debt of gratitude to the Royal Commission for the care and thought that they gave to their Report.
The Government have not adopted all the recommendations of the Royal Commission; nor, I suppose, would any of your Lordships agree with all of them. But the Commission have drawn public attention to the major defect in our present system of collective bargaining; that is, the weakness at factory level. Procedure rules are often neither adequate nor clear; there is a widespread tendency not to keep them, and there are not enough people, either on the management or on the employee side, with sufficient training and skill in negotiations. We very much welcome the moral and practical encouragement which the Government propose to give to training in industrial relations both on the management and on the employee side and also to strengthen the trade unions,
704
which the White Paper says are undermanned and under-financed. I would just comment that any democratic institution flourishes best on its own sources of support, but at the same time we do not in any way object to Government support for a transitional and interim period in the way that the noble Lord has indicated.
Secondly, the Royal Commission have drawn attention to the pernicious effects of these shortcomings. An annual average of over 2,000 unofficial strikes, some of which are later made official, not only brings the reputation of this country into grave disrepute abroad but saps the vitality of industry and undermines the confidence of management and the sense of common purpose of industry as a whole. These damaging effects on reputation and morale, no less than the more obvious disruption of the economy, particularly losses of export earnings, make it imperative that we should cease to regard industrial relations as a matter for industry alone. We are all involved as a community. The problem is how to protect the right of employees to negotiate freely the terms and conditions on which they give their services and at the same time ensure that the right is exercised in such a way as to benefit, and not harm, the interests of the, community, and not to cause avoidable loss or damage to third parties.
I hope we are all agreed that the foundation of all sound business and professional relationships is the honouring of agreements; that there must be recognised means of altering agreements when circumstances are changed; that some attitudes must be changed, especially the attitude that, "Rules are fine so long as they do not have to be applied; that agreements are splendid so long as they give me what I want without having to concede anything in exchange, and so long as they do not have to be kept; and that penalties are highly desirable so long as they can be enforced against the other chap and not against me".
I heard on the radio this morning that much of to-day's debate would be concerned with financial penalties and the attachment of earnings, where necessary, to meet them. True, in another place the Secretary of State devoted to this aspect a whole column of her speech on the White Paper. For my part, there is only

705
one thing I want to say about it. While it is obviously essential that neither employer nor employee should be able to avoid paying penalties that are properly imposed, it would I think be a pity if they were to be enforced in a manner that did not apply to judgment debts in general. It is therefore highly desirable, in my view, that enforcement of judgment debts should be dealt with in general legislation rather than in an Industrial Relations Act as a special case. But an assurance that they would be so dealt with might well suffice, in view of the overriding need to bring legislation before Parliament very soon.
My Lords the sooner the new legislation is brought before Parliament, the better. It will be more than a pity if it cannot be brought in this Session. We really must urge the Government on this point. It is not as if the promised Industrial Relations Act is going to be the last word on the subject for ever. It will be amended and adjusted and added to as experience in the next few years shows to be necessary. We are likely to have a whole series of Acts of Parliament in the 1970s, just as there were in the 1870s. What is needed now is legislation before the 1970s.
The Economist said on March 8 that if the proposals in the White Paper had already been in effect neither the Ford nor the Vauxhall shut-down would have taken place. The writer of the article said:
"The Ford strike would have been avoided by the power to order a secret ballot before an official strike. The Vauxhall strike would have been avoided by the power to order unofficial strikers to return to work for a 28-day conciliation pause."
While I am not so sure as the Economist of the certainty of these propositions, at least there would have been a far greater chance of avoiding the damage that these stoppages have caused. The article went on to say, however, that the overriding priority must be to deal with strikes now and that it would be quite possible in a quick Bill this Session also to include such fundamental rights as the right to belong to a trade union without victimisation.
It is to the credit of the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry that as soon as the Royal Commission had reported they set to work together—and I quote:
706
"to define the scope of industry-wide agreements on the one hand and factory or company-wide agreements on the other, and the proper relationships between them."
Obviously, industry-wide no less than factory agreements will have to be reviewed.
So far as factory agreements are concerned, it seems to me the first questions are these. What are to be the rules of the game? Who are to be the teams? Who is to be the referee? And what is to be the board of appeal? The Government are inviting the 300 largest companies, those with over 5,000 employees, to file with the Department of Employment and Productivity their rules for procedures both for the settlement of grievances and disputes and for the determination of terms and conditions of employment, and also for their arrangements for consultation. Other smaller companies, they say, may also be invited to submit their procedures. All this is to be done voluntarily. Compulsory registration, they say, will apparently follow, the "scope" of it to be decided in consultation with industry in the light of the D.E.P.'s examination of the agreements and what is termed in the White Paper "their experience"—which I take to mean the success they achieve in persuading companies to alter their agreements where the D.E.P. or the Commission for Industrial Relations, on a reference from the D.E.P., think it desirable.
It seems doubtful whether compulsory registration of all such agreements with the D.E.P. would ever be worth while or possibly even practicable. There is, I suppose, some point in registration as a formality, first to ensure that such agreements exist and, second, in case a dispute occurs. There is apparently to be no power to require amendment of agreements. They may be right, since they are freely negotiated or re-negotiated with the advice and help of the C.I.R., as the case may be. But ought not guide-lines to be issued? The noble Lord was good enough to refer to Fair Deal at Work, and that suggested that there should be a code. These guide-lines could be issued whether or not, as is there suggested, the code is attached as an appendix or Schedule to the Industrial Relations Act. Such a code could properly be negotiated between the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. with

707
the aid of the Commission for Industrial Relations or the D.E.P., or both. Indeed, it might be better if a tripartite body examined the procedure agreements to be submitted voluntarily, instead of the D.E.P. alone. I put this point to the Government.
The next question is: who is to negotiate? This raises the problems, first, of the status of shop stewards and their link with unions and local union officials, and, second, of the recognition of trade unions by individual employers. Here we come to the heart of the matter. How is the community to be assured that at factory and company level procedure agreements will be followed both in negotiation of substantive agreements and in dealing with disputes, and that substantive agreements will be honoured? For the interests of the community are here involved as well as those on whose behalf the negotiations are carried out.
The White Paper in paragraph 109 accepts the Royal Commission's recommendation that
"trade unions"—
presumably they mean all trade unions—
"should register with a Registrar",
who will for the time being be the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Registrar will be empowered to challenge their rules
"on the ground that they do not adequately cover the subjects specified",
which I take to mean the subjects suggested by the Royal Commission, one of which is the appointment and functions of shop stewards. The White Paper does not accept the recommendation that trade unions should have corporate status, on the ground that it would not be appropriate to unions' constitutional structure. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will explain this objection in winding up. The unions are to review their constitutional structure, which I think should be brought into line with the law as amended rather than the other way round. The main point here is that whoever is negotiating on the employees' side at factory or company level should be acting on behalf of the trade unions, whether he is a shop steward or a trade union official. Shop stewards, in other words, should be integrated into the trade union structure,
708
especially where they are to do the negotiation.
Then there is the subject of trade union recognition; that is, employer recognition of a trade union for the purposes of local negotiations. This again divides itself into two problems: first, the willingness of an employer both to recognise and to negotiate with the trade union; and, secondly, the establishment of satisfactory negotiating arrangements where there are two or more trade unions. The unhappy situation in the Steel Corporation is a case in point. The White Paper proposes that the C.I.R. should investigate any case where an employer refuses to recognise or negotiate with the union and should report to the Secretary of State after arranging a ballot, if it thinks it appropriate. The Secretary of State would then have power, if he or she thought fit, to require an employer to recognise the trade union and/or to negotiate with it, as the case might be. If the employer failed to comply, the union could take him to arbitration by the Industrial Court, whose award would be legally binding. I hope I have correctly described the procedure.
In our view, before recognition is accorded in such circumstances it is desirable to hold a ballot. The argument of the White Paper that a union may be able to recruit members only after it has received recognition is surely fallacious. It is not a question of recruitment; it is a question of employees expressing their opinion by vote as to whether or not the union should be recognised. Ina democratic organisation the union will surely be in a far stronger position if its support is based on a majority of the employees' votes than on a Ministerial fiat.
As to the second point, as the White Paper says,
"questions of conflict between rival unions present greater difficulties."
We have at present a devastating example of the difficulties at Ford's, where unofficial strikes against an agreement confirmed by the trade union side were subsequently made official by some of the unions represented in the negotiations, and where the agreement was actually brought into effect on March 1 at the request of the trade union side.
One possible solution is to adopt the American system of a single designated union for a factory. To start with, a

709
union must prove that it has the support of 30 per cent. of the employees. If the National Labour Relations Board consider that it is suitable, a secret ballot is held, and if a majority of the employees vote in favour it becomes the accredited bargaining unit. Some people in this country are always a little apt to suspect gangsterism in anything American, but the fact that nearly 90 per cent. of those entitled to vote in the ballots during 1967 participated seems at least to indicate a healthy individual interest in trade union affairs. No doubt joint committees could be established as an alternative, voting being presumably weighted in relation to the strength of membership, but the advantage of the American system is that it is clean-cut and would tend to reduce the excessive number of trade unions. Obviously, if it were adopted satisfactory arrangements for the transfer of membership from one union to the other and for re-admission to unions would have to be made.
I come now to unofficial strikes. The White Paper lays stress on the right of the community to require that groups of employees shall not take precipitate action, and on the urgency of ensuring that the processes of conciliation are followed first. This is a matter primarily for the trade unions themselves, but we agree that if they fail to maintain discipline in their own ranks the D.E.P. must step in with its conciliation machinery, whether it is invited to or not. But are the steps proposed inadequate? Where the dispute arises from some action on the part of the management the White Paper says that the Secretary of State
"will require them to withdraw it so as to preserve the status quo"—
I suppose strictly they mean the "status quo ante". This may not always be possible or reasonable, and I think the noble Lord has disposed of this. The White Paper was a little ambiguous in this matter. It made it clear that it will not always necessarily be required.
The White Paper then continues:
"if a strikes takes place the Secretary of State would be able … to issue an Order requiring those involved to return to work and to desist from industrial action for a period of twenty-eight days",
710
and this would be coupled with a requirement to the employer to maintain the status quo ante.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I think he is absolutely right in saying that it is the "status quo ante".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged. If either side failed to comply, the Industrial Board could, at its discretion, impose financial penalties. In a case such as the Girling dispute, where only 27 workers are said to have cost Fords £500,000 a day for four weeks and to have caused the laying off of about 5,000 workers, there would not have been much difficulty in fining the 27. But what about the present Ford dispute? Would the Ministry have had time to intervene before the strike was made official, and would the unofficial strikers have complied with the Minister's order? And what would have happened if they did not? In my view there are strong objections to Ministers being saddled with the odium of a decision in these cases. This could easily turn a strike from being industrial into being political. What reason is there to suppose that the Minister's order is more likely to be respected than the court's? Should not the Secretary of State in his capacity as representative of the public interest apply to an appropriate court for an injunction and let the court fix the penalties for defying the law?
On official strikes, in the same way we think that before official strike action is taken, whether on an industry wide or plant basis, the right course is to refer the dispute to arbitration by an industrial court, and that agreement should so provide. If either of the parties decline to accept the court's award, the Secretary of State should again have power to apply to the court for an injunction to stop the strike or lock-out for a period specified in the court order. Where a strike or lock-out would gravely affect the national interest, in our view the court should be able to grant an injunction for at least 60 days. Here again I quote the American case. In the U.S.A. the court can do so for 80 days on the application of the Attorney-General, and after 60 days, if no settlement has been reached, the Attorney-General must report the employer's latest

711
offer, and a ballot is then held on whether or not to accept it.
Experience is interesting. In the 20 years between 1947 and 1967 this procedure was needed on only 24 occasions and on none was the ballot required. The important thing is the injunction, which gives time for cooling off, for in 17 cases a settlement was reached during the period. In only six of the 24 cases were strikes begun or resumed after the period. The White Paper envisages that the Secretary of State would order a ballot to be conducted by the unions, if they were disinclined to do so themselves and there was, in his opinion, first, a threat to the national interest and, secondly, doubt whether the strike commanded the support of the majority. What would happen if the unions refused is not made clear in the White Paper. There certainly seem to be some weaknesses in the Government's proposals. On inter-union disputes, the procedure proposed by the Government seems about right to me, though again we would prefer that the Minister should apply to the courts for an order, rather than issue it himself.
I began by saying that one of the objects must be to contain the dispute. To me it is incomprehensible that anyone should even contemplate extending the immunities outside the immediate area of the dispute. Yet the White Paper proposes, in paragraph 100, that the legal hazards which it says under the present law face sympathetic strikes and other ways of bringing indirect pressure on the employer should be removed. The White Paper gives as its reason that "Trade Unions have a long tradition" of sympathetic strikes. But, my Lords, since when has the Labour Party become traditionalist? Are we not to try to change attitudes that are harmful to the interest of the community? Are not sympathetic strikes, by definition, in breach of procedure and unconstitutional? Are they not often designed to bring pressure on the community rather than on the employer?
We believe that the immunities afforded by the Trade Disputes Acts should be confined to disputes between management and employees and should not extend either to strikes which take place outside the area of the original dispute or to inter-union disputes, coercive action to
712
enforce a "closed" or "union" shop, or strikes called to prevent an employer from employing men on work which they are qualified and fit to do. The emphasis alike on observing procedure and limiting the area of disputes must be, in our view, maintained.
There remains the question: to what extent should procedure and substantive agreements be legally binding? Are they to be contracts or just scraps of paper? Of course, agreements which were never intended to be legally binding ought not to be made legally binding. What is needed—and I put forward our view of this—is to give both sides confidence that agreements made will be kept and that both sides will have a remedy if they are not, instead of only one as at present, and that the remedy of strike action—one practical remedy that is. Surely it must be the desire of everyone to see an orderly means of ensuring observance of agreements. I do not think there is a great deal between us on this, as the noble Lord said. The White Paper wants agreements to be legally binding only if they are expressly stated to be so. We think that at the very least certain types of agreements which are made after long and arduous negotiation should be legally binding. We believe that if both sides come to the negotiating table with the intention of making agreements legally binding at least for a specified time, they will treat the actual negotiations with a greater sense of responsibility and will in fact make better and clearer agreements.
In one astonishing sentence the White Paper talks about
"legally binding agreements which have been imposed upon unions without their consent".
How can you have an agreement, legally binding or otherwise, without the consent of the parties? It would be strange if we were asked to accept the argument that Britain is unable to do what so many other developed nations do, that is, to have a system of legally enforceable collective bargains and to make it work. Surely what has been done by statesmen and lawyers between them elsewhere can be done here.
We welcome the establishment of the C.I.R. as what the White Paper calls a
"disseminator of good practice and a focus for reform by example".
They have a most important missionary task in promoting the reform of industrial relations. We think it is a pity that

713
their functions are concentrated upon recognition problems and procedures. Even so, they will have the opportunity to din into management and employees alike that, as the Director General of the C.B.I. has said, working relationships are no longer about rectifying intolerable wrongs—those days are past—
"they are about the improvement of working effectiveness and the rewards that go with it".
We should like to see the creation of a Productivity Board whose function would be, in the words of Fair Deal at Work, to further the objective of a high productivity/high earning economy. We want a really forward-looking approach to industrial relations, not a traditional one.
We should also like to see the Registrar given much greater powers than the White Paper envisages. We think that he should have power to refuse to register trade union rules which include provisions restricting output or efficiency, subject to appeal to the industrial courts, and exclude provision for appeal to an industrial court on disciplinary matters. We think that in every instance industrial courts should be composed of a legally qualified chairman and two members, one from the employers' and one from the trade unions' panels. We think there should be both regional courts and a national appeal court on the lines, say, of the National Insurance structure.
Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, we must never forget that trade unions are not an end in themselves, but primarily a means to promote the wellbeing of the individual. We welcome the proposals in the White Paper to fortify the rights of the individual, particularly against dismissal from his job and against refusal of admission to a union or expulsion from it. We agree that any provision in a contract of employment debarring an individual from joining a trade union should be void, but we are inclined to think equally that any provision compelling him to join one should equally be void. Freedom should not be one-legged.
There is a great deal in the White Paper that we welcome. There are con-
714
spicuous signs of grace in it, such as the flat statement that opposition to the admission of Government or industry trained "dilutees" to skilled jobs is misguided, and the great importance that the Government attach to the review of dilutee agreements. We think it right that both employers' associations and trade unions should be capable of being sued in tort except in the circumstances of a trade dispute. On the other hand, there are strange lapses, such as the idea that the obvious need for trade unions to to be provided with the information they require to negotiate intelligently should be translated into a legal requirement. That would certainly be a fertile and. I think, a futile sources of strife. It is eminently a matter for a code of industrial relations.
I should like to conclude on a personal note, which I am sure many of your Lordships will not agree with. It may be politic at the present to put out a White Paper called In Place of Strife in which it is boldly stated that strikes are inevitable. But in the long term I believe that the day will come when strikes are considered as uncivilised as any other means of taking the law into one's own hands and getting one's way without regard to the effect on innocent third parties. The idea that it is justifiable to strike when all else has failed seems to me self-contradictory. So long as there are courts in the land to settle disputes all else has not failed. Let us make a start at least in that direction. In a civilised country the courts are the place to settle disputes. At least let us take steps to see that the withdrawal of labour in defiance of procedure just at the time when the employer and the public most need it is not only to be outlawed but heavily penalised.
The White Paper shows courage but not enough to satisfy the mood of the nation. There are some steps in the right direction and a few in the wrong direction. At least it is a great deal better than nothing at all, and we urge the Government to bring legislation before Parliament quickly. We shall hope to improve the Bill when it comes before us, and later to improve the Act after the next Election.

ANGUILLA
3.58 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I rise to answer the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and with your Lordships' permission I will repeat the Answer that is being given by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a similar Private Notice Question in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"As I told the House yesterday in answer to the honourable Member for Sevenoaks, I will be making a Statement on this subject at the earliest possible moment.
"Meanwhile I wish to make one thing clear. The object of the British Government's policy is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner to Anguilla with the task of working out a long-term solution of the problem in Anguilla which is acceptable to all concerned, including the people of Anguilla themselves. It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will make a Statement on this subject at the earliest possible opportunity, because I do not think that that Answer is very satisfactory. Everybody seems to know what is happening except Parliament. Certainly we in this House shall want to know at the very earliest possible moment whether it is the Government's intention to use force and to use British troops, and we expect an early Statement from noble Lords opposite.
May I ask the noble Lord one question which is not put in any Party sense; it is genuinely seeking information because I do not know the answer. What is the constitutional position here? As I understand it, Britain looks after foreign affairs and defence of St. Kitts and Anguilla. But what legal right should we have to intervene in the internal affairs of either Anguilla or St. Kitts, and particularly what legal rights should we have if it were not at the behest of Mr. Bradbury that we did so? May I also ask him exactly what is the status of Her Majesty's Commissioner under the West Indies Act, and have we the right, as seems to be
716
implied in the noble Lord's Answer, to insist on his installation?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should have said that everybody thinks he knows what is happening, but I am not quite sure that everybody does know what is happening. What is happening is that we are making a number of precautionary moves so that we are prepared for any eventuality. The aim, as I have said, is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner to Anguilla. This is being done, as the noble Lord implied, in pursuance of the West Indies Act, and the specific section is Section 7(2) of that Act. If he refers to that, I am sure he will see that we have legal authority for the course of action we are now taking.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if operations are contemplated, as is reported in the Press, he will bear in mind that such operations will be tolerated only if they are genuine police actions, designed to maintain law and order, and not military exercises aimed at imposing a political decision?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that of course is a hypothetical question, and the noble Lord is an old enough Parliamentarian to know that I shall not answer it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord has given an answer with regard to Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act. Could he just answer that which I think is a fairly simple question; namely, is there any legal warranty under that Act for the use of force to install a Commissioner, whether the use of force be by the military or what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, described as a police action? What I should like to be satisfied about now is that we have a legal right to use force to install a Commissioner.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount may say that the question is a simple one. Questions often are. It is the answers that are complicated. In this particular case I can only say that we have legal authority under the West Indies Act for the course of action we are now taking. I cannot answer any question which involves the hypothesis that force might be used.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was asking the noble Lord not whether there was legal authority for the course he says the Government are now taking. What I was asking him—and I hope for a reply, because I think it is important—is whether there is any legal right to use force.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I fear that I cannot be drawn into answering that question. I am sure that if the noble and learned Viscount will consult the West Indies Act he will be able to answer that question for himself.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many of us share the view that it is regrettable that Parliament does not have further information on this matter before steps are taken which we cannot influence? May I further ask my noble friend whether, if it is intended to use troops or police—action to which many of us are opposed—he can at least ensure that before they go to Anguilla they shall go to Antigua and await a reply from the authorities in Anguilla?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I have said a Statement will be made by my right honourable friend as soon as possible, and I am sure that if it is your Lordships' wish arrangements will be made to repeat that Statement in this House. At this moment I have nothing to add to what I have said.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can my noble friend say that a suggestion has been made to the people of Anguilla, and can he tell us what is their reaction to the idea that they should revert to being a British Colony for the time being?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the proposals that were put to the people of Anguilla by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary were, we believe, acceptable to the majority of the people of Anguilla. Again, I am afraid that I can go into no details until the Statement that has been promised has been made in another place.
LORD BALFOUR or INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister explain one thing? As the revulsion of the people of Anguilla against being under the administration of St. Kitts and the present
718
leader there has been well known for well over a year, how is it the position has been allowed to drift until this last-minute crisis when we read of a force being got ready to go as a precautionary step?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be wrong of me to go into detail in answer to that question as in answer to the other questions. I can only say that this situation has now developed; we are taking steps to deal with it, and it is no part of our policy that the Anguillans should live under an administration that they do not want.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister quite satisfied that these precautionary steps, which we read about in the Press and hear about on television, are giving a force adequate in strength and armament, in aircraft and ammunition, sufficient to deal with this grave military situation which they seem likely to face?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not responsible for any reports that may appear in the Press. We are satisfied that the precautionary steps we are taking are adequate and appropriate.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord said in his original Answer that it is no part of the Government's purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration that they do not want. Does that mean that the Government are not in any circumstances going to put the Anguillans, unless they so desire, back under the domination of St. Kitts?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the general outline of our proposals, so far as the St. Kitt's Government is concerned is satisfactory. I have nothing to add to the Statement made by my right honourable friend, which is, that as a result of our policy the Anguillans will not be put under an administration which they do not want. I think that is quite clear, and I have nothing to add to it at this moment.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, is it not a most unusual situation for the Government to refuse to give any information at all with regard to the visit of an Under-Secretary, a British Minister, to an Island which has some relationship with the United Kingdom, in which he

719
was apparently the subject of some force? And is it not strange that there is no explanation given, so far as I know, to Parliament as to the reasons for his mission and what he hoped to accomplish by going there? Would it not be possible for the Minister to enlighten us, at any rate in some degree, on those subjects?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it is unfair, and indeed inaccurate, for the noble Lord to suggest that no information has been given about the visit of my honourable friend. Full information about it has been given in another place, and the noble Lord can, I am sure, refresh his memory if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for March 17, where he will see that, in answer to a Question there, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary explained the reason for my honourable friend's visit and the policy that lay behind it.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: "IN PLACE OF STRIFE"
4.6 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having introduced this Motion in a way which enables us to debate the general principles underlying the White Paper, rather than having at this stage to vote for or against the whole package of the Government's proposals. My reason for taking part in this discussion is that for the past twenty years or so I have been involved with the management of people in large-scale manufacturing industries, and during that time I have had firsthand experience of negotiating with trade unions and, more recently, of training management and others in the general field of industrial relations.
The backcloth against which this debate is taking place could hardly, I suggest, be more gloomy. In the ordinary way, I should not have dreamed of beginning by referring to a particular dispute, but it seems to me that to-day it would be quite unrealistic not to make some mention of the Ford strike, only the latest and perhaps the most depress-
720
ing in the series at present bringing so much damage to our country. I want to be most careful about what I say, for there is always danger in commenting on disputes affecting firms other than one's own where one cannot possibly have access to all the relevant facts. Indeed, I do not propose to comment on the merits of the case except to say this: that if there is one thing above all others in my experience which is indispensable to the way in which we traditionally have carried out our negotations in British industry, it is that, once entered into, agreements should be honoured in their observance.
In these matters there is often room for more than one opinion, and there is much that is complex and uncertain. But of one thing I am in no doubt at all. If the edifice of our industrial relations is not built on this essential foundation of trust and confidence between us, it will collapse beneath us in ruins and anarchy. In saying this my head is anywhere but in the clouds, and as I know well from personal experience, there are always exceptions to the general rule. But, as I see it, on this fundamental point what happened at Fords was that a group of union representatives, whatever position they may have taken up individually, together arrived at an agreement with the management. It may be that the agreement should never have been reached. It may be that the company were unwise to seek to enforce the agreement at law. It may also be, as Mr. Justice Lane observed in his recent judgment, that the agreement remained in the realm of undertakings binding only in honour. But we then have to ask ourselves whether honour is of such little consequence in industrial relations that it can be ignored. I do not believe that it can.
What happened in this case was that the leadership of the two largest and most powerful unions in the country, in response to unofficial action, promptly called an official strike, one of the unions repudiating in the process its own negotiator. Incidentally, I should like to pay tribute to that negotiator for what he then did in resigning from his union. I think this was a brave and an honourable action to take.
I want to make it quite plain that my remarks are not directed against trade unions generally, for some of them—for

721
example, the union led by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath—I have the highest possible respect; but of others I think we are now entitled to ask what are their overall objectives. Are they to promote the interests of their members as a whole and, therefore, of the nation at large; or are they, by taking advantage of the bargaining power wielded in particular places, to put short-term sectional interests before the long-term benefit of all? We hear a good deal to-day about the freedom of people to strike, but in the great liberal traditions of this country there are some things which, in the last resort, are even more important. One is the liberty of the subject to work, and another is our basic national integrity and wellbeing.
In recent years we have had in your Lordships' House a number of debates on industrial relations, and in them I have never yet advocated the use of legislation as the controlling factor. But if there is one kind of conduct that the British people will not indefinitely tolerate, it is that of the bully. We have seen too much bullying lately, and it is evident that an increasing number of people—including trade unionists—are not prepared to put up with it much longer. They can hardly be blamed for feeling that, if there is no other way in which it can be brought under control, there will in time have to be legislation. I am sorry about that, for I still believe that the question of whether, to what extent, and at what time the law should be introduced into our industrial relations is a highly complex one. And even when, on balance, the conclusion is reached that a particular piece of legislation should be enacted I think that such legislation can at best provide only a partial solution.
We can pass laws which effectively restrict the ability of people to withdraw their labour. What we cannot do by legislation is to ensure that during the time people are at work they are adequately motivated to give of their best. There is a word much in vogue today. "participation", which, if only we could give it practical and agreed expression, would I am sure go a long way towards solving our problems. The trouble is that changes in the law can, at best, help only marginally in bringing it about. I am sorry that the White Paper,
722
although it has some admirable sentiments to express about the importance of participation in industry, has not more to say about ways in which the aspiration can be given practical effect. I also regret that while the White Paper acknowledges the need—so well brought out in the Report of the Royal Commission—to reform our collective bargaining and consultative procedures so as to bring formal systems more into line with informal realities, again it has so little to say about ways in which this can actually be done. I remain convinced that the key to success in these fields of participation and the reform of collective bargaining—not to mention other benefits in improved productivity, increased exports and better balance-of-payments figures—lies in productivity bargaining.
In the case of the agreement between the company for which I work and the trade unions (and it is, of course, of the essence of these arrangements that they are undertaken jointly with the unions) the basic objects of the exercise are that each person shall be employed to the full extent of his time and capabilities, and that he shall enjoy the status, remuneration, and security which are consistent with his contribution to the exercise. The way in which we are setting about this is no longer on the basis of the old-style negotiation in which management alone first planned what should be done and then, depending on what was agreed, struck a bargain with the unions as to the price to be paid. Instead we are taking the work which has to be done in each plant and inviting the men themselves to join in determining how and by whom it can best be done. Payment for the jobs which result is made on the basis of a scale agreed earlier between the company and the unions, and varies according to the knowledge, skill and responsibility involved in the particular work. In this way, for the first time men are having a real say in the work they are to do, and indirectly in the pay they receive. At the same time we are reviewing our consultative arrangements to see how far we can, together with the men's representatives, evolve an improved system of consultation and negotiation under which, at plant level, the same people, shop stewards, can consider with management any matter at all which affects employees or the company's operational efficiency.

723
My Lords, I suggest that it is only on the shop floor, in practical ways such as these, that employees generally; to quote the White Paper:
"can participate in influencing the direction of change".
There are no short cuts to this desirable end, and it would be surprising if there were, for we are here dealing with people; and if basic changes of attitude are to be brought about in people it is not to be expected that they will come otherwise than slowly and painfully, through hard work, long-term education and training, and, above all, good leadership. In this, as in all else, the initiative lies with management; but responsible trade union leadership can help enormously in what, if ii is to be successful, must be a joint endeavour to increase industrial efficiency and human satisfaction.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I must begin by apologising for the fact that I shall not be able to stay to the end of this important debate. I hope that the debate on the White Paper in your Lordships' House and in the debates in months to come, may as far as possible be a little detached from our present industrial disputes, and still more from the necessity of the present time for ever increased productivity. The emphasis which must, of necessity, be laid on increasing productivity throughout the whole range of our industry can very easily lead us to overlook some of the factors in the industrial situation upon which, in the end, productivity is dependent. We are concerned, and must be concerned, with more efficient technological processes and upon economic rationalisation, but in doing so we must not overlook the vital factor in any resulting process which, in the end, is the man or woman who must operate the new scheme. We must remember that one immediate result of our present processes in industry is that an ever-increasing minority of men and women are able either to exercise satisfying skill or to take decisions which are far-reaching or important in the whole process.
Because many of the things for which the trade union movement fought in the early days have now to some extent been achieved in terms of financial reward, hours and conditions of work, one
724
must not overlook the fact that for a growing majority of men and women in industry the conditions of work are boring and frustrating. Several years ago I was shown on the same day two separate processes of steelmaking in Sheffield. One, the old process, involved the close working together of a group of men; it was dirty, tiring and exhausting. The other was a new automation process in which men simply watched dials. The manager who showed me round said that, although the new process meant that the men took home more money and went home clean, the men were bored and as a result got into mischief, sometimes with tremendous damage to plant. But this boredom goes much deeper than that. I believe that it is part of the dignity of our birthright to exercise a skill, and that men through their skills achieve dignity, stature and wisdom. If skill disappears, as seems to be inevitable in the interests of national productivity, and more and more men have no such satisfaction, then we shall have to take the consequences.
When working out technological processes and new rationalisation of industry we often allow experts to work out a complete scheme for us, and it is only after a scheme has been agreed upon by the experts that we consider how men and women fit into the new operations. Again and again as a result it is precisely at that moment that trouble occurs. We need to recognise that this sense of frustration in daily work can often be unconscious; it can often show itself in ways out of all proportion to the immediate cause. For example, the reason for a "wildcat" strike often goes much deeper than the immediate and apparent cause, and very often the cause is out of all proportion to the issue at stake. This is one factor which at the moment we must take into account as we look forward increasingly to a rationalisation of our whole industrial life.
There are other causes. It would seem inevitable that in the achievement of greater productivity there must be a larger grouping of our industrial plant. It must result in larger organisations wherein it is more difficult to achieve good and personal relations. When an industrial unit is in its early days and is small, good human relations can be taken for granted. I remember a Suffolk farmer who on a

725
Monday morning would come into the yard, no doubt in a bad temper, and say to his men, "Why don't you go home and none of you never come back no more!" That was a lock-out, but it did not result in industrial action because the men knew the old man and so the relationships could easily be restored. As an industrial unit grows so one has to take much more care about human relationships.
I believe that in this country there are many industrial enterprises with a remarkable record for good relationships, particularly while undertakings remain within a local context. The difficulty arises when, for necessary reasons, a particular undertaking has to pass into a much larger grouping, possibly on a national scale. This is the moment when the old assumptions no longer hold good. I can think of a particular engineering works with a fine record, not only of productivity but of good relations within the industry, which during the last two years has twice been taken over, each time becoming part of some larger concern. The workers have read in the local newspapers about the financial compensation given to directors; they have also read of the threats of redundancy which are likely to ensue from such takeover bids. In those circumstances should we be surprised that loyalty, which has often been a real factor in our industrial life, is replaced by deep fear? One knows that fear will listen to many strange counsels.
If in this process of rationalisation it could be recognised that the worker himself has a right to take part in and, through his representatives, to understand the larger plans which may be necessary, I believe that this would greatly change the attitudes of the ordinary worker. In the end, no matter how efficient the process, the attitude of the ordinary worker will affect productivity. It is unlikely that all the fears and anxieties can be overcome unless real steps are taken to see that, in the larger development, the men know what is happening. They at least should know that their leaders have been consulted, and they should be helped to understand that something which they are told is in the national interest may, in the long run, be in their own personal interest.
There are other factors to be considered. Clearly, the present relationships
726
within the trade unions are a cause of industrial frustration. It has to be recognised that the life of our society has grown and developed in such a way that many of our institutions are no Longer able to fit real needs. Anyone who has any close knowledge of the trade union movement on the local level will know of the apathy on the part of the ordinary member of the trade union, and sometimes of the despair of the local trade union official in knowing what is going to happen. I have taken part in discussions with trade union leaders as to whether or not they were justified in following directives from the centre as to strike action or some other industrial action. The very existence of the shop steward bears out the great gulf between the ordinary worker and the trade unions at the centre. A great tribute ought to be paid to the great majority of shop stewards, when one remembers that their work is voluntary and is often a thankless task: but in many cases—I should think in most cases—they do a greet deal to improve industrial relations.
I welcome, as I believe do other Members of your Lordships' House, the setting up of the Industrial Relations Board, in the belief that the time has come when right outside industry itself—whether on the side of management or on the side of the trade unions—a body is needed to spend its whole time restoring, renewing and reshaping relationships within industry. I am a little more hesitant about legislation which might result in penal action. I am hesitant because of the present situation among the workers of this country, with disillusionment among many of them, and with apprehensions and fears which undermine much of their security.
I think it is true that, in the long run, democracy has come about through centres of power within the nation being made to submit to the law of contract and to the law of the greater interest of the community. Whether it be King or Church or Barons, all have had to submit their power to the rule of law. I believe that in the 19th century much industrial legislation was doing the same thine. What was then spoken of as the sacred rights of property had to submit to the higher good of people. If the stage has been reached when organised labour represents a concentration of power, then

727
that, too, must be brought under the rule of law, in the interest of the community at large as well as in the interest of sections within that organisation. Whether the time for that has been reached is a matter which Parliament will have to decide. But I believe priority must be given to setting up such bodies as will strengthen and improve the relationships within our industrial life, so that those who take part can feel that within their working life they have meaning and purpose.
4.33 p.m.
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE: My Lords, after forty years as a full-time official in the trade union movement, the White Paper seemed to me rather sad and sombre reading, not so much because of what it proposed but because it appeared to me to be a manifestation of the failure of the great trade union movement to adapt itself to change. But it is not alone in this failure. It is sad, too, to read about penal causes which are likely to inhibit workers or their trade unions who believe their cause to be just. There are many examples throughout history which demonstrate clearly that workers are prepared to suffer severely for what they believe to be a just cause.
One hundred years ago the workers of Lancashire literally starved rather than use raw cotton from the slave-owning South, when had they agreed to do so they could have alleviated their misery and their children could have eaten again. But they believed that theirs was a just cause and, being a just cause, they were quite prepared to suffer for it, as indeed they did. We must remember, too, that sanctions of the kind suggested in the White Paper did not solve the problems in the Kent coalfields during the last war, nor did they solve the power engineers' strike in Eire about two years ago, when about 2,000 power engineers of the equivalent of the Electricity Board came out on strike against legal sanctions. The Government of Eire discovered that it was quite impossible to put 2,000 engineers in gaol, so they selected some 20 or so and gave them the alternative of a fine or prison. They all elected to go to prison and, lo and behold!, within a few weeks the Electricity Board itself paid the fines for them so that they could come out and start generating elec-
728
tricity again—a most Gilbertian situation. What I am trying to demonstrate is that once workers and their unions are convinced that there is grave injustice, all the sanctions and penalties in the world, short of shooting them, will be of no avail.
I am not particularly concerned about the attachment of wages to collect fines. That seems to me a much more rational way of ensuring payment, if fines are to be imposed, and I believe it is a system which is likely to be universally adopted within the next few years. To argue about the attachment of wages to collect fines is very much like arguing about what sort of rope should be used to hang certain criminals. It is quite irrelevant. The question should be: Do we hang them, or not? We get hot under the collar about attachment of wages, but the real question is: Should there be legal sanctions and fines? There is no point in talking about the attachment of wages, which is quite irrelevant.
All the evidence I can find demonstrates that workers will show their abhorrence of being fined and, as they cannot choose between paying a fine and going to prison and thus becoming martyrs, I believe that they will strike and will persuade their friends to strike, because that will be the only course open to them by which they can strongly demonstrate their displeasure. Perhaps I ought to point out that, despite what I say, many trade unions believe in the effectiveness of fines, and their own rule books provide not only for fines but for sanctions in default of their payment. So it might be argued that this course is necessary in the interests of the group generally. I admit it might equally be argued that some of the other suggestions in the White Paper are also necessary, in the interests of the greater group. I do not particularly like the idea of the cooling-off period because—
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I think this is important. Before he discusses the cooling-off period, can he tell us whether he is proposing that the trade union itself should levy fines for the kind of action for which fines would be levied in the courts?
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE: No, my Lords, I am not.

729
I was talking about the cooling-off period. I do not particularly like this idea, because the White Paper suggests that what has euphemistically been termed the status quo ante will have to be carried on. This means that an employer guilty of some misdemeanour would be able to continue his gross injustice far longer than he ought to do.
I have told your Lordships of quite a lot of things in which I do not believe, but I do believe that ways must be found to curb wild-cat strikes; and it surprises me indeed to learn of experienced trade union officials fighting to preserve the right of their own members to engage in unofficial, wild-cat strikes. Perhaps it is easier for some unions whose communications are notoriously bad to permit things to work in that way. But ten men putting out of work ten thousand is a state of affairs that surely no rational man can justify when there exist trade unions and joint rules to deal with such situations. That is what the trade unions are for; and if they will not face up to their own responsibilities in such matters then it seems as if, some day, legislation will become inevitable.
But, my Lords, do not let us make the mistake of magnifying all the faults of the trade union movement but of turning a blind eye to the vagaries of employers. Too often the attitude of management positively courts unofficial strikes. Procrastination in examining complaints, the cursory dismissal of justified approaches, blatant injustices and very often a complete lack of understanding of the issues involved are quite common attitudes in industry to-day. Elton Mayo, the well-known sociologist, said some forty years ago:
"Lack of adequate communications is the outstanding defect facing civilisation today.".
If one substitutes the word "industry" for "civilisation", the meaning becomes more clear. It does not seem to me that managements have learnt very much over the last forty years. It does not seem to me that they pay enough attention to this problem of communication; and there is little doubt that a lack of adequate communication has been responsible for more unofficial strikes in industry than any other single cause. I believe that if managements were to give closer attention to the formulation of a sound system of communications within their
730
own organisation, unofficial strikes would slowly die.
Some of us—indeed, all of us, I am quite sure—must at some time or other have wondered how it was that in a particular industry some undertakings were strike-prone, and obviously so, while others were not. I have certainly come across that sort of thing; and the employers of a strike-prone factory always believe that, unfortunately, they employ all the recalcitrants while the other people who have no strikes are lucky in employing all the reasonable people. It does not work like that at all. If you go into any factory you will find a cross-section of good, bad and indifferent. It is not a matter of luck, my Lords: it is a matter of adequate management. It is a matter of building up a communications system so that all the workers are clearly aware at all times of what is happening; and while to know all is not necessarily to forgive all, at least the more they know the more they are prepared to forgive. I believe that history shows that a sick organisation is apt to throw up sick leaders on both sides, and, generally speaking, an industrial undertaking gets the leaders it deserves, whether in management or in the trade unions. Very often management needs to cure its own malaise and not only desire something better but deserve it.
I believe, my Lords, that the best promise lies in the potential of the Commission on Industrial Relations. It is to be hoped that they will be able to lead, for I am persuaded that the trade unions must be led from inside and from without and that it would be a mistake to try to bludgeon them into submission. The Commission have the right kind of people, and I believe that if they are ready to get down to the grass-roots level and not bemuse themselves with dilettante discussion, they may well be able to achieve notable advances very quickly indeed. I said earlier that, for me, the White Paper made sad and sombre reading—again, not so much for what it proposes but because, in my judgment, it never need have been composed at all. May I quote what E said to the Trades Union Congress last year? I said:
"It would be a sad state of affairs if the trade union movement, which owes so little

731
of its strength and success to the law and so much to self-government and self-reliance, became so set in its ways that it could not modernise its practices and procedures voluntarily.
"If the movement be fragmented and opportunist in its approach to the issues that concern us all, then we shall have to reckon with attempts by Governments to do it for us. No doubt we should then achieve unity in protest and opposition, but the wiser course, surely, is so to order our affairs that such a fight, and the risk of losing it, is not allowed to come upon us."
I find no reason to change my mind, but, nevertheless, I hope that the Government will again examine the whole scene and try to find ways to deal with a most difficult situation with the help and consent of the trade unions and the Commission. If it can be done in this way it will be much better than wielding the big stick, which undoubtedly will make for generations of acute bitterness. But if the Government were so to encourage the trade unions and the Commission on Industrial Relations to talk together—and there is evidence already (your Lordships may have read it in the Press) that the Trades Union Congress is moving very closely together and meeting with the C.B.I. on these very issues—some good might result. I think that the composition of the C.I.R. is such that if they could be brought in between the trade unions and the C.B.I. there are great possibilities that our problems could reasonably be solved without the imposition of legal sanctions, which I fear are not likely to succeed. But if, after that, there is still no disposition on the part of the unions to face the issue of unofficial strikes—and, after all, it is unofficial strikes that are the guts of the matter, not the ordinary strikes which normally occur with union backing—and if the Commission on Industrial Relations proved impotent (as I should hope it would not), then legislation on the lines of the White Paper may in some modified form be necessary.
But I am anxious that the trade unions, who surely must now be realising their responsibilities and the need for movement, should get talking with the C.I.R. before any legislation is introduced that will cause the acute bitterness that I am sure most of us can see coming, even if they feel they can face it and deal with it when it comes upon them. I feel this way about it not because I am against
732
everything in the White Paper—there are many things in the White Paper which are quite admirable and useful—but because I believe that much of it will merely give rise to this acute bitterness. I hope—personally, I hope against hope—that the trade unions will, by their own foresight, make legislation unnecessary.
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I feel it a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne, because we all hold him in very high regard indeed; and possibly because we are both textile men I hold him in perhaps even higher regard. I believe that on these occasions this House is very fortunate in having men like the noble Lords, Lord Wright, Lord Cooper, Lord Douglass, Lord Carron and Lord Williamson to give us the benefit of their help and advice from their very distinguished experience. If the noble Lord, Lord Wright, finds anything that I am going to say annoying to him, I hope that he will treat it as one more manifestation of the truth that just a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I cannot claim the up-to-date knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, clearly has in these matters.
My Lords, it is against the very sombre background of disappointing trade figures and the deplorable Ford strike that this debate is being held. Once again the economic dawn seems to be receding. One thing of which we must remind ourselves is that our present national economic difficulties are not due to events outside our own control. If we do not triumph over them it will be because of self-inflicted wounds. I think our main national fault in the face of the present difficulties confronting us is a strange kind of rather insidious lethargy and a too ready contentment with a second-rate performance. Twenty years ago, I think we had good reason to believe that we had much to teach the rest of the world in industrial relations. I am not sure that that is as true to-day. The main trouble, I am sure, is not bitterness, not class warfare or anything like that; it is apathy and inertia and lack of interest.
We are apt to comfort ourselves sometimes that in the international league table, measured by days' work lost, our performance is relatively not too bad.

733
But, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, pointed out, that takes little account of the terrible indirect effects of stoppages to-day. What I think infuriates the ordinary citizen about the modern industrial dispute is that it seems that in the long term it is the nation and the public that suffer and pay. That clearly means that we cannot any longer regard industrial disputes as purely private matters. The problem is not confined to disputes in industrial factories; it goes wider than purely industrial relations; and I would suggest that really it is a problem of human relations, in big and mechanised organisations. I think that certainly one lesson is that the bigger and more mechanised the organisation, the more difficult this problem of human relations becomes. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate mentioned about boredom. It is one of the hardest problems to-clay in modern mechanised big-scale industry to make sure that the actual jobs are made as interesting as possible.
My own limited experience in industry has been that there is no substitute for personal relations. No book of rules, no procedures, no formula', are effective unless the personal influences and leadership are right and mutual respect is there. If I am critical of the unions in anything I say, I hope that noble Lords will know me better than to believe that I consider all employers perfect. Far from it! Many are unwise and misguided; so I want to share the blame from the beginning, including myself as an employer.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, introduced this subject to us with his usual courtesy and lucidity. Indeed, this White Paper and our debate is most relevant to our current problems. While many of the proposals in the White Paper are very sensible and well worth trying, I ought to confess that by and large I prefer the rather bolder plans outlined in the Conservative pamphlet, Fair Deal at Work.
One thing that must be accepted without question is that the trade unions stand in urgent need of reform. Successive Governments since the war have urged and begged the trade unions to set their own house in order but this, it seems to me, they have not yet succeeded in doing. The Trades Union Congress
734
has been well intentioned, but it does not seem to have the power or influence to get things done. In particular, I should have thought it unquestionable that some of the privileges and immunities deliberately granted by Parliament to the trade unions in the days when they were terribly weak in relation to the employers are clearly rather absurd to-clay.
My Lords, the particular malaise from which we are suffering to-day, as think the noble Lord, Lord Wright, pointed out is the unofficial strike and "go-slow", mostly in breach of an agreement or of an agreed procedure; and it is these that inflict the really appalling losses, directly and indirectly, on the nation. If we can only cure that particular disease then I think our performance would be quite enormously improved and we should be able to hold our heads up again. First and foremost, I should have thought that improvement ought to concentrate on removing the anomaly which has been dealt with at length in the White Paper: the anomaly that contracts in which the trade unions are involved are not normally legally enforceable. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn dealt with that in what I thought was a very convincing way indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, seemed to imply that if they were made enforceable, fewer would be made and many would be impracticable to enforce. I am not a lawyer, but I am not 4really impressed with either of those arguments. It seems to me contrary to sense that an agreement which can be ignored by one party if convenient can be an agreement really worth the trouble of making.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright, I thought, seemed to imply that if a group of workers were convinced of the justice of their cause—which I think is nearly always the case—if they felt really strongly about it, they would flout the law. I doubt that. I think that in general we are a law-abiding country. When we come into conflict with the law, many of us feel certain that our case is just. But that does not prevent us from accepting the law as it stands—even if we do so with many grouses.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I hope I did not give him the impression

735
that agreements should not be honoured. The burden of my argument was that if he comes to read Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane's remarks about the Ford agreement he will see that certain types or agreement are not of a kind that are enforceable. One of the words used is that some of it may be pious aspiration. It is really a question of practicability in this matter.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I entirely accept the point the noble Lord has made. There will be some kinds of agreement which do not lend themselves to enforcement; and I accept that. The point I am making is that I believe in practice there are many that do, though naturally they will be framed in the light of that position. So, on the whole, I think that I prefer the rather more forthright proposal of the Tory pamphlet to which I have referred.
My Lords, coming to the specific proposals (I shall be very brief because there are so many ether speakers) I see the point of the industrial board proposed, but again I think I prefer the Tory version of the industrial courts. The proposal to set up a Commission on Industrial Relations is, I think, an interesting experiment. Such a Commission may be useful if it succeeds in earning the confidence of both sides of industry. My only doubt is that to-day Commissions seem to be regarded as a panacea for every trouble. It a man from Mars arrived here, I think he would conclude that Commissions are our main agency of government in this country. They are by no means all effective, but I am sure we all wish Mr. Woodcock and his colleagues the very best of luck in the task they have undertaken.
About the secret ballot, I would only say that I know the argument, derived from very experienced people, that a secret ballot may often be an unhelpful influence in averting a stoppage. I am not wholly convinced about that, and in the meantime, while open to conviction, I remain a secret balloter. The conciliation pause seems to have helped in the United States, and I should have thought that in serious cases it was well worth a trial here.
I should like to say a word about arbitration, because I think it is a process too
736
little used in this country at present. Over recent years there has been, or there seems to me to have been, a tendency to confuse arbitration with conciliation, though the two things are quite different. I feel that the more both parties to a dispute can be induced to accent in advance arbitration which will be binding on both of them, the better. Incidentally, though I am very "rusty" on my Classics, I believe that the ancient Greeks had a system of arbitration in which the arbitrators were allowed only to choose between the two cases put up to them: they were not allowed to propose a compromise. My classical studies inform me that the result was that both contestants put up the most reasonable and moderate case they could. I think that might be something worth thinking about. Certainly I believe that if the contestants could be persuaded that, in the absence of agreement, the decision of an independent arbitrator was the fairest practicable settlement, it would be an enormous advantage. I hasten to say that I am not advocating compulsory arbitration in general.
Clearly, in respect of restrictive labour practices there is no field for legal action, except perhaps in a minority of cases where the practice is in contradiction to a specific agreement entered into. But the reason for restrictive practices must be mainly fear. Unemployment is certainly no cure for that fear. In fact, the only remedy is to convince people that there is no reason for fear; and to do that, of course, takes time.
My Lords, what about the 100 per cent. union shop? Subject to reasonable safeguards for the individual, and the proviso that no existing employee should be discharged for refusing to join, and provided that the scheme is freely accepted by both sides, I should have thought it acceptable in principle. I am quite sure that it is right to impose on employers the duty of union recognition if a substantial proportion of their employees so desire.
The Donovan Report made the interesting suggestion that the trend towards company and factory agreements should be encouraged, and I believe that to be right. While the dictum that centralisation is the last refuge of administrative incompetence" is probably an exaggeration.

737
I believe that over-centralisation has great drawbacks and is a discouragement to local initiative and responsibility. Two things must be accepted if we are to turn towards local agreements, which I should welcome. The first is that local settlements involve continuous patience and painstaking work on the part of both parties. The second is that the results are bound to be the reverse of uniformity; and if we go for local agreements then uniformity from the national angle must not be expected. Nevertheless, I believe that this trend is sound, because most people find it easier to accept loyalties and to fulfil obligations to people they know than to impersonal organisations. The smaller the group, the stronger the sense of comradeship can be. I think that was one of the lessons of the war. Bigness breeds remoteness. You may or may not like people you know, but you are unlikely to misunderstand them; and misunderstandings, tragically, are the most frequent source of friction. If the trend goes that way, I think the code of practice suggested in the Tory pamphlet would be extremely valuable.
I wish to conclude by mentioning three things which I think that employers, unilaterally, could do to help. I mention them because I am more familiar with the employers' side than with the other. The first is to raise the status of the hourly-paid employees, whenever the opportunity offers, more nearly to that of the staff. I know one very large company which is working out a plan, with full approval of the Prices and Incomes Board, that aims at eventually eliminating any discrimination in status. The second thing is to consult and inform employees as fully as they can on matters directly affecting them. Nothing is worse, I think, than the idea that employees in a company should learn for the first time from the radio or the newspapers that their company is to be taken over by another. I know the difficulties, but it is always possible to do something. I remember that it was said about my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein when he commanded the Eighth Army, that he would rather run the risk of the enemy learning of his plans than the otherwise certainty that his own troops would not know what he was trying to do.
738
The third thing—as I think noble Lords will agree—is that employers must not delegate to subordinate staff, even experienced personnel managers, all responsibility for industrial relations. More than half the battle consists of taking trouble, and to be seen to be taking trouble. My experience is that if you do that the people you are dealing with are almost always ready to come and meet you. It is important that the men at the top of a business, however big, should show their personal interest in these human matters. I will tell your Lordships a story (it will be very brief) of someone who asked a member of the works council of a company I know whether the directors ever went through the accounts with the works council. This member said, "Yes; Sir John goes through the accounts with us once a year." He was then asked whether he found that interesting. He said, "We don't understand a single word that he says from beginning to end. But don't you tell Sir John, 'cos he likes doing it, and he has nothing to hide." Whether the chairman felt that he had achieved his objective, I do not know. But the point is that the exercise was regarded as being well-intentioned and the works council member hoped that his feelings would not be hurt.
This is a very important debate on a subject that affects the nation's very heartbeat. We have as a nation a reputation for common sense, tolerance and decent conduct. The lesson we have to relearn is an old one: that if each presses his own short-term advantage, regardless of the effect on his fellow citizens, the nation cannot flourish and society withers. That is, after all, a lesson that every parent teaches his children in regard to the family. If we can relearn that fundamental truth, we shall once more set an example to the world in sensible and responsible living. Emerson once wrote:
"The English see more clearly on a cloudy day."
Perhaps we have had things a little too easy lately. I trust that, amid the uncertainties and perplexities that are temporarily confusing our judgment today we shall re-earn that tribute which Emerson paid to us; regain our own self-respect and earn anew the respect and admiration of the world.
5.12 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, the White Paper tells us that after further consultations the Government will introduce an Industrial Relations Bill, embodying the proposals which are set out in the White Paper. I have prepared my short speech on the basis of three questions that seem to me to arise. First, is an Industrial Relations Bill necessary? Secondly, are the proposals that the Government offer us worth our support? Thirdly, are further consultations a good idea? As I try to answer these questions I would make for myself the same plea as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has made on his own behalf; that is to say, I hope that my friends in the trade unions (and I think I still have some) are not thinking that I have become in any way anti-trade union. When I left Germany I was given, by the equivalent of the head of the T.U.C., a small present, which was inscribed, "A friend to the trade unions". I think that I have been and still am a friend of the unions.
My first question is: do we need an Industrial Relations Bill? It is plain that the country is in a mess. We cannot pay our debts. The currency and our whole economy are in peril. The chief reason for this is that our industry is not sufficiently competitive. Also, it is troubled by far too frequent stoppages. Figures can be produced to prove almost everything, and the White Paper reproduces figures that were given in the Donovan Report. But both documents are good enough to advise us that the figures are really not worth a blow—and that, of course, is so. The most damaging and difficult strikes I had to deal with when I was head of the British Transport Commission were the strikes that never came off. Peace was bought at a price which the industry could not afford and the country could not afford. Meanwhile, millions of pounds worth of business was lost. That business has not yet been recovered—at any rate, not entirely—and this is a major factor in the run-down of the industry.
I have said that our industry in this country is not sufficiently competitive. Which is the most prosperous country in Europe to-day? Is it us? No. Is it France? No. I think that your Lordships will agree with me that it is
740
Germany. But the Germans lost the war, did they not? What was the cause of the economic miracle that occurred there? The credit for that has been widely given to a fellow called Erhard—and certainly he is entitled to some of it. But the main people entitled to the credit for the economic miracle in Germany are the men who were the leaders of the German trade unions in those days. They were wise men; they were strong men, and they had courage. They had the courage to tell their members that the one way out of the country's troubles, and of their own, was work. Some of the credit, I think, might also go to a small band of our own people who worked with those German trade unionists and persuaded them to adopt a pattern for their industrial relations and their union set-up which has stood Germany in very good stead and which we to-day have much cause to envy.
Germany is not the only country with whom we are not sufficiently competitive. In America, for example—and here I have some knowledge of what I am talking about—productivity puts us to shame. The root cause of it is the attitude of the American workman as compared with the British—and when I say "workman" I mean from the president or chairman down to the fellow who sweeps up the floor—the whole lot of them. I should like to tell you a short story, for the truth of which I can absolutely vouch. An American company, not a very small one, decided recently that it needed to build new offices for its headquarters management. Quite a lot of money was spent, and an announcement was made that the new office would be opened and brought into use on the forthcoming Monday. A deputation from the men formed up to the management. They asked whether the opening could be hurried up a little and take place on the Saturday before. "You see", they added, "the fellows want to bring their wives and girls to see these fine offices our company has built for itself." Can any noble Lord quote a largish company in this country where a similar request is likely to be made? I find it difficult to do so. The whole attitude is different.
This question of attitude was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, whose speech I very much appreciated, and by the right reverend

741
Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. Whether the attitude can be changed by legislation is a difficult question to answer, but this much is certain: many people have tried to make a change and have failed, and I think that now we have to look to the Government to do something about it. That is why I unhesitatingly answer my first question, "Is an Industrial Relations Bill necessary?" by saying, "Yes, it is."
My second question (although we are not asked to-day to vote on anything) is: are the Government proposals deserving of our support? The C.B.I. say, "No; the proposals are taking a nutcracker to crack a cannon ball." I personally think that is a very unreasonable remark. Do the C.B.I. really expect any Government, and especially a Labour Government, to crack this cannon ball at the first blow?—even if it is a good idea to talk about "cracking a cannon ball". I find it rather difficult to make out exactly what the T.U.C. say, but the impression that I have had—not from the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken, which was an admirable and very persuasive speech—is that the T.U.C. would like to see things stay exactly as they are. My opinion is that if things stay as they are the country will be ruined, and the working man will be the worst sufferer.
Are the proposals perfect? That is a different matter; and the answer to the question is almost certainly "No". Even could say some things in criticism of the proposals. I have never been a believer—though I was interested to hear the noble Viscount say that he is—in the secret ballot as a means of avoiding an irresponsible strike. I think the way to avoid an irresponsible strike is to do something to ensure that you have wise, strong and responsible men at the head of the trade unions and management. In my view, the trouble is that an element has crept into the movement in this country in recent years which is not wise and responsible: in fact, it is very wrong-intentioned. That is why this demand has arisen to make agreements legally enforceable. In the past, when the general secretary gave his word and said: "On behalf of the union I agree to this", everybody knew that that was that. I never heard anybody asking for a law that would enforce Ernie Bevin's word
742
when he had given it: I should think not.
I am a little doubtful about the "cooling-off" period. It has done good service in America, but it has been on the Statute Book there for a long time. It is rather difficult to enforce. However, the Government are at least taking some steps. They are not saying that this is a final solution, and it certainly is not a final solution. Whatever criticisms I may have, I think that, in the end. I answer my second question, "Should these proposals receive our support?" by saying, "Yes". I think they are quite courageous proposals by a Labour Government and a Labour Prime Minister and are deserving of our support.
My final question is: Are further consultations a good thing? In my humble opinion, they are a complete waste of time. Does the Minister really suppose that she can charm some of the men, whom we all know, into willingly surrendering some of that tyrannical power which they yield at present? It is a waste of breath. My advice to the Governrnent—and with this I conclude—is: You have made your proposals; get on with it, and ignore the "belly-achers".
5.25 p.m.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: My Lords, I rise to support the White Paper, but that does not mean that I shall necessarily be able to support all the clauses that may be in the Bill which we are promised. Therefore I do not propose to go through the White Paper and generalise upon it. I do not believe, for example, that it is a "Trade Union Charter". As a matter of fact, when I read it through (I hope I may be forgiven for saying this) I came to the conclusion that it was attempting not only to wash the dog but to paint the inside and outside of the kennel at the same time. In other words, I believe the White Paper says many things that ought to be said, and ought to have been said before. I believe, also, however, that it says some unnecessary things, and suggests that some unnecessary things should be done.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to the fact that I started as a trade union negotiator 46 years ago, and perhaps, therefore, I can claim some experience in industrial relations; but,

743
as I have said, I do not propose to generalise. I propose to concentrate on what I believe to be the major issue in the whole of this controversy and discussion. I believe that, were it not for the increase in recent years in the number of strikes, and particularly the number of unofficial strikes, the White Paper not only would have been unnecessary but in fact would not have been presented to your Lordships.
I think we are apt to underestimate the remarkable changes which have taken place in industrial relations in the last 25 years. In the past, a strike was undertaken only by desperate, not dangerous, men; men who were prepared to suffer privation themselves and to face hardship for their wives and families. To-day, it seems to me, if you go on strike you certainly do not suffer privation, and the amount of hardship is minimal. Furthermore, I believe that strikes are now sometimes caused and promoted by very dangerous men.
However, the most remarkable change that has taken place is the part that strikes now play in industrial negotiations. In my day a strike was called, if called at all, only because, as a result of the negotiations, no reasonable result, and often no result at all, came. If you wanted to pursue the point that you believed it was right to pursue, you had no alternative but to force the employer into a position of at least coming to some compromise. After all, in industrial relations compromise is the essence of success, and without it, it seems to me that you cannot succeed for any length of time. Nowadays, it seems that strikes have become part of the negotiations to achieve a reasonable result. And this is not surprising, my Lords, because when professional men earning £5,000 a year and more go on strike, the ordinary working man believes it is the right thing to do. This, again, is a change which should not be underestimated when we are discussing this matter.
In the past, unofficial strikes were often a revolt against union leadership, except in those cases where they were caused by the ego of some local despot, as indeed they are sometimes now. But nowadays it is difficult to tell what is unofficial and what is official. It is difficult to know—I can assert this—whether the unofficial
744
strike is in fact part of the negotiations, part of bringing duress during the negotiations. Let no one deny this, because, if necessary, I can quote instances where, although it may be supposition, the supposition was extremely well-founded. If this goes on, if we are going to use the strike weapon as part of our negotiations, it will eventually, in my view, completely destroy the consultative machine, and it most certainly will bedevil industrial relations.
Therefore, I agree with my noble friend Lord Wright. if the unions themselves will not take action against unofficial strikes (and they could if they would), if they will not deal with recalcitrant members, as they do when they think it is necessary—if they will not do these things in the light of the present position in which we find ourselves, then the unions surely cannot complain if some body. in this case the Government, who feel that the situation has gone too far, decide to take action which they believe will be effective. Because I submit that this is no longer a matter of domestic policy of the unions or a matter to be settled between the unions themselves, although in my submission it is a matter which could be settled by them if they would. Since they will not, it becomes a question of national survival and therefore it becomes a national issue which only the Government can deal with. Whether the Government will do all the things that ought to be done, or will do some things which ought not to be done, is quite beside the point. The simple issue is that the White Paper is trying to do something which in my submission must be done.
There is, in my view, another very important change which has taken place in the trade union movement and which affects, and will continue to affect, industrial relations. It may very well bring a very difficult position into industrial relations in the future. I refer to the shift in political power in the trade union movement from the Right to the Left. I am not suggesting—because it would be utterly ridiculous and utterly untrue to suggest it—that the Trades Union Congress General Council is composed of Communists. What I am saying is that there can be no doubt in the minds of those of us who know that, when it comes to the annual Congress, the vote which will be controlled by the extreme

745
Left of Congress is going to be formidable indeed. We know it. This is, I submit, a change that must be somehow or other met in making our view. This is a swing of the pendulum from Right to Left.
But I believe it is something much more than that. I believe that the avowed intention of the Communists to take over the trade union movement is succeeding, if it has not already succeeded. This I believe is something that we must not either forget or underestimate. In the past the Trades Union Congress, despite its differences with the Labour Party, was absolutely loyal to the Party. And, for that matter, the Trades Union Congress always claimed, and rightly claimed, that, no matter what political Party was in power, it was prepared to co-operate with the Government if in its view the Government were doing right, and to oppose them if in its view the Government were doing wrong. There was a trust not only by Government in the trade union movement but by the people in the trade union movement, which is gradually being dissipated to-day.
I do not know, and I suppose this is fustian, but the men who ran the trade union movement—and this applies to many of them who run it to-day—could be called patriots. They believed that they supported the Government of the day, not because they were, in the Left-wing words, "capitalist lackeys" but because they believed that the good of the country in the long run, in the long term, was for the good of their members. It seems to me to-day that we cannot be so certain that that is true.
The other important difficulty we are facing (it has been referred to: it was referred to by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory) is apathy. Of course there is apathy. There is not only apathy in the trade union movement; there is apathy throughout the whole of the country. We are apathetic. We no longer have, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, any desire on the part of anybody to get out of the difficulties that we are in. Why? In my view, it is because of the unholy alliance between the Tories, between the Press, between the extreme Left-wing and between the broadcasting authorities continually and deliberately,
746
as a matter of political policy, to denigrate this Government, and particularly to denigrate and ridicule their economic policies. This may be fair politics. The noble Lord who leads the Opposition, for whom I have a great regard, said on one occasion, "It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose." Is it the duty of the Opposition to oppose the national interest?
And what is happening? What is happening is this. This continued stream of abuse against the Government to-day is giving an absolute alibi to every worker and almost everybody in this country, from management to the man on the shop floor, so that he feels that it is not his responsibility if anything goes wrong; he cannot do anything about it; it is the Government who are at fault. He feels, "It is not up to me to do anything. It is the Government who are at fault." How can you expect anything else but apathy? How can you expect to get any enthusiasm behind the efforts to get out of the difficulties we are in if everybody is told, day in, day out, on television, through broadcasting and the Press, that nothing is being done right? That contention is nonsense. Everything may not be right, but to say that nothing is right is nonsense. But what can be expected when the people of this country are told, "Don't worry. This is not your fault. You have nothing to do. This is all the Government's fault. Just let the thing drift on"? Of course there is apathy. Until such time as we can get rd of this idea that we can get into a more prosperous situation without effort, until we realise that it requires the baking of the nation, we shall not succeed.
And it is riot only the fault of the trade unions. It is not only the number of strikes which is the cause of this. I believe that strikes are a symptom, not the cause, of bad industrial relations. I am certainly not condemning all strikes. I was responsible for one, a small one it is true, a successful one it is true, forty years ago, when it was difficult to go on strike, so I am not against all strikes. As a matter of fact, I believe that the recent strike in the Post Office was justified. It was constitutional; a ballot was taken. It was constitutional; it was necessary; it was successful. So I am not against all strikes. What I am against is the anarchy which exists in the trade

747
union movement through the unofficial strike. The White Paper says that some unofficial strikes can be justified. I deny this. I reject it completely. If in any organisation the machinery of industrial relations is so bad that an unofficial strike can be justified, then the thing to do is to alter that machine, to change the machine as quickly as one can in order to see that the unofficial strike cannot be justified. I want to see order and trust restored to the trade union movement. That is why I support the White Paper: because I believe it will be a move in that direction. Until that is done, I repeat that prosperity will be denied us.
My Lords, I finish with this comment. At a recent private conference a lecturer, who I am assured was speaking with unimpeachable authority, quoted this case. He said his firm had produced a product which they tried to sell in Europe. They went to Europe, they presented their product, their potential buyers said that they liked the idea and it seemed to be good, but they would not accept it until it had been thoroughly tested. The firm tested it for a year and at the end of that time they informed the potential buyers that they had done so and told them it was a good product. The firm in this country sent its representative with an order book under his arm in order to collect the orders which it seemed inevitably would follow. I repeat, I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the person who told me this story. The representative was told by the firm in Europe, "We think this is a good product; we should like to buy it, but I am afraid we cannot give you an order. You see, we cannot afford to order anything of this type unless we can be absolutely certain of delivery. We cannot be certain of that at all. We think Britain has a disease in this connection and we are sorry, but we cannot give you an order". My Lords, if that does not justify the White Paper nothing does.
5.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, so far this has been an extremely memorable debate and one which has been of particular interest because of some of the fine speeches which have been made in the course of it. If I may, I should like to single out particularly the speech made
748
by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes of Epsom, apart from one passage to which I feel I must refer (and I hope he will not mind) in which he strayed from the bounds of the trade union world to a Party political attack.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright, made a speech of particular interest, as did my noble friend Lord Amory. I cannot claim to speak on this subject with any of the background knowledge that they possess, but none the less I hope your Lordships will bear with me when I deal with one particular topic, and with that topic alone. Before doing so, may I also say that in my view the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his clear and lucid exposition of the contents of the White Paper, as it should be to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for his detailed review of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in the time that he devoted to a Party political attack, seemed to blame all the troubles in the industrial field on an unholy conspiracy between, I think it was, the B.B.C., the Tory Party and everyone else, who denigrate the Government; and that part of his speech proceeded upon the assumption that Government policies were in the national interest. That is a questionable proposition. Of course that kind of defence is a very good alibi for this Government, but the truth of the matter is that this Government have ceased to possess the confidence of the country, and the sooner we get a Government who do command the confidence of the electorate, the sooner will our chances of recovery come. But I did not intend to speak about that. For that part of my speech the responsibility lies on the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and on him alone.
What I want to talk about tonight is a problem that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. It is a problem which emerges even more clearly from the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. All of us who knew Ernest Bevin knew that if he had given his word one need not have the slightest doubt about that word being honoured. In those days, when dealing with a man like Ernest Bevin, there was no need to

749
worry whether an agreement was or was not legally binding. His word was enough. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, how the situation to-day had deteriorated, and I think that is evident for all of us to see.
I hope that what I am about to say will not lead any Member of your Lordships' House to think that I am in any sense an enemy of the trade unions. I do not regard myself as such. Trade unions are here; they have played, and they will continue to play, a very useful part in our affairs, but what is wanted now is surely a modernisation and a reform of the law relating to them. I think that most lawyers—and I hope I can include the Lord Advocate in this—whatever their political outlook, would agree that one branch of our law which urgently requires revision is that relating to trade unions. So much of it has developed piecemeal, and as a result of the passage of Acts to reverse decisions of the courts on particular points. A recent instance of that was the Act passed in, I believe, 1965 to reverse the decision in Rookes v. Barnard. What we should have, surely, is a comprehensive Act stating clearly the rights, duties and immunities of trade unions, and I should be very surprised indeed if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his enthusiasm for law reform and for codification of the law, did not share these views, though I recognise that we might disagree in certain respects as to the content of the legislation.
While putting forward my plea for that reform, I recognise that it is not enough. I also recognise that we cannot improve industrial relations just by passing Acts of Parliament, but none the less surely an Act of Parliament, although not directly leading to an improvement in those relations, can act as the basis for an improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, asked whether we could change an attitude by legislation. I do not think that is possible directly, but if we get the framework right that may indirectly lead to a considerable change of attitude.
I welcomed the appointment of the Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Donovan, and if I may I should like to say how interesting it was to read the Report, and
750
how valuable and informative I found it. In paragraph 224 it states:
"Collective bargaining is recognised as the best way of conducting industrial relations".
If that be right, is it not in the highest degree anomalous that the bargain reached, it may be after months of negotiation and discussion, should not be legally binding but binding only in honour on those who signed it—and, I would add, on those on whose behalf it was signed? We heard the noble Lord, Lord Wright, say that ways must be found to curb wild-cat strikes. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, refer to the present position with regard to those strikes and as to how they could be used as an element in the negotiations. Most of these strikes are, are they not, ill breach of some agreement, and in clear breach. It no longer suffices, I would say, to rely solely on the honour of those who sign the agreements and on the honour of those whom they represent.
I was, I must confess, surprised to see it stated in paragraph 470 of the Royal Commission's Report that collective agreements are not legally binding agreements. That is a very general statement, and I should have thought that that could not have been said accurately without the closest examination of all collective agreements and consideration of the circumstances in which they were made. Some may be so vague and imprecise that mere perusal of them would lead one to the conclusion that the parties did not enter into a binding agreement. But surely, on the other hand, there may be others so precise and so detailed, and reached after such long negotiations, that it would be difficult to conclude, from reading them and from consideration of the circumstances, that they were not intended by the parties who signed them to be legally binding contracts.
It is quite true, as the Commission state, that:
"Without both parties intending to be legally bound there can be no contract in the legal sense."
But one judges a person's intentions by his conduct and I repeat, if months of negotiation lead to the conclusion of a detailed and precise agreement, I would have thought there was a strong inference that it was intended by the parties to be legally binding.

751
"There is in fact nothing in the law to prevent employers or their associations and trade unions from giving legal force to their agreements."
My Lords, that is not my statement: it is to be found in paragraph 470 of the Donovan Report.
I recognise, however, that it may well be that the belief is widespread that Section 4 of the Act of 1871 deprives any such agreement of legal validity. That, as the Donovan Commission make clear, is not the case. That section prevents the direct enforcement of agreements between one trade union and another, and so long as employers' associations are treated as trade unions it applies to agreements with such associations. But it does not apply, and has never applied, to agreements between a company and trade unions representing its employees and (and I would stress this) a clear distinction is to be drawn between an agreement which is legally binding and its enforceability. Frequently in the course of this debate I have heard references to making agreements legally enforceable. That is quite a different question from making agreements which are legally binding, as well as binding in honour, and I shall perhaps have to refer, when I come later to enforceability, to the distinction.
In that pamphlet to which reference has already been made, Fair Deal at Work, there appears this statement:
"Section 4 of the Trade Union Act should be repealed. This would put collective agreements on a par with any other type of contract—no more, no less."
I must confess, my Lords, that I am very doubtful indeed about the wisdom of repealing the whole of Section 4. But if the inference to be drawn from that recommendation is that if that section is repealed collective bargains will automatically become legally binding unless the contrary is expressly stated, then I beg to dissent entirely from that proposition. That would not be the case, and such an agreement would not be legally binding "unless the parties specifically agreed that it should be."
I welcome the proposal in the White Paper, In Place of Strife, that Section 4 should be amended so as to put agreements between employers' associations and the unions in the same position as agreements between employers and trades unions to which the section does not
752
apply. But I am inclined to think that neither the White Paper we are discussing nor Fair Deal at Work really gets down to the root of this problem with regard to agreements being binding legally. How can you get a change of attitude by the parties to such an agreement? Unless they both intend to make a legally binding agreement there can be, as the Donovan Commission point out, no contract in the legal sense. Employers could refuse to enter into an agreement unless it was agreed that it would be legally binding. But if they did so insist would there be any agreements? I wonder.
I repeat, that it is in my view quite ridiculous that such agreements, affecting as they do the rights and interests of a great many people—indeed, affecting out whole economy—should be binding in honour only, and that there should be no sanction for their dishonour at any time. Surely it is nonsense that if the negotiations with Fords lead to a settlement, as everyone hopes they will, that settlement could be repudiated and broken next week or next month with impunity.
Could any change of the law help to prevent that? I am inclined to think that it could. I think it should be enacted that an agreement between employers or employers' associations, on the one hand. and the unions, on the other—agreements, as I say, so often reached after prolonged and difficult negotiations—should be presumed to be legally binding unless the contrary was shown. The onus—and I hope it would be a fairly heavy onus—would then rest on the party which sought to contend that the agreement it had signed was not legally binding. That party would have to establish that fact. It would then be for employers and unions to make the position clear at the commencement of the negotiations. It would be for them, in the negotiations, to make it clear whether or not they intended to be legally bound by an agreement if an agreement was ultimately reached. Once one side said, "We do not intend to be legally bound by this", the other side would know where they stood; and if, because of that, an agreement was not concluded, one would know perfectly well where the blame lay. And one would know also, I suggest, that not much faith ought to be placed on such an agreement. I am not thinking of one of those vague

753
agreements which, clearly, do not lead anyone to think it was meant to be a legal contract. But in the case of a precise and detailed agreement, if one party says, "I am not prepared to be bound by this in law", then I think the other party to the negotiation might well conclude that that agreement was not so very likely to be honoured in practice.
Also might it not be to the advantage of trade union members—I throw this out because I think it is a relevant factor—if an agreement was binding, for then employers would know that during the period of the agreement any concessions they made would not be used as stepping stones for further demands? That might well mean that employers would be willing to make further advances, or give greater concessions at that stage, than they are now prepared to do, knowing, as past experience has shown, that if they give way on Point I that will be used as a stepping stone for a further demand which may come within a quite short period of time. I do not know what further steps the law could take to making such agreements legally binding, but I feel that something must be done speedily to stop agreements binding only in honour being repudiated almost before the ink on them is dry, and even more quickly than the provision in the agreement about the reform of this House for the payment of your Lordships was repudiated by the Prime Minister.
But it is not enough just to make a legally binding agreement. There are two other important questions which have to be considered: first, on whom should such an agreement be binding; and secondly, what remedies should there be for its breach. I think it is really unarguable that it should be binding on those on whose behalf it is made—if made by an employers' association, on the employers who are members of the association; if made by a trade union, on the members of the union. After all, they obtain the benefits of the agreement, and if they break it, in my opinion they, and their union, should be held responsible for the breach. I recognise that this may involve the use of more discipline by the unions over their members, but I beg to doubt whether that would be an entirely bad thing.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount allow me to interrupt? I am extremely interested in this theory of absolutely legally binding agreements, and one can appreciate the point that the noble and learned Viscount is making. But there is the experience, for instance, in America, where you have legally enforceable and binding agreements. if the noble and learned Viscount will turn to page 38 of In Place of Strife he will see that in accordance with the tables there set out, the number of industrial disputes that take place in America in regard to these legally binding agreements far exceed those which take place here, even counting unofficial strikes.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord into that argument, because my view is—I still hold it, and I do not know that one gains much from a comparison of statistics—that unless we can make these agreements which have been entered into with such difficulty "stick" for a particular period, we are not likely to bring back order into our industrial relations or to remove the present chaos. That is my argument. The noble Lord may disagree with it. At the moment I am dealing with the question of making an agreement legally binding, because I believe that to do so would be one step in the right direction. I do not mean that we should enact a law saying that any agreement entered into is bound to be a legal contract. But I believe that if you can bring about the situation that agreements entered into are recognised as legally binding upon the parties, the chances of those agreements being broken will in fact be reduced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to interrupt, this is a most intereqing point. He has, I am sure, appreciated that our courts have always regarded the rules of a trade union like the memorandum of a limited company—that it cannot lawfully do that which is outside its rules. It may be an extraordinary thing, as a trade union spends its time making agreements, that I have never seen any trade union rules (and I have seen most of them, I think) which give any authority to the trade union to make an agreement binding on its members; and there is no decision of

755
any English court in which a trade union has ever been entitled to do that. I appreciate that the noble and learned Viscount may take the view that they ought to be able to do so, but I would suggest for his consideration that this would be a severe limitation on the right of the individual, all other individuals being entitled to say: "If I choose not to allow somebody to make a contract for me, I am entitled to take that view".
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Well, my Lords, I appreciate that I am putting forward proposals for change, and I had hoped that, at least to some extent, I would have the support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for reform of the law in relation to trade unions. I take it that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not dissent from the proposition in the Donovan Report, that there is nothing in law to prevent employers, or their association, or a trade union, from giving legal force to the agreement. And then the question arises: if the trade union enters into such an agreement of a legal character, should it be binding only on the trade union or should it be binding also on the members who compose that trade union? I recognise that this is a change of the law, but if you belong to a club you are bound by the rules of the club; if you authorise, directly or indirectly, a trade union to make agreements on your behalf and you are a beneficiary, then it does not seem to me that there is anything so novel or astonishing in saying that you also ought to be bound by those agreements.
I may be wrong, but I do not think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was here when I sought to draw a distinction between making agreements binding and making them enforceable. I have merely said at the moment that I think that those agreements ought to be binding on the parties to them, and on those who are represented by those parties. But the next question is: if you have a legally binding agreement or contract, what remedies should there be for its breach? I do not think it will do merely to provide that employers or employers' associations can sue, because as the Royal Commission point out once a strike is over employers are not likely to have recourse to the courts, and I
756
should not like to encourage them to do so. But I would not deprive them of the right to do so if they thought fit, and I think that they certainly should be entitled to seek an injunction to prevent a strike in breach of a binding agreement.
I cannot think it would be right to give an employers' association the right to sue on an agreement made by one of its members with a union, though of course if the agreement were made by the association it could sue. For the reason given in the Report of the Royal Commission—namely, the unlikelihood of employers taking action—I do not think that their having the right to do so would prove to be an effective sanction against a breach of a binding agreement; nor do I believe that the possibility of obtaining an award of damages up to a certain limit would be an effective sanction. Even if there were a statutory limit on the amount of damages recoverable, strict proof of the loss suffered on account of the breach may be most difficult and costly, and I do not think that any employers would wish to undertake this. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said in introducing this Motion that there were very great difficulties with regard to making (I think he referred to it) contracts legally enforceable. I agree that there are considerable difficulties, but, like my noble friend Lord Amory, I do not consider them to be insuperable.
Might not a possible solution lie in another direction? We all pay tribute to the rule of law and to good order, and what we are seeking to do, I think, is to find a way of restoring good order in this particular field, a field in which the State has a great interest in seeing that agreements of this kind, freely entered into, are observed. Could not the Commission on Industrial Relations be given some responsibility for securing the observance of such agreements registered with them? Could they not be given the right, and the duty, to sue for a penalty should it be established that there has been a breach of such an agreement? If that responsibility were placed on them, then there would be, it seems to me, an adequate deterrent against the breach of such agreements.
My Lords, I have devoted my speech to this topic because I believe that, of all the important questions raised in this debate to-day, this is fundamentally the

757
most important. It is no use going on with negotiations and making agreements if they can be torn up like scraps of paper, and with complete immunity. I have said, and l repeat, that in my view this is the most important question, and it is one that in the interests of our country should be tackled, and tackled without delay.
I do not propose to speak in any detail on any other parts of the White Paper—it would take far too long. If a Bill is introduced I may have opportunities then. There are many parts of the White Paper that I welcome; some that I deplore. I can see no ground at the present time for extending the immunity of trade unions to protect them for inducing breaches of commercial contracts in the course of trade disputes, and I remain to be convinced that it is in the national interest that the taxpayers' money should be used for financing trade unions, I will not comment any further; I have spoken long enough—indeed, I fear a little longer than I intended.
My Lords, I welcome the publication of this White Paper, for it shows that the Government recognise the existence of the problem; but I am inclined to doubt whether the White Paper itself contains all the right answers. I think few will dispute that the matter is urgent. If agreements are made which are legally binding, then I hope and believe that that will lead to fewer unofficial strikes and fewer unconstitutional strikes in breach of those agreements.
Since the Royal Commission were appointed the period of gestation has been long; there is no sign of its termination. I think it most unlikely that we shall get a Bill of this magnitude this Session, but there should be no delay in legislation. For, my Lords, it is far, far more urgent than reform of your Lordships' House; and instead of spending weeks, and it may be months, on a Bill to do that—if the Bill reaches this House—Parliament should devote its time to legislating on this problem so closely affecting industrial relations and the economy of the country. I fear that once again this Government have got their priorities wrong.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ELYTON: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Viscount will excuse me if I do not follow him into the realms of legal argument that he has put forward to-night. The Government White Paper In Place of Strife deals with industrial relations in industry and proposes future legislation for the trade unions. The question I ask is, "Will this replace strife?". The provisions to put the Commission on Industrial Relations on a statutory basis will be included in the new Industrial Relations Bill which the Government intend to present to Parliament in the next Session, although further consultations with industry will be necessary.
The White Paper therefore proposes ten main objectives. I will not deal with them all, but I will deal with a few. These ten objectives are formidable changes. The White Paper follows the Donovan Report which examined, over three years, the industrial relations problems facing the country. To me the White Paper seems like a package deal: you have to take the good with the bad, even if the bad damages the good. The introduction of penal clauses has already caused consternation in the T.U.C., and nearly all the unions are against it. I agree with the first five points in the ten objectives. The right to get information and the right to belong to a trade union are long overdue, and I believe it is a step in the right direction to give grants or loans to amalgamate small unions into one big unit, so long as it is not done by compulsion by the State.
The C.I.R. is another good innovation. The people the Minister has chosen have had a lifetime in industrial relations. They are very knowledgeable on these matters and understand the emotions of men on the shop floor, in the mines and in industry generally. But it would be a mistake to think that they can solve all the problems in industrial relations in a short time. After all, it took the Donovan Committee three years to take all the evidence and give their Report. It will be a much longer job to get the trade unions, from the factory floor to national level, to accept the inevitable changes that will arise in the present pattern of industrial relations.
If the C.I.R.'s aim is to find ways of improving industrial relations and

759
strengthening voluntary collective bargaining, then it carries my best wishes. Further, in addition to the development of the T.U.C.'s own activities in these directions the C.I.R. could well have a useful part to play in bringing persuasion to bear on the unions involved and in influencing employers' recognition policies. On the question of inter-union disputes, I have always felt that the T.U.C. Disputes Committee, or the T.U.C. itself, should be given full power by the affiliated unions and that a decision by them should be final and binding on the unions involved. In the event of the T.U.C. being unable to settle an inter-union dispute, or if the unions involved do not accept the C.I.R. recommendation, I cannot see that an order by the Secretary of State, with financial penalties on the unions, will make for good industrial relations. In my opinion, it is likely to work the other way. It should be remembered—and this has been my experience over all the years of my life—that whenever one brings the weight of the law on what may be regarded as erring trade unionists or unions, one brings about an agitation to end that law and bad relations ensue.
I regard as completely misguided and unacceptable the proposal to take discretionary powers to conduct a ballot on threatened strike action which, in the Minister's opinion, threatens economic damage, and to back these powers with the threat of financial penalties. Here the Government have disregarded the considered view of the Royal Commission, which pointed out that there is little evidence for the view that workpeople are less likely to vote for strike action than their leaders. The experience of most of us is that to remove from the leaders the right to exercise any responsibility is likely to militate strongly against confidence in the leadership, thus ensuring that unofficial action would be encouraged, and not reduced. In my own union we have a ballot, and it is covered by our rules. It is easy for us, since we take a ballot at the pit in 24 hours. Our national ballot can be over in 14 days. Therefore, it is not such a handicap to us in the mining industry. But how long would it take the Seamen's Union to take a ballot of its men when they are scattered over the seven seas? It
760
would take months. Furthermore, those at sea cannot strike until they come ashore, since they are governed by the Merchant Shipping Act. It would not be easy for the Transport and General Workers' Union and the engineering unions to take a ballot for their men are in thousands of different places all over the country. It is not so easy to do as it is at pits on a national scale.
When negotiations have been going on for months it is necessary for the trade union leaders to have this power as a negotiating factor when they are "Up against it". For the Minister to take this power will weaken the trade union leaders in negotiating wages and conditions; it will not help them. The resentment by the T.U.C. against this proposal will be worse if the Minister decides the terms of the question to be incorporated on the ballot paper and to determine the appropriate majority of two-thirds in some cases. Another serious objection to compulsory ballots is that the timing of the ballot will clearly be crucial. The result would depend on this, especially when one remembers that between the time of the Minister's decision and the taking of the ballot all the organs of propaganda would be bent on defeating the leaders of the union in achieving their result and would thereby reduce the authority of the leaders who are negotiating for the men. Furthermore, if an Act giving statutory power to a Minister to call for a ballot is enshrined in the law, then employers will be more adamant in refusing concessions so as to push the Minister into having a ballot.
The power asked for on this matter is to be used if the Secretary of State believes that the strike would involve a threat to the economy or the public interest. I have never yet known a strike, particularly in the industrial field, which did not affect the economy or the public interest. The withdrawal of labour is the final sanction which a trade union can use, and it is aimed at bringing pressure on the employer and on the economy to get grievances redressed. Once this power is whittled away or reduced, trade unions will be at the mercy of the employers. Once this power of the trade unions is reduced or hamstrung by legal sanctions, the strength of the trade unions, whose job it is to protect their members and get for them the maximum wages they can, will be much handicapped. I share the

761
view of the Royal Commission that the causes of unconstitutional strikes should be removed, and also their view that the most constructive way of achieving this lies in reforming the institutions of whose defects they are a symptom. But this suggested power by the Secretary of State will hinder rather than help such a reform.
The Government will also have the utmost difficulty to define in any Statute precisely what strikes will be unconstitutional, or to define in what circumstances their consequences are likely to be serious. These issues would have to be defined by the Minister concerned—and it may not be a Labour Minister. Why in this day and age should a Minister be given unfettered discretion to invoke powers to fine workpeople and trade unions solely on the grounds that in his or her opinion the results of a strike are likely to be serious using such criteria as he or she may think appropriate? The power that is sought in the White Paper makes industrial relations and trade unions a prisoner of the ups and downs of Party politics. I see no reason why a Minister should be given the absolute right to determine which disputes will qualify for legal intervention.
A trade union exists to fight for its members by all the weapons at its disposal, and the strike weapon is its greatest and final weapon. To tie it up in the manner suggested will be to weaken its bargaining power. We do not want trade unions that give a goose at Christmas, or a watch on retirement and a wreath when you die. We want trade unions to use their powers sensibly, but to remain a fighting machine to redress grievances and to improve the wages and conditions of workpeople in the industrial field. Legal sanctions will reduce their powers to achieve their historic mission.
I now wish to deal with the cooling-off period. The White Paper suggests a conciliation pause of 28 days in unconstitutional strikes and strikes where adequate joint discussions have not taken place. What is meant by "adequate"? Is it one month, two months, or eleven months, as was the period with the engineers last year? What is the interpretation of the word "adequate" by the Minister who will have powers in this regard? I know this suggestion has
762
many attractions and is implemented in America under the Taft-Hartley Act, where the time period is 90 days; but the fact is that Britain loses far fewer days in strikes than America. Australia has penal legislation on strikes, a cooling-off period and a compulsory court. Will this sort of procedure work? Say that a trade union has been negotiating for six months without getting a settlement—and national negotiations often take that long—and then decides to strike, and the Minister says that there must be a 28 days' cooling-off period at the status quo position. In circumstances like that, regardless of fines, a national leader will not be able to hold his members in many cases, and unconstitutional strikes will arise in the industries afected. I can see a. situation where the cooling-off period can be hotted-up and industrial relations worsened, not made better. I ask the Minister to give some serious thought to this subject.
I regard the attachment of wages as one of the most dangerous of the reforms suggested. What the Government are saying is that because men withdraw their labour they will be fined and their wages will be attached to meet the fines. In some cases their national trade unions can also be fined. But you cannot build good industrial relations, nor can you get co-operation from the workers, if each week when they get their pay there is a deduction of a fine from their wages by the very people with whom they have been in dispute. Great resentment will be caused by this and the feelings created will take years to eliminate.
Nobody likes unofficial strikes. In many cases they are emotional and arise from frustration through not getting grievances redressed, or because new conditions are imposed without consultation with the workers affected. Fines will not stop this and attachment of wages will create a new and worse situation. I have seen the result of attachment of men's wages after unofficial strikes. I have been in court ten times in my life and have had my wages attached. When we made the pit idle we were sued for breach of contract under the Master and Servant Act. When we got our county court summonses as a trade union, we always decided that all the men would attend the court. The pit was idle and we went to court with bands and banners. The

763
county court judge used to take three of us as test cases, and in the end awarded damages of 30s. for each day of the strike, and made an order to attach our wages at the rate of 2s. 6d. per week, which was a lot of money in the 'twenties and 'thirties.
But this did not mean the end. In the weeks that followed, when the men got their pay notes and saw the deduction of their wages, every little grievance again made the pit idle. Such was men's resentment against attachment. A few weeks after attending the court the employers always sent for us as local officials. In some cases the employers told us to get the men back to work and said they would forget the fines and the attachment, or they would take £100 in a lump, sum in settlement. We sometimes used to settle in that way.
The attachment of men's wages under the Master and Servant Act never stopped unofficial strikes in my lifetime. In fact, employers never use the Master and Servant Act in disputes to-day because they know of the bad relations it causes. It would be an experience for many people who think that this penalty is the answer, if they had to meet 2,000 men incensed by something that affects their work and tell them to get back to work. Some of us have had to do it and we have been told in unparliamentary language what we could do. In situations like that, attachment of wages for fines will in no way solve unofficial strikes. We have to eliminate the causes of unofficial strikes, and I place my confidence in the work of the C.I.R. rather than in the penal sanctions which the Minister suggests in this White Paper. There is deep opposition in the trade union movement to the attachment of wages, and it is from the trade union movement that the basis of the Labour Party's support comes. To enforce the proposed measure would be to shake the base of our Party to its very foundations, and any chance of our return at the next Election would be ruined.
It was the Labour Party in Australia who put the Arbitration Court into existence, fining the head unions and strikers £5 a day and distraining on their household goods when the fines were not paid. The trade union movement in Australia was shackled. What has been the result of that Labour legislation in Australia?
764
The Liberals gained power and operated the legislation as I have indicated, and Labour has never since got back to power because it is Labour legislation that is blamed by the trade unions. We should remember that there is a moral here for us on the Labour Benches. With all the good intentions of the present Minister, if the Tory Party get back to power they will operate the Act, if that is what it is, and will justifiably say that it is a Labour Party Act. But they will administer it not in the same way as a Labour Minister might administer it, but viciously. Their past history in regard to us, as trade unionists, makes me terribly worried in this context.
I say to my own Front Bench that ever since trade unions were formed we have faced legal restrictions. There were the Combination Acts, which were the beginning; then we had the gaol sentences for conspiracy in 1872, and then the Taff Vale decision which allowed companies to sue for damages after a strike by the railwaymen's union. It was that decision that brought into existence the Labour Party. It is an irony that this process which brought about the position where some of us got seats in the House of Commons, was part of the fight of the trade unions against attempts to curb them by law. We had the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, which resulted in a great agitation for its repeal, but it took us till 1945 to get it off the Statute Book. I called that the Blacklegs' Charter. Then we had Order 1305 which banned strikes. After strikes and demonstrations we, as a Labour Party, dropped it in 1951. That Order was used against dockers, gasworkers and some engineers.
My fear now in regard to these penalty clauses is that we are using the law, a centuries' old game, to curb the worker fighting for his rights, and to this cannot agree. I may be told that negotiations are to take place with the T.U.C. and the employers before the Bill is presented to us. But we all know that the trade unions are opposed to the penalty clause and strike ballot powers of the Minister. I hope she heeds the advice of those who have spent their lives in the trade union movement.
Can we be told what happens to a striker if he refuses to pay his fine by not going to work, or continues to strike?

765
The White Paper says that there will be no imprisonment. How will you get your fines? Shall we get the argument that if the workers get into prison it will not be for striking, but because of failure to pay a civil debt that is imposed on strikers through fines? Evidence is now available, on page 422 of the Payne Report, that out of a sample of 1,000 maintenance defaulters taken over the country 34 per cent. went to prison. How will you enforce these payments in the light of this example from the Payne Report? And this attachment of wages was to keep men out of prison! Or will the people who default on paying these fines have the county court bailiff taking their household goods to meet the fines imposed? We must have some clarification about this. If any of these things happen it will be repugnant to all trade unionists.
My Lords, my position is clear. We are asked to-night to take note of the White Paper, but if the Bill, when it is presented to us, includes the penalty clauses I will vote against it for the reasons I have stated. I believe the Government are heading for real trouble with the trade unions. They are going in the direction of destroying the very basis of the Labour Movement, which may mean there will not be a Labour Government in the foreseeable future. Why do they pursue this calamitous approach to the future of trade unionism? Why do they destroy all the good in the White Paper by the sanctions they intend to impose? The dangers of the White Paper can and should be removed. We want the negotiating structure overhauled and we want more say in industry. There are many concrete proposals on which the unions and the Government should be able to concentrate and where they could show rapid progress. But you will not get a united move forward if you persist in these proposals, which will do untold harm. Co. operation will not be forthcoming, but strenuous opposition will.
We know that not much notice is taken of what we say as Back-Benchers in the Lords, but I am certain that the path the Government are treading to-day in this White Paper, if they make it law, will be taken serious note of by the trade union electors in the next Election—and it will not be for the benefit of us as a Party. I ask the Government not to have
766
a head-on clash with the trade union movement. To do so will ensure the return of the Tory Party to power, which I have no desire to see again.
6.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord the Leader of the House has framed his Motion in the way he has done, for in these difficult issues it is better to concentrate our efforts on points of agreement rather than on points of disagreement. I believe that in the first part of this White Paper there is a great deal of sound analysis of the problems with which few of us would disagree. If there is disagreement, it will centre mainly not on the diagnosis but on the treatment proposed. There has been so much expert discussion on the details of the treatment—on the new statutory bodies, on their powers and on the problems or the merits of legal sanctions—that I do not propose to pursue those aspects, but rather shall try to emphasise some of the basic issues which seem to me to be in danger of being forgotten.
Towards the end of paragraph 9 of the White Paper it says:
"The need for State intervention and involvement, in association with both sides of industry, is now admitted by almost everyone. The question that remains is, what form should it take at the present time?"
The answer to that question is of fundamental importance. One answer is given at the beginning of paragraph 10—and I quote:
"The answer to this question is to be found in an analysis of the present state of industrial relations in Britain".
I doubt whether that answer goes nearly deep enough. It seems to me to be analogous to a doctor, in the case of a patient suffering from a nervous breakdown, concentrating solely on the man's physical condition instead of looking at the pressures of life which caused his nervous breakdown.
Industrial relations are, fundamentally, relations between people, and so they involve all the good and the bad points of human nature. To be successful, industrial relations must be conducted in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and respect, of understanding and good will,

767
and, so far as is practicable, with a common purpose. In fact, industrial relations are a matter principally for industry, and not principally for the Government. But Government intervention and legal sanctions are required, perhaps, to deal with important background issues, such as the abuse of power, and with ensuring that the legal framework, such as the tax laws and the like, are not inconsistent with the establishment of good relations.
My Lords, it is an unfortunate fact of human nature that reputations and confidence are destroyed far more quickly and far more easily than they are created; and we are still suffering to-day from the memories of the bad relations in the 1920s and the 1930s, and even earlier, sometimes engendered by muddled thinking and too often by the abuse of power and intolerance. That leads, to-day, to a still widespread attitude, unfortunately, of "we" and "they" in industry, and to a resulting lack of mutual respect and confidence. The prime task, I believe, is the establishment in industry of that confidence: to create it where it is lacking and to strengthen it where it exists. While I fully appreciate the need for the community to be protected by legislation against the abuse of power wherever it arises—in management, in the unions or in government itself—I see grave dangers in putting the cart of Commissions and legislation before the horse of confidence and a common objective.
I recently read a story in a little monthly paper, called, The Waterfront and Industrial Pioneer, which I commend to your Lordships for its balanced views on industrial relations. This story is, as it were, third-hand, so I cannot vouch for its truth. But it is said that the chairman of a stevedoring company was walking through the docks when he sighted a docker who had a cigarette in the corner of his mouth and who paid no attention whatever to him. He spoke to the docker and said. "Do you know who I am?" The docker put the cigarette more firmly in the corner of his mouth and cried up to his chum in the crane above, "Hey, Bill! There's a chap down here who doesn't know who he is ". Unfortunately, my Lords, that Chairman's attitude is still too common in industry. It serves only to accentuate
768
the divisions in industry and the remoteness of the decision-makers from the majority who are affected by them. The feeling of remoteness of management from the shop floor is, I believe, one of the major confidence-reducing influences in industry.
There is no doubt that the size of an organisation is an important factor in this feeling; and another is a lack of cohesion or common purpose. To-day, as we all know, large organisations are, for many well known reasons, necessary, but I firmly believe that they should be no bigger than is required for efficient operation. Though size certainly produces difficulties, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has said, size in itself is not an insuperable obstacle to the establishment of confidence as a basis for good industrial relations. I believe that we have a good example in the Coal Board, where the noble Lord, Lord Robens, in very difficult conditions of a falling demand, has developed, through personal contact and a wise knowledge of the people and the problems involved, a mutual respect and confidence.
Where confidence and mutual respect exist, good industrial relations follow, but there is no doubt that they are more difficult to achieve in large organisations. I am concerned at the growth of the so-called conglomerate companies, where management is trying to deal with very widely diverse activities and where the company is often dominated by one man, or at best a few, all too clearly remote from the work, the problems and the aspirations of those who create the real wealth of the company. On a recent visit to the United States I noted a growing concern there at the increase of these conglomerate companies, and I have no doubt that we must beware here, if only from the aspect of good industrial relations.
Another essential condition for creating sensible industrial relations is good communications—not by a company magazine or by notices on a company notice board, although they have a place, but through personal contact and the encouragement of mutual understanding throughout an organisation. It is time, too, I believe, for the shareholders' position to be put in proper perspective in relation to the others involved in a business. Shareholders provide money

769
at risk for the purchase of the assets which are needed to run the company. As such they are entitled to require the business to be well managed to protect their investment and to provide an income commensurate with their risk and enterprise. Equally important are those who devote their skill and energies and often a large part of their lives to the company. They have equal claim to protection and reward consistent with their contribution.
That does not mean that either shareholders or employees have any right to complete or permanent security. In a competitive world we cannot afford that. Indeed, too often a somewhat sloppy attitude is adopted when problems arise affecting either shareholders or employees to the detriment of the community as a whole. If industry is to operate competitively, it is no more practicable to protect the shareholders' interest when things go wrong than to prevent the closure of a factory when that is required for efficient working. The prime requirement for both shareholders and employees is that they should be given true information, should be kept in the picture and should be treated fairly and honestly. Unfortunately, the interests of shareholders and employees are sometimes divergent. I would not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, seemed to imply: that a conflict is always inevitable. There is certainly much to be said in favour of bringing the interests closer together wherever this is possible and for it to be clear to all that the interests of both are fully considered in any decision.
In one important way, unfortunately, current tax law makes this very difficult, in that any kind of bonus related to the prosperity of a company, even if it is used for investment in the shares of that company or of another company, is taxable. This is not the case in other countries and certainly not in the U.S.A. I would urge that some careful study should be given to this problem with the objective of removing these obstacles towards a closer identity of interests of all those who work in industry. For similar reasons I believe that further, unbiased consideration needs to be given to the appointment of directors to represent the employees' interests as well as those of the shareholders. I know that
770
this is a somewhat contentious issue. It is probably not necessary in the smaller companies where communications are relatively easy; but it is clear to me that it is needed for the better representation of employees' views in many of the large companies and certainly when large-scale mergers are contemplated. At present, it appears to me that excessive emphasis is given to shareholders' interests on these occasions.
My Lords, all these points have as their objective the creation of confidence and mutual respect throughout an industrial organisation. Overriding them all is the paramount importance of establishing and retaining a reputation for fair and honest dealing in the whole conduct of business, whether in good times or in bad. No short-term considerations of expediency should be allowed to upset that principle. Some noble Lords perhaps will say that the views I put forward are idealistic and impracticable or, at best, applicable only to small companies. From my own experience I would not accept that. I would regard that view as a counsel of despair. Finally, I would emphasise once again that although a right legislative framework is important, ultimately good relations will depend on confidence and on observing that old, well-tried principle of, "Do as you would be done by". This, I believe, and not the legal issue, is the nub of the problem. It is essentially the responsibility of industry itself.
6.55 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, telling him why I wanted to take part in this debate and explaining that I lived in Gloucestershire, in a very industrial area, and that in many parts of the country there is wide discussion in trade union branches, in the factories and in the whole Labour movement on this White Paper. The Gloucestershire Trades Council have now passed a strong resolution rejecting In Place of Strife in forceful terms, and they are asking the whole area to help them mount a campaign against it. I do not mean to make a propaganda speech; but I have been a worker and an employer, a member of a trade union and a delegate to a trades council. I am here to speak in this debate to put forward some of the main

771
objections of these trade unionists from the shop floor around Gloucester.
This White Paper is very cleverly introduced. At the beginning there are some critical remarks about employers and their practices; there is talk about the positive role of the trade unions in a democracy and about the importance of extending it. But under the sugar comes the bitter pill. The very title, say trade unionists, is unrealistic in present society, and it shows how totally divorced is the Ministry of Employment and Productivity from working-class thought. Strife will always exist in the employer-employee relationship under our present economic system, and it seems that the fundamental aim of this White Paper is to keep the present system in being, to perpetuate it. Because of this, we shall never get rid of strife however much we penalise and legislate.
There is great resentment against much of the proposed Government interference. The preamble to the White Paper says:
… trade unions have come to accept, and in many ways positively to welcome, Government involvement …
This is simply not true. Of course, laws which prevent children from working in mines, and so on, were welcomed; but not the laws limiting the right to strike or financially penalising the trades unionist.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that the trade unionists do welcome Government intervention when it means attempting to maintain full employment, equal pay for women, and so on?
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on those issues.
Last year the T.U.C. voted by 7–1 against such interference. The Labour Party Conference also, after years of debate, decided against State interference in collective bargaining. Our local delegates at these national conferences are furious because they were there and cast their votes in these majorities. I think it is time that some of us remembered that trade unionists have fought and suffered, and so founded the Labour Party itself in order to prevent the State from interfering with their right to com-
772
bine and to use that combination to threaten and to withdraw labour.
I want to take three of the main points that have come out of our discussion. First, registration; second, the 28 days cooling off period, and third, the question of balance. Of course the feeling against financial penalising is widespread. The Government Front Bench know it. Indeed, is it not a fact that the Ford strike has been fundamentally over the agreement containing a penalising clause? On this question of registration, I know from past experience that there is a deep suspicion of any Government interference. It is expected that they will modify agreements to ensure the maximum integration into the resented incomes policy, to halt wage drift. There is a suspicion that this is only the first step, the thin end of the wedge, to taking away from trades unionists the right to decide for themselves their rules and conducts.
The White Paper also specifically provides that the role and functions of shop stewards, unlike that of any other trade union officials, shall be subject to State I supervision. The cooling-off period is seen as favouring the employers, saying that during the 28 days the employers should hold to the status quo. It is seen as giving the employers the initiative when they already hold the balance of economic powers. Anyone who has taken part in a dispute knows that success depends on such things as timing; the importance of the workload at that moment; the moment of maximum unity; the impetus created by an employer's arrogance. It is often pointed out in discussion that a similar law was introduced in America during one of the most reactionary periods of that country's history, and trade unionists are surprised that it should be a Labour Government who are introducing here the Taft-Hartley Act. Everyone knows that in a bitter, sudden, personal quarrel, if people interfere and keep those taking part forcibly apart, they may keep a sort of peace for a time; but rancour may build up; feelings may boil beneath the surface, and the next time the quarrel will burst out more violently than ever. In other words, often it would have been safer to have had a short sharp bout and get it over.

773
On the question of strike ballots, my Lords, again this proposal is seen as depriving the workers of one of their chief weapons in a dispute, that of timing. On the question of the Government's supervising the question on the ballot paper, there is resentment at the Government's mistrust of trade unions' ability to formulate their own questions. It is seen as an insult to the integrity of the trade union leadership. Cannot the elected leadership decide what action is in the interest of its whole membership? Local trade unions have also raised the point that perhaps on smaller issues it would not be worth while going through all the machinery of a ballot; that each time this happened resentment would build up until in the end there could be a real "bust-up".
Another picture is owed to the shop steward movement, the reverse of that given in the capitalist Press, television and radio. Shop stewards, taking up issues quickly on the shop floor, and facing management with the workers' impatience and resentment, act as a safety valve, often preventing bigger confrontations. Another point which I think is very strong in the minds of trade unionists is that a ballot is a long, cumbersome business. and they know from past experience that during the time it is taking place the Press, television, radio—and even the speeches of Ministers—will be loaded against them. Everything will be done in the establishment communications machinery to influence the ballot. There has never been an impartial picture of the shop stewards and strike leaders. And, incidentally, my Lords, I think that some of the attacks made by politicians, who should know better, against workers and shop stewards who are involved in a strike and who are against this White Paper, are completely unworthy.
There are many other clauses, including intervention by the State to enforce trade union recognition, appeal boards, grants of aid, trade union amalgamations, some of which could be beneficial to workers. But, overall, the White Paper is designed to amalgamate the functions of the State to prevent trades union advance; to limit the power of workers to determine their conditions and to perpetuate the present division of wealth.
774
It is not in the nature of the Slate to produce laws which act against the interests of the class that controls society. If a law becomes too helpful to the employees, it will quickly be changed. That is why leading capitalist economists agree with the Sunday Times which, in its issue of January 19, said:
"The Conservatives are wise, therefore, to give this White Paper, which owes so much to their prompting, their general support, for it lays down the foundation on which they can build."
My Lords, that is why the majority of trade unionists are against, and will fight this White Paper.
7.7 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I enter this debate with some experience. I am probably the only trade union leader who can claim that his union has not had an official strike for fifty years, and I was for forty years its chief executive officer. During that period we had no official strike. Occasionally unofficial strikes occurred, and these were dealt with so effectively by the executive council that in addition to not having an official strike for that long period, our place in the wages table was pretty near the top. The White Paper is an endeavour to give everybody a chance to get to that position.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who concentrated on the penalties contained in the White Paper, that out of the 22 million gainfully employed workers in this country only 8 million are in the trades union movement. Now the other 14 million are not only going to get a chance to be organised but will be encouraged to be organised; to express their opinion; to have the lines of communication which have been talked about so much. If this White Paper did nothing else but give those 14 million an opportunity to become articulate, it would have succeeded in doing something which no other legislation has ever achieved in this country—and there has been a good deal of legislation to help trade unionists, as well as to deal with some of the sins of commission which have been mentioned from time to time this evening.
My Lords, I can claim to have some international experience, and when I hear some of the stories of what happens abroad I can smile because I know some

775
of the troubles. For seven years I was President of the International Metal Workers Federation which covered all the Western countries other than the Communist countries. I am tempted to answer some of the arguments I have heard put forward this afternoon, but I wish to avoid doing so. I wish to convey to the House the impressions I had when I read the White Paper, apart from the arguments to which I have listened to-day. Let me try to do that as quietly as possible.
My Lords, probably the first priority of all trades unionists is security. The fear of unemployment lies at the root of most discontent. While the basic reasons for this fear may vary—it may be depression in trade or technological change—the fear remains constant. The consequences of the fear may change from the sheer hunger that we had years ago, and the threadbare clothing talked about by my noble friend Lord Blyton, to the ability to keep up payments on the television to-day and, what is more appropriate at the present time, keeping up the payments on one's house. These are the basic fears that lie behind the trade unionists' thinking to-day, and they are extremely important. It is from this source that there comes that disloyalty inside the trade union movement which often overcomes the wisdom of the movement.
In paragraph 94, under the heading of "A Conciliation Pause", the White Paper states:
"An essential part, therefore, of the efforts to get the strikers to return to work would be to require management to withdraw the offending action till adequate discussion had taken place."
The status quo would therefore be preserved while the machinery of negotiation operated. Take the instance where a foreman says to a man, "Get out", and he is immediately discharged. This happens every day—I know, because I sit on an arbitration court dealing with these cases. Under the White Paper proposals the manager cannot say that, because he will have to take 28 days to prove that he is right in sacking the man. He has to justify the sacking and show that the man is not the victim of his emotional tantrums at the time. If this Bill does nothing but bring a 28 days' cooling off period into operation—I am not afraid of words in
776
this regard—it will achieve something for the working man of this country that no other legislation, no other effort at any time, has achieved.
If it comes to a question of a strike, where we are dealing with a number of men, and after meeting across the table there is no agreement and the only possibility is going out and telling the men that agreement cannot be reached and they should down tools, and the law says that we must have a 28 days' pause, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Even if it is a major problem, is an immediate strike necessary? I am sure that there is no major problem that cannot wait for 28 days, if there can be a retrospective claim at the end of the 28 days. Is there anything wrong with that? Everybody is concentrating on the penalties in the White Paper, without any thought to the structure which it intends to bring in and which is going to be of benefit to the working man.
I know that some trade unionists think that they do not need a 28 days' period. If the management sacks one man, they can go on strike immediately and get him back, right or wrong. I wonder whether a man in that atmosphere of strong trade unionism will feel more content with that than with knowing that he has 28 days during which the manager will have to prove his case. Will a man not feel more confident with that than with just the ordinary brute strength of his own trade union? Let me go on to the non-organised workers. There are 14 million men who are not organised and who have never been encouraged to organise themselves. In their case it is easy for the manager to say, "Get out." But under this proposal, he will not be able to do that any longer. Is not that a protection, a security, that every man in this country is entitled to? Not one speaker to-day has mentioned the benefits to be got out of this proposal, but everyone has concentrated on the two penalties.
I now come to the question of agreements, which is of great importance to all concerned in industry. It is complained that people break properly negotiated agreements and for that reason there should be legislation. There is apparent weight in the argument because there is little use in coming to an agreement across the table unless at the end of the day it is going to be

777
honoured. I am rather timid about suggesting that there should be legislation on this point. The reason why relations in the steel industry were so successful over the years was that if there was a question about what an agreement meant, we agreed that it was the spirit of the agreement that mattered and we did not consult the book to see what had been written except as a guide. After we considered the wording, which is a lawyer's delight, we then examined the meaning to see what we intended. By adopting that procedure we avoided strikes.
I have seen agreements which have been considered—not broken but considered—by both sides amid interminable legal quibbles by lawyers (with all due respect to them; but it is their craft to argue over words) so that frankly in the end in the medley of words I lost their meaning, and so have the men and so often has the management. Noble Lords on the other side are going to suggest to us that introducing a legal atmosphere into trade union negotiation is going to solve the problem. It will create problems; make no mistake about that. Then it will not be a question of breaking agreements but of interpreting them, and many of the Communist trade unionists about which my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom spoke, who want to take advantage of that, will come in with all the skill in the world to argue about the wording of an agreement and say that the agreement has not been broken because it does not mean what the management says it means. Let us brush legislation out of this matter and get down to negotiation between employer and employee which means something. Let us have it written down in the simplest terms so that everybody can understand it; and if there is a doubt about it, let us ask both sides, "What did you intend to do?"
By the very nature of things, trade unions grow in size and then we have to ask: where does the centre of power lie? The answer is, briefly and simply, with the executive council: nowhere else. The executive council authorises people to negotiate for them, but, with delegated powers, negotiations can go awry and a good deal of care is needed in the method of negotiation. All the big unions in the different industries have their own methods of controlling their own negotiating
778
machines. This brings me to one of the weaknesses of our negotiation machinery, one which my noble friend Lord Carron has shown to be true of the engineering industry—that is, that our negotiations are apt to be on an ad hoc basis. The result is that you come up to negotiations which are pretty rushed, and the opportunity for contact between the negotiating committee and the executive council is somewhat remote. I ma trying to see how this obstacle—for obstacle I know it to be—can be removed. In my union, which was a medium-sized union of 100,000 members, we had four or five negotiating machines, but still with the executive council as the authority.
In the engineering industry a deal was negotiated over three years ago by my noble friend Lord Carron which I thought was setting an example. In the trade union movement the power of the executives has been acknowledged by the fact that there has now been instituted an annual meeting of executive councils (as distinct from the T.U.C.) which deals with general questions, because the meeting of the executive councils is concerned purely with economic affairs and mostly with wages. I am wondering whether we could not ask the Minister to have a word with the T.U.C., and to say: "Is it possible to get on the agenda the negotiating of major agreement; in all industries, and a discussion as to whether there should not be longer periods, say a year or two years, but at stated periods, so that inside the industry you can work up to the point where you can negotiate a package deal"—that is inevitable to-day—"and know what you are going to negotiate, and give time for the communications between the executive council and the negotiating body in a particular industry?" I have the feeling that this could remove a good deal of trouble. This might be done together with the proposed 28 days' delay, which I regard as the part of the White Paper that will remove a considerable amount of difficulty: because we all know that most of the strikes are unofficial strikes, caused by an emotional resentment at some particular time.
It seem to me that here we have two concrete proposals, one in the White Paper and one not in the White Paper, which should help to improve industrial relations without getting that dreaded

779
legislation and legal argument into industrial negotiations which I am sure, at the end of the day, can only create many more difficulties than they remove. But after we have negotiated and considered what sort of agreements we are to have with the T.U.C. executive council meetings, we come to the point where we use the pressures on the Government.
I see my noble friend (I think I may call him that) Lord Amory sitting opposite: he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when I was chairman of the Economic Committee of the T.U.C. If he had put his hands up, as he is doing now, when I was meeting him years ago I should have been a very happy man. I cannot say that we always agreed, but there are some economic matters which are capable of a common solution with a Conservative Chancellor and the trade union movement. We used pressures on the Government for all sorts of things. We asked them for legislation when we wanted to move industry from a congested part of the country to a part of the country where we had unemployment. Nobody objects to legislation that does this. We asked for legislation to help the unemployed; and we got some good benefits in unemployment payments. We asked for legislation when we had redundancy; and we had some good redundancy legislation.
All these people who are objecting to legislation in trade union affairs seem to forget that we are often asking the Government for legislation in trade union affairs. Some of these things could not be decided otherwise. You could not get an industry sent from a congested area to a depressed area unless you used some pressure and some legislation. And this is what has been done. The White Paper is moving in the right direction to deal with the problems that we have to-day. Why is it doing this? We had one strike (I may as well mention it) the Seamen's strike which almost brought this country to its knees. And, to our shame, let it be said that it was while we had a Labour Government. I mean no disrespect to the Conservative Government by that: what I mean is that it was a Government which we had sponsored, and which we drove into an economic situation which could well have destroyed it.
780
I am not going into the Ford strike, because I do not know how far that could be disastrous to the country. But I know that it could have an effect on the country. I am not trying at this stage to say who is right or who is wrong: that is not my job here. In another place, if I were asked to do that I might deal with it. If strikes of that character are to occur, all the legislation for benefits for working men in this country will be completely meaningless, because there will be no money to pay for them. If the White Paper tries to do anything, it should try to give the working man the justice he deserves without withdrawing the source from which he draws the sustenance to pay for the benefits he is getting. That is what is behind it.
Your Lordships may not think I am being very brief, but I am trying to be. Let me come to penalties. Attachment of wages, I believe, has been blown up into something that does not matter very much. My noble friend Lord Blyton mentioned experiences that he had thirty years ago; but they have no relevance to-day. The attachment of wages that we are talking about to-day has no relevance to the attachment of wages under that legislation. We have the C.I.R. which will examine, probe and deal with all the arguments in respect of any particular industrial dispute. They will have only one power; and that is to demand information. They will be the linesmen on a football field, watching the players and seeing that nobody puts the boot of anarchy into skilful negotiation.
In the centre of the field you will have a referee—the Industrial Board. The linesmen are not going to let very much past them, as you will see if you look at the personnel, from both sides of industry, and the experience they have. They will recognise a foul when they see it, and will put the flag up to the "ref," and say, "Foul". Then the Board, who will consist of employers and trade unionists, will inquire into it. Further examination will take place, and even then they may not have attachment of wages or fining. Maybe they will, but I have the feeling that if they do that the ordinary trade unionist knows how to get round it without very much trouble. I will not go into ways and

781
means, but if you do not have the ultimate of imprisonment he will get round that one. I am very doubtful whether attachment should be in the Bill, but if that were the only price I had to pay for all the benefits, I would pay it and laugh about it.
When it comes to the ballot we have a different kettle of fish. I have looked at this carefully, because the White Paper says that the ballots will be conducted as agreed, but according to trade union rules. My union decided that ballots should be conducted in the branch meeting room, and nowhere else. This is one of the ways in which we overcome any unscrupulous handling of votes. I do not know how we could have a ballot that would deal with a job like that effectively and get a vote that would count. Many unions have this problem. It might be argued that the ballot should be taken on the job. But that would break the union rules, and it could not be done. But suppose it were possible. When taking a ballot on the job you would be deciding to spend the union's money on strike pay. No regional people have the right to do that: that is the job of the executive council, who are elected to look after the money of the union. So a ballot could not be held on the job in that way.
There are many other objections that I will not go into, but I want to come to this point. The executive councils of unions were elected by ballot in the first place, and therefore they are the people who make decisions about whether or not there is to be a strike. Make no mistake about that! And if they decide there is going to be a strike it will need some pretty tough legislation to stop them. So it will be necessary to come back to the executives of the unions and to ask them what they are going to do. I could not answer this question at once. Every speaker in this Chamber this afternoon has told us what unions will not do. What we have been short of is somebody who is going to tell us what they should do. People say that the voluntary system will work. The plain fact is, my Lords, that it has not worked. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. The voluntary system has broken down to the point where the economy of the country is endangered; and if this is so, then somebody must do something.
782
What I am pleased about is that this White Paper is merely a basis for discussion. We are asked only to "note" it. I think the debate we have had has helped us do a lot in noting the problems that we have, and because the matter has to be further considered I am prepared to leave it at that point. But I must leave it with this question to everybody who says that we want nothing but the voluntary system. As the voluntary system has broken down, what are you going to put in its place? If I get an answer to that question, I plump for the voluntary system. If I do not get an answer to that, who can say to me that anything in the country in the negotiating field is going to work? If you cannot say what is going to work, for Leaven's sake! do not try to tell us what will not work.
7.32 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity of following so distinguished and successful a trade union leader as the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, and I thank him and congratulate him upon his speech. Despite the fact that I sit upon the Episcopal Bench, I speak also as a fully paid-up member of the Municipal and General Workers Union. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper, inspected my card over the tea table. Admittedly, when I applied for membership seven years ago he had some slight problem in deciding into what category it would be proper to place a Bishop. After great heart-searching and consultation, no doubt, with his council he decided that perhaps the category should be that of gas worker. So I am the impersonal embodiment of "Gas and gaiters".
My second concern with this White Paper is that I have the honour to bear the name of the place which the right honourable lady, the Minister at the Department of Employment and Productivity, who sponsored this White Paper, represents in another place. I have a great respect for her positive intentions, her courage and her pertinacity in producing and defending this document, which is greatly to be welcomed. It represents a swift response to the Donovan Report and addresses itself to an urgent situation with realism, imagination and knowledge. The third concern I have with it is that for the last 23

783
years I have occupied two industrial sees and have given considerable time, thought and effort to the welfare of those engaged in industry and the promotion of right relationships.
The Christian Church is deeply concerned with the quality of human life, both of men individually and of their society. Industry and the industrial organisation of society determines to a large extent the quality of human life, both of men and of society. Therefore, despite what some may think or say, the Church must be concerned in these matters, and not least in those of human relationships. Basically this is the concern of the White Paper. Although it is styled, A Policy for Industrial Relations, in effect it is concerned with the right relations between men and women engaged in industry at all levels and the relationship of their work to the general community. It may be a cliché to say, "People matter" but it remains fundamentally true in an age when the position of the individual is being threatened. Many of our industrial disputes have arisen through a failure to treat people fairly, whoever they may be, workers, trade union officials, bosses—and I would add what is sometimes neglected and forgotten, that the customer matters too. Any of your Lordships who commute on the Southern Railway will know what I mean by that.
In Place of Strife—what a splendid title! As fine a text as could be found, and I congratulate whoever thought of it. It provides the yardstick that should be brought to the consideration of its proposals. My mind is sad that so much of the opposition has concentrated on a very few of the issues and given scant justice to the overall proposals and intentions of this White Paper. I have learned long since that one's judgment in any matter is impaired and confused unless one can first get one's motives right. The motive of industry is to produce goods or provide a service for the community and in doing so to give employment to people to whom proper wages should be paid, good conditions of work provided, and a just price charged which allows for an appropriate margin of profit. That definition is probably inadequate but it provides a rough guideline and it could be summed up in one word: service—a service rendered, a ser-
784
vice received. And what do we find? On the whole, speaking by and large, a remarkably good service being rendered by those engaged in industry and commerce. Let us give praise where praise is due and stop decrying ourselves and our efforts and our goods, for this generates uncertainty and lack of confidence both at home and abroad.
Nevertheless, we are all aware that there are faults and failures and conflicts in our structures and systems which most urgently call for remedial action, and this is what the White Paper is concerned to provide. I need not remind your Lordships that over 4½ million working days were lost through stoppages in 1968. I am well aware that the position in other countries is even worse—for example, in the United States of America. But, whatever happens elsewhere, we cannot afford to tolerate this position without making greater efforts to remedy it. In some industries, I reiterate, there are disappointing productivity figures. Or there is strife which defies for varying periods of time all efforts at conciliation, largely through a breakdown in communications or through unsatisfactory methods of procedure, and sometimes through deliberate trouble-makers. Disruption arises from several causes: fear, greed, self-interest, unwieldy organisation, ill-defined procedures. Selfishness and greed are, alas! inherent in human nature, but fortunately in this country the majority are not motivated wholly by these sentiments. Men of good will and common sense still abound and, with wise leadership, their qualities can act as a counterforce to those disruptive elements which do exist.
Let me remind your Lordships that this is no new situation. The Prophets of the Old Testament had much to say about politicians, employers and workers as well as Prophets and priests who failed to do their duty. We need to hear something of the thunder of the Prophets again: "Thus saith the Lord".
"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly…"
It is justice that is demanded, defined as the constant will or willingness to render to every man his due. This is our basic duty, to do justly. To love mercy: this is not a sentimental or emotional appeal.

785
Love is that heroic quality of the will which expresses itself in caring about people: a love that is prepared to suffer, and it is costly because it is always giving. By "mercy" the Bible does not mean what we mean by it to-day. I translate "mercy" as bringing help to the helpless, doing for people what they are not able to do for themselves; and this is what conciliation is all about.
To walk humbly. Your Lordships will know that true humility is no sign of weakness. It is only the great man who can be humble. Humility, which is the opposite of arrogance and the refusal to listen to others or to learn from others, is a quality in very short supply. And how often strikes and strife are prolonged by people who are afraid of losing face and insist on standing on their dignity. These qualities of justice, caring for people and flexibility are the keystones of human relations and industrial relations, and we shall only recover them as we seek to practise them. But the trouble is that we are bedevilled by fear. There is the fear in management with regard to strike action, and in particular of those unofficial strikes which account for no less than 95 per cent. of all the strikes, the vast majority of them being unconstitutional. And these unofficial strikes are responsible for three-quarters of the lost working days. It is to correct such a deplorable situation that the proposals contained in the White Paper are framed.
The most fundamental requirement of any political or economic system is that it shall supply some reasonable measure of security. Management is entitled to security of production as much as the workers themselves, but the fear of insecurity, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has said, is very real to many workers, especially in Lancashire, who have not yet forgotten the horrors of unemployment in "the hungry 'thirties". They fear the result of automation as well as the mergers which are taking place, which will result in throwing too many of them out of their jobs or, to quote the White Paper:
"Too often employees have felt that major decisions directly concerning them were being taken at such a high level that the decision-makers were out of reach and unable to understand the human consequences of their actions. Decisions have been taken to close
786
down plants without consultation and with inadequate fore-warning to the employees."
Such fears are engendered by the breakdown of adequate communication between employers and employees. A fuller sharing of information, as has been suggested, of plans and of hopes between those responsible for management and those whose livelihood depends upon them, would go a very long way towards the elimination of many of the fears that grow and fester and positively inhibit the creation of that trust which is so necessary.
There is fear—and we have had it expressed here among some of the trade unionists in your Lordships' House—of the proposals in the White Paper and fear that legal sanctions may be sought. But that is only when other methods of finding a solution in a dispute fail, and only then at the discretion of the Secretary of State, which I suppose is the point of contention. But I do not think that anybody would object so long as the present Secretary of State is in office. It seems to me that these proposals are surrounded by so many safeguards that the fear of their wrongful use is quite misplaced. Man is a self-centred creature. There must be the restraint of law so long as man has any selfishness in him. The restraint of law exists to Prevent the selfishness of A. from destroying the freedom of B., and I recall some words spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in an Address to Her Majesty the Queen:
"The law remains the bedrock on which the liberties of your Majesty's subjects depend".
Following this principle the proposals for ultimate legal sanctions are sound and reasonable. The positive intentions of the whole scheme, which is designed to provide a security which is essential, should not be invalidated by the fear of one aspect of it, concerning which one party says the legal proposals go too far and the other party that they do not go far enough. The White Paper proposes a solution.
My Lords, there is only one answer to fear as I am sure your Lordships know: it is faith, or perhaps it is easier to call it "trust". So many of our conflicts and so much of our strife arises from lack of trust. We suffer to-day from

787
suspicion and mistrust that are rooted in the past. But let us look to the future and seek to create a new spirit of trust upon which we can build more securely. This is what the White Paper seeks to do.
The proposed Commission on Industrial Relations offers to the trade unions many positive advantages which ought to be openly recognised. The emphasis on the recruitment and on the training of additional officers, the securing of more information to be sent all down the line, the simplifying of certain procedures, increased freedom for trade union activities, and the correction of faults in collective bargaining, with the improvement in its machinery: all these positive advantages are to be thoroughly welcomed.
Discussion has raged—indeed, it has raged here—around the cooling-off period, but surely any dangers are sufficiently safeguarded and its whole purpose is to secure further conciliation.
"Jaw, jaw is better than war, war",
Sir Winston Churchill once said, and the community is entitled to safeguards against the dangers caused to the economy by wildcat unofficial strikes. But let it be emphasised that this cooling-off period to be used for "jaw, jaw" must be used for conciliation, and any ultimate pay award should be made retrospective.
The secret strike ballot has apparently stirred up a hornet's nest, and here again the proposals for a ballot are surrounded by adequate safeguards, as they should be. The fear of strike ballots appears to exist more often in the minds of trade union officials than their members. A poll, conducted by Research Services Limited, on behalf of the Daily Mirror and published by that paper on January 30, reveals overwhelming support for the strike curb proposals contained in the White Paper: 1,988 male members were questioned, and there was a majority of three to one in favour of secret ballots of union members before official strikes and in favour of compulsory cooling-off periods to postpone unofficial strikes. The ballot should be the exception rather than the rule—this is made perfectly clear in the White Paper—and be enforceable only when the Secretary of State believes that the proposed strike would involve a serious threat to the economy or public interest, and there is doubt whether it
788
commands the support of those concerned.
It is quite obvious that many strikes would not take place if there were quick and effective methods of resolving the matter in dispute. Reform of collective bargaining will remove many causes of strikes. Better procedure will resolve disputes before the impatience of those concerned leads to a strike. And in all these matters the C.I.R. can perform a very valuable service. Every effort should be made to ensure that conciliation is given every chance to work. In addition to the proposed developments in the conciliation work of the D.E.P., there is a case to be made for the extension of the most remarkable work undertaken by Sir Jack Scamp by the possible appointment of a tribunal consisting of three acceptable and experienced persons from management, from the trade unions and an independent chairman, who could be immediately available to be called in when a dispute arose. Speed of action and acceptance of the tribunal's findings would be essential to the success of such a proposal, which I hope may be considered.
The White Paper concludes on the point on which I will also conclude—a new opportunity. It is this which is presented to us, and I hope that the challenge of this new opportunity will be accepted. In place of strife, what? The elimination of fear, the development of trust, the insistence on justice for all, the promotion of right relationships and better and quicker procedures. We should be grateful for the increasing co-operation and good relationships that already exist in the majority of industrial concerns, so that bitterness is taken out of strife. But there are still areas in which the situation calls for urgent redress and remedy, such as I believe is outlined in this White Paper. But two things are necessary: first that we should get our motives right, which can be summed up in one word, "service"; secondly, that there is in us all a determined will to work together for the common good. Goodwill and common sense—that is what we need, based on those two factors of which I have already spoken, truth and justice: truth which is honesty, integrity; justice, the willingness to give every man his due. On those two principles trust can be built provided the proper structures are

789
available, the trust that will eliminate the fear which bedevils so many of our political, economic and personal relationships.
7.55 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I rise to support the White Paper, and in particular paragraph 18 which sets out the four main objectives: the reform of collective bargaining, the extension of the role and rights of trade unions, new aids to those who are involved in collective bargaining, and new safeguards for the community and individuals.
For ten years in another place I was the Member for a trade union city, and when I went there in 1949, some twenty years ago (the year before the pending General Election), the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union was Mr. Jack Jones. On his promotion to Midlands General Secretary in Birmingham—and we saw him go with much regret—his sucessor was Mr. Harry Urwin. Both taught me a lot and helped me a lot. In fact we waged many useful campaigns together, and I hope that they would consider me a good Member for the city. Probably both would think I was further to the Right than they were, but I believe that both recognised and realised my trust and confidence in the unions. We were on the same side, whoever was Right and whoever was Left. I noticed in the Press on Thursday last that Mr. Urwin said he did not "go much" for titles but believed in a policy of vigorous moderation; and I, too, should like to lay claim to that description. A lesson I did learn in Coventry—and learned painfully—was that one cannot reason with emotion. I learned that at considerable cost, but I did learn it.
During those ten years in another place I had one main regret—and it may seem a strange one. It was that I could not become a member of the trade union group and attend their meetings. Most of my friends were trade unionists, and I had the utmost regard and admiration and affection for them. This regard sprang, I think, from two factors. In the 'thirties I worked in the Rhondda Valley and saw there the full cancer of unemployment, and later my own experiences on the dole underlined any points not fully realised earlier. And then, secondly, in Coventry
790
I saw and understood, again at first hand, the loyalty and sympathy of trade unionists, one for the other.
Anyone with any knowledge of the motor industry knows that in the late 'fifties we had over-full employment in the Coventry car factories. Management did not want to lose skilled workers. Workers, accepting the apparently inevitable cycle of boom and slump in this industry, wanted to stay on for the better times that they felt were just around the corner. Eventually, and inevitably, management said that some men must be laid off. But the unions said, "No; we would rather all be paid less than that some should go". Such an attitude may not have been good for greater productivity, but it showed the comradeship and loyalty of the trade unionists one for the other. In the end, of course, some had to go. No one can tell me anything about unemployment, about mortgage problems, about hire-purchase debts. I had to deal with those in the late 'fifties among the trade unionists who were my constituents in Coventry South.
Because of my experience in the Rhondda and because of my experience as the Member for Coventry South, I did, and do, understand the feeling of "us" and "them". What I deeply regret is that it still remains. I want now to tell Jack Jones and Harry Urwin (if the House will allow me the familiarity) what decent ordinary people outside the trade union movement think about all this. I care what such people think, and I hope that the trade union movement cares, too. After all, it is no use having plain speaking if it is all from one side, and those who speak their minds are no less friends of the trade unions than those who remain silent.
I do not pretend to understand the law of industrial relations, and I believe that others, better trained, better qualified than I am, do not understand it either. But what I am convinced about, and what I hope legal eminences and laymen alike are equally convinced about, is that the law of industrial relations is in urgent need of enlightened reform. It is of course the dispute at Ford's which has highlighted all these matters for the general public, and it would not be realistic to omit reference to this dispute in today's debate, although nobody would wish to exacerbate the situation there. It

791
would be an understatement to say how relieved everyone is that—and I think I had better say "apparently"—we may be reaching a settlement there. I do not know what further news is on the tape, but when I came in a little time ago things looked better. But, equally, it would be an understatement to say that the mind of the general public will have been set at rest. They want to be assured about what now happens at Fords, what now happens elsewhere, and what happens in the future to industry; and it is the thoughts of the general public that I am trying to convey to-day.
About two weeks ago the public noted that Mr. Les Kealey, a senior official of the Transport and General Workers' Union and a member of the negotiating team at Fords, had resigned. It was stated that he had clashed with his union when he decided that he could not oppose a majority verdict seeking fresh talks with Fords. As he was not prepared to go against majority decisions of the negotiating committee his union removed him from that committee, whereupon Mr. Kealey resigned.
Without going into the rights or the wrongs of this particular dispute, the ordinary British public, and British public opinion, believe that majority decisions should carry the day. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Milford, is about to come into the Chamber, because when he spoke about his regret (I think I am right in this) that some of his friends had taken part in majority decisions, and that these had been invalidated, I thought I would say the same thing. I do not know that the noble Lord would agree with me about this, but he is now here and can, if he wishes, interrupt me: the ordinary British public expect that majority decisions should carry the day and that without such acceptance democracy will not get far. I, for one, in politics and industry alike, have become more than a little tired of articulate minorities claiming that true democracy demands the overthrow of majority decisions because the minority disagree. I had to live with that argument in another place for many years. In the Ford dispute we then had the statement by the minority of the negotiating committee that this so-called majority decision was really a case of the
792
tail wagging the dog. Why? Because when the Ford deal was accepted by a majority on the union side two unions, who between them represent almost half of the Ford labour force, did not vote in favour.
Now the only true deduction to be made from this reasoning is that unions on the union negotiating committee should not have one vote each, but should have votes varying according to the numbers of workers involved. This may well be right. But surely the unions should agree among themselves on the composition and voting rights of their own negotiating committee before discussions take place, and should accept the decisions reached. Otherwise what is the use of having a negotiating committee? So the public ask for two reasonable assurances: that majority decisions should stand, and that union negotiating committees should be so composed by unions that their decisions are accepted. Outsiders do not see these demands as being complicated, but see them as an obvious prerequisite to industrial bargaining.
A great deal of harm has been done to the image of the trade unions by this whole affair. Those of us who care about the image of the unions, wondered when somebody on that side would speak up. On March 8 Mr. Mark Young, chairman of the union negotiating committee, resigned, saying that he did not intend to get embroiled in what he considered discreditable conduct by the unions. He personally considered the agreement a very good one, and he went on to say:
"Any idea that some unions entertain that you can retain the attractive parts while withdrawing the parts you do not like is completely unrealistic. To demand further increases on the rates of pay already established in the agreement is an impossible ultimatum. Carried to its logical conclusion it can only mean a conflict between the Government and the unions."
A day later on Sunday, March 9, Mr. Cannon, President of the Electrical and Plumbing Trades' Union, said that this was a bad day for the trade union movement, and that events over the past couple of weeks had,
"shaken confidence in the whole collective bargaining machinery and in our ability to keep to our word and our agreements."
My Lords, it is not for me to pontificate as to whether or not this was a good

793
agreement. I am aware of the difference in the hourly rates paid elsewhere, particularly in the Midlands and at Fords—and Mr. Jack Jones would be conscious of this. But it is for me, or for anyone, to stress what outsiders think about these happenings. As my noble Leader said, and as a speaker on the other side also said, Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane stated that in this country collective agreements arrived at by the process of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions are not, as such, enforceable in a court of law, and:
"without clear and express provisions making them amenable to legal action they remain in the realm of undertakings binding in honour only."
What has shaken so many of us who believe in the trade unions, and what I think we must now say, is that at the moment the general public do not rate very highly the honour of the trade unions where the keeping of agreements is concerned. Only the unions can put this situation right, and I believe they will put it right only if enough people speak up. To those of my colleagues in another place who say that this White Paper should not be supported, and that matters should be left to the unions to deal with, I think there can be only one reply: we wish it were possible so to do. I am sure my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes it were, and I should like here to pay my tribute to all that she is trying to do.
I have mentioned two points—majority decisions and the authority of union negotiating committees. Now I should like to come to a third one: how well did the workers concerned know what this was all about? Each side made statements; the Press amplified some and ignored others. The atmosphere became worse and worse. Doubtless many of your Lordships say on television workers who said that convenors stressed the bad points about the employers and that employers stressed the bad points about the convenors. I recall one worker saying, "If only we could have it set down in black and white we could judge for ourselves". I think this was done by the Ford management on March 9 or 10. One of the biggest shortcomings today is the continued lack of real communication between union leaders and workers. I believe that this lack, or this
794
gap, offers a fertile vacuum for mischief-making. I hope that the unions, who always state that they believe in plain speaking, will accept that those of us who regretfully have spoken up to-day on this issue are certainly no less their friends than those who acquiesce.
There are two things I should like to see in the future. It seems to me wrong that public services should be disrupted by strike action, official or unofficial. I do not think that people, strikers or anyone else, should be deprived of, for example, gas, electricity, transport, telephone; in other words, of a service that has no alternative. The second thing I should like to see is contracts made legally binding, as the White Paper states at paragraph 46. I am sure many of your Lordships know that in Hereford, at the £28 million nickel rolling mill of Henry Wiggin, there is a legally binding contract between men and management. It is probably unique in Britain. Both sides clearly intended on signature that its provisions—which include a straightforward "no strike clause"—should bind them in law. Among the signatories is the Amalgamated Engineers and Foundry Workers. And so I should like to see contracts made legally binding, not by legislation but by the wish of contracting parties so that this was written into, eventually, all agreements. This means a change of climate which can be brought about only by the contracting parties concerned, by the good will of both.
In the latter part of this decade I have always seen the work to be done by trade unions as being even more momentous than that of Government or employers; quite simply because if trade unionists do not accept a transition to new thinking and new concepts, then any work by Government or employers will have little value. I believe so much in what trade unions stand for. I understand so well why they felt as they did in the past. I realise so well how difficult it is, because of this past, to change; and I could have wept over these past few weeks when people said to me, "The unions are prepared to wreck this country with their unreasonable demands". What defence had I? Orders cancelled; exports cancelled; worse still, markets lost. Like my friends in the trade union movement, I would fight to the end for what I believed in,

795
but I do not believe in what some of these same friends are doing to-day.
Earlier I referred to the gap between union leaders and workers. The general public are coming to believe that trade union leaders cannot deliver the goods; that militant shop stewards have the last word instead of being part of a democratic, industrial organisation. It is only the unions who can put this right. Neither legislation, nor Government, nor employers can do it. The one thing that can wreck the economic recovery of our country is what we are discussing to-day. We must hope, every one of us here and outside, that those with grievances, from whichever side they come, management and unions alike, will in future set those grievances in perspective and see them against the tragedy that threatens to engulf the whole nation.
8.15 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, tonight at this late hour I shall confine myself entirely to the topic of the law. That is not because other aspects of this subject and of this White Paper do not interest me, or that I think that the legal aspect is the only or necessarily the most important part of the problem before us. It is simply because those who speak with great authority for the trade unions and for industry have made their expert and knowledgeable contributions, and I could not hope to rival their experience. I thought it best to confine myself to the subject of trade union law which has occupied me a good deal in the course of my life and in debates in both Houses.
I suppose it is almost exactly 23 years ago that I wrote a book on trade union law, and I think that those who were with me in the House of Commons—such as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson—did not get the view that I was not sympathetic to the aims and aspirations of trade unionists. I may say in passing that I was very much relieved, in glancing at my surviving copy of my little book, that on the second limb of Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 I found that 23 years ago I said almost precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, has said in his Report. He will not approve of everything I am going to say, but I am delighted that I agree with him entirely on that particular subject.
796
I think it is important to realise what great harm can be done if we get the law about trade unions wrong; that is to say, if we enact anything that is unwise, unjust or contrary to legal principle. May I give an example from the past. I believe that great harm has been done to our industrial relations and to the development of our law by the absolute immunity granted to trade unions against actions for tort by Section 4 of the 1906 Act. The interesting thing about that enactment in 1906 was that it was in complete defiance of the considered recommendation of the Royal Commission that had considered the matter.
In the year 1901 we had in swift succession the decisions of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case and in the famous case of Quinn v. Leathem, which not unnaturally caused difficulty and controversy and seemed to demand examination and legislation. A very powerful Royal Commission sat, presided over by a great Judge, Lord Dunedin. Other members who signed this important report were Mr. Arthur Cohen, K.C., and Mr. Sidney Webb, one of the famous historians of trade unionism. My Lords, I am most anxious that in future we should not make similar mistakes, and may I remind you in a few sentences what the Royal Commission recommended about how to deal with the Taff Vale judgment.
I will quote a few sentences:
"It remains now to consider the question on the ground of justice and equity, and here the objections against disturbing the law as laid down in the Taff Vale case appear insurmountable. There is no rule of law so elementary, so universal or so indispensable as the rule that a wrongdoer should be made to redress his wrong. If trade unions were exempt from this liability they would be the only exception, and it would then be right that that exception should be removed. That vast and powerful institutions should be permanently licensed to apply the funds they possess to do wrong to others, and by that wrong inflict upon them damage, perhaps to the amount of many thousands of pounds, and yet not be liable for redress out of these funds would be a state of things opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice."
The passage is too long to read the whole, but after saying that this did not mean that trade unions might not be the most admirable institutions, it ended with these sentences:
"Such a claim has indeed in former times been made by the spiritual as against the civil authority, and has been consistently disallowed. What was denied to religion ought

797
not, in our judgment, to be conceded to trade unionism."
That was the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
In 1906 two Bills were introduced to give effect to the Royal Commission's recommendations. The Bill introduced by the Government followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission and did not reverse the Taff Vale judgment. Simultaneously a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the then young Labour Party. At the Second Reading of the Government Bill in the House of Commons the Attorney General made an emphatic speech saying why the Royal Commission was right and why it would be a monstrous thing to reverse the Taff Vale decision. Mr. Asquith, who at that time was Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed similar views a few years earlier when he held another office. Yet within 48 hours or so of the Attorney General's speech, the Government put down a series of Amendments abandoning everything which the Government had intended and adopting everything asked for by the Labour Party. Thus we got the absolute immunity against actions of tort, an immunity which has lasted to this day. I am delighted to see that both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and his Commission and Her Majesty's Government in the White Paper propose to bring that state of affairs to an end and to limit the immunity given under Section 4 to actions in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
I wholly applaud that part of the Government's White Paper, as I applaud the recommendation of the Royal Commission. But I am very much puzzled by the failure of the Government to adopt another well-reasoned suggestion of the Royal Commission that would give registered trade unions corporate status. It is cogently argued in the report of the Royal Commission at pages 207 to 213. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, will later correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that part of the recommendation of the Royal Commission was unanimous; I do not think that anybody differed from it. I have not seen any lawyers or others put up a reasoned argument against that proposal of the Royal Commission. Yet in the White
798
Paper not a single argument is put against this reasoned proposal by the Royal Commission. Paragraph 111 of the White Paper simply says:
"The Royal Commission recommended that trade unions should be given corporate status. The T.U.C. has represented that this would be undesirable, as it would have no significant advantages and would not be appropriate to unions' constitutional structure. The Government accepts these arguments and does not propose to implement the Royal Commission's recommendation."
I have seldom seen a more frivolous dismissal of a considered recommendation by an eminent body of men—a recommendation against which so far no argument has been advanced. They say that the T.U.C. do not like it. But who was sitting on the Royal Commission and agreed with it? None other than the distinguished former Secretary of the T.U.C., Mr. George Woodcock. If the recommendation had such frightful disadvantages from the point of view of the trade unions, Mr. George Woodcock might have noticed it and explained it to his colleagues. I therefore find it extraordinary that this considered recommendation has been thrown aside in this way.
I now turn to a problem which has so much engaged us: what can we do about strikes? I have always thought, and indeed I have advised trade unionists who have asked my opinion, that the maintenance of the right to strike is essential. What is too often assumed, and quite wrongly assumed, is that a strike must involve of necessity a breach of contract. A strike is a concerted withdrawal of labour, but it need not be a breach of contract. The idea that the only effective withdrawal of labour must be a withdrawal in breach of contract is wholly untrue. What can we do, if we can do anything, to deal with this evil? The noble Lord, the Leader of the House, who introduced this Motion in an admirably clear and good-tempered speech, realised the seriousness of these strikes, as do the Royal Commission and indeed everybody else. I should like to consider separately under three heads what we can do by remedies against strikes which we wish to stop or to discourage. There are remedies against one of three sets of people. There might be action against the trade union itself, action against the workmen, or action against those who incited or promoted the strike.

799
Let me take those three cases separately. By far the most effective, of course, would be action against the trade union itself if that were possible in a proper case. That is why we have had so much discussion about the question of whether the contract is a lawful contract and is enforceable. I do not want to indulge in a great deal of talk about that, because I think I can probably say something with which everybody will be in agreement—and I am certain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, will agree—that is, that it is perfectly possible to have an enforceable contract between a company and a trade union.
There is a good deal of misunderstanding about the effect of Section 4 of the Act of 1871. That section prevents certain classes of contract from being directly enforceable. Incidentally, it does not prevent an action for a declaration or an action for an injunction, even in those cases. But it prevents an enforceable contract between two trade unions, and an employers' organisation can well be a trade union. But the noble Lord the Leader of the House was absolutely right in saying that there was nothing in the case of the Ford agreement that was in any way hit by Section 4 of the 1871 Act. Before I consider what it is now proposed to do with Section 4, let me say that fact that an agreement is not of a class that under the section cannot be directly enforced does not mean that it must ipso facto be an enforceable agreement in the courts. It may be that by simply looking at it you can see quite clearly that it was not so intended.
I think there are two proposals which have been put forward about getting rid of the difficulty, such as it is, of Section 4. I think the Royal Commission, and, incidentally, the Conservative Party, both thought that the section might be repealed altogether. The Government prefer—and I am not saying that their reasons are necessarily wrong—to modify only subsection (4) of Section 4, by making it clear that if both parties so desire there can be an enforceable agreement between two trade unions. The effect of that would be that the trade union itself would be liable and might have to pay damages if it broke a contract intended to be enforceable. That might be the best form of agreement if both parties
800
desired such an agreement. I agree with a great deal of what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said, but I had some sympathy with the point put by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I doubt whether the mere fact of such an agreement being enforceable would enable a contract to be enforced against individual trade unionists.
I am now going to make a suggestion which I have not heard made hitherto, either in this debate or on any other occasion, but which I honestly believe may be a natural development in industrial relations. Anyhow, I hope that it may be considered. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and his colleagues are very optimistic in thinking that the reform of collective bargaining which they advise will itself cause such an improvement in industrial relations that what we do about the law of enforcement will become much less important, and that that is a matter which can wait—I am paraphrasing now and not giving a precise quotation. I believe that to be much too optimistic. In fact, it was not until I read the Note of Reservation by Mr. Andrew Shonfield that I found the first mention in the Royal Commission's Report of what is such an alarming feature of the present situation—and it was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
Let me make it quite clear that I am not associating myself with everything that Mr. Shonfield said in his positive recommendations. On a great many points I very much prefer what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan. But I thought Mr. Shonfield put accurately the awful risk—in fact, it is more than a risk, since it is now taking place—of there being a number of negotiators for trade unions who have no serious intention of being bound by an agreement from the earliest moment they see a chance of doing something better. I can say this with less hesitation, because remarks of a similar kind have been made, or implied, by a good trade unionist, Mr. George Brown; by the Prime Minister himself, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. These things are well known and it is no good pretending that we do not know these facts of life. Let me say at once, so as not to be misunderstood, that I have been, I hope, a friend in this House

801
and in another place of trade unionists of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and what I have described is exactly the opposite of everything which he has practised and which other noble Lords who have addressed us today have practised. But the noble Lord, Lord Geddes of Epsom, himself drew attention to some of the deterioration.
May I come to what I believe to be a possible part of the contents of such an agreement, which would deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his intervention during the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne? Would it not be possible, if the company and the trade union wished an agreement to be enforceable—and I think some of them would—for the trade union to covenant that if the men struck in breach of what had been arranged the union would pay to the company a sum of money laid down in the agreement? I should have thought that when a trade union negotiated with a company it might be held, so to speak, to warrant that it had some sort of right to represent the men, and that it will be content itself to suffer loss if the men do not do what they have undertaken the men shall do.
Of course it may be said that such an agreement would not be made. But if we go on in the present way, in which an agreement is valueless to a company because it may be broken the next day, then I believe that we shall get a refusal by the companies to make an agreement at all. People sometimes say that if an agreement is enforceable the trade union will not agree to it, and if it is not enforceable the company may not. That is a subject for negotiation. If an agreement were good enough from the point of view of the trade union, I believe that such an agreement might sometimes be made.
My Lords, I come now to action against the men—and here I feel a slight grievance against the Royal Commission's Report, in many passages, and the White Paper which constantly make a point that the employers could sue the men to-day for breach of contract in the event of a strike but do not in fact do so. Of course not: because it would be a perfectly futile thing to do; not for the reasons given—that they do not want to put themselves on bad terms with their
802
men—but because of the measure of damages. If a man goes out on strike in breach of his contract, he loses his entitlement to wages and the employer need not pay those wages. So if an employer sued a workman for damages for breach of contract, he would have to show teat the value of the services he has lost was so much in excess of the wages he was paying. I dare say that he could get a nominal sum, but nothing could be more futile, it seems to me, than that form of action. I do not think it proves in the least that the employers would never sue if there were a useful form of action; for instance, if they had an effective remedy against a person who induced the men to break their contract—and this they could often do. In an appropriate case they could get an injunction; and they could often get damages of an amount which would in some cases make it worth their while to seek such damages, were it not for the defence generally provided by Section 3 of the 1906 Act.
My Lords, this leads me to my most substantial difference from the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the Government's White Paper. The advice given by the distinguished Royal Commission presided over by Lord Dunedin was that they recommended legislation:
"(3) To declare that to persuade to strike, i.e., to desist from working."—
and note these words, my Lords—
"apart from procuring breach of contract, is not illegal.
"(4) To declare that an individual shall not be liable for doing any act not itself an actionable tort, only on the ground that it is an interference with another person's trade, business or employment."
That is now the second limb of Section 3, but the first limb of Section 3 is precisely the opposite of what the Royal Commission had recommended.
My Lords, as I said in the debates in 1964 and 1965, I do not suppose any provision of trade union law has been quite so much condemned by lawyers. Professor Geldart, who was an authority on trade union law, considered it "one of the entirely unjustifiable provisions of the Act". I have ventured to quote on an earlier occasion, but I repeat to-night, the words of my friend Cyril Asquith, the late Lord Asquith of Bishopstone, in his book on trade union law:
"It is true that a 'lightning strike' in breach of contract is more effective than

803
one which allows existing contracts to run out. It is often possible to profit (temporarily at least) by violating solemn engagements or procuring their violation by others, but there seems no sufficient reason for legalising the practice, whether it is indulged in pursuance of a trade dispute or in any other connection."
My Lords, my great quarrel with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which has been followed by Her Majesty's Government, is that not merely are they doing nothing to diminish this unprincipled liberty to induce breaches of contract, but that they are proposing to add to it the liberty to induce breaches of contract of a commercial nature. I imagine that if it was thought desirable to starve the managing director of the company against which they were striking by inducing all his suppliers to cut off his supplies of food, that would be protected under the section as extended. My Lords, I beg the Government to give this matter further consideration. I believe that if they insist on this extension they will lose their main chance of getting agreement to their other reforms.
Why is this suggested by the Royal Commission? It is because otherwise it might be rather difficult for somebody trying to induce a breach of contract—he might be a trade union leader or it might be anybody else—to decide precisely what was legal and what was not legal; and that is true. There is set out, on a page with which I will not bother the House, a number of ways in which interference in effect with commercial contracts could be conducted sometimes without running into the mischief of the law; but, nevertheless, there are cases where that is and can be effectively prevented. I think it is madly irresponsible to say, in the interests of clarity, that anybody can induce a breach of contract without having to think twice about it. That is not to make the law better but to make the law much worse.
My Lords, the majority of the Royal Commission included another recommendation, that the section extended in the way they proposed should only protect registered trade unions and their agents. The Government accept the extension which I have condemned, but reject the limitation. Their reasons for rejecting the limitation are set out in paragraph 88 of the White Paper. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, is such a
804
kindly man that I dare say he will not say what he really thinks of paragraph 88 of the White Paper. I now gather that he is going to, which delights me. I have never seen a more ridiculous set of reasons for rejecting what Lord Donovan has proposed by way of limitation. It is said:
"The implementation of this recommendation would mean that unofficial strike leaders could be sued by employers for inducing strikers to break their contracts. The Government does not believe that this would improve matters."
The majority of the Royal Commission thought it would.
"First, the great majority of employers would probably not be prepared to sue unofficial strike leaders."
The great majority might not, but others might, and the strike leaders might not know. Then they say:
"Second, unions could declare strikes by their members to be official unless they decided otherwise, thus bringing the leaders of such strikes once more under the protection of section 3 as amended …"
That would transform the situation in other ways. It would make them liable, among other things, for strike pay which they may not want. Then it goes on:
"…if any employers did take legal action the strike leaders would have no defence even if their unofficial strike was justified."
Remember, my Lords, the strike induced is a strike involving breach of contract. Generally, breach of contract can be avoided altogether merely by waiting a week. I will leave the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, to deal, as I hope he will, with that paragraph in the White Paper.
My Lords, the final point I wish to make, and I think it is of some importance, is about the closed shop and dismissals. It is dealt with in paragraph 118 of the White Paper. I am not going into the extremely difficult question of the closed shop. That is a very difficult matter. I regret rather that in its treatment in the Royal Commission Report it was not even thought necessary to refer to Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which seems to me to have some bearing on the matter. I am not condemning the closed shop in every case, but I ask noble Lords to look at paragraph 118 of the White Paper dealing with that matter. Suppose a man in a closed shop falls out

805
with his union and is compelled to leave his employment. However much the employers may regret that, however unwilling they may be to get rid of him, yet if they did get rid of him who do you think would have to pay compensation for his dismissal?—the employer. That is justified, if it could be justified, by paragraph 564 of the Royal Commission Report. It says:
"As things now stand, however, dismissal of a non-unionist is more likely to result from pressure on the shop-floor by workmates who refuse to work, or to go on working, with a non-unionist. If a claim arises, we envisage that the labour tribunal will take into account the dismissed worker's reason for refusing to join a union, and whether he has in some way provoked the action of his fellow-workers, but we do not rule out the possibility of compensation being awarded against the employer. It might be argued that this is unjust,"—
By Jove, it can!—
"since it is the union, not the employers, which stands to gain from an insistence on an employee's being in the union. But the decision to dismiss is the employer's taken ultimately because he considers it to the advantage of his business."
Well, my Lords, he may be yielding to the blackmail that otherwise his business may be closed. Let us remember that by the Trade Disputes Act 1965 we have reversed the decision of the courts in Rookes v. Barnard; so that now, by the action of Parliament itself, it is possible for men to decide that they do not wish to work with a particular worker or to readmit him to their trade union and, by threatening to close the business altogether, they may compel the employer to dismiss him. Then, say the Royal Commission, the employer pays him damages. This strikes—
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that there were no fewer than five dissensions from that view including the Chairman and myself.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most delighted to hear it. I have been working very hard reading all these documents over the weekend. They are fairly long. I sometimes think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, may think that judicial business in this House is simplicity itself compared with the proceedings under this Royal Commission. I am sorry if I have delayed the House
806
for too long but these matters teem to me to be worthy of consideration.
8.55 p.m.
LORD HILL OF WIVENHOE: My Lords, I can assure the House that I shall not speak for very long. I can see that if someone does not sharpen the discussion, there will be from the long list of speakers many who will not get home to-night. Much of what has been said I should have said if I had spoken earlier; but, looking at In Place of Strife, while I can probably agree with the bulk of it, I should never agree to the penalty clauses. I do not think I could agree to them if I lived until I was 90. Having been a trade union official all my life, I realise that things are not as easy as one tries to depict them in a White Paper. One can look at the international league table on strikes. I have examined it over the years. I remember that one year we were third from the bottom. This was marvellous. We have never been in the top half of the chart, and now we are seventh from the bottom.
Sometimes I wonder why we are creating all this fuss, having regard to the fact that the loss per man per ''ear is 1·6 man-hours. In 1921, the year in which I finished my apprenticeship, there were 85 million man-hours lost in strikes and lockouts, with only half the working population that we have to-day. In actual fact, 40 times more time was lost in strikes and lockouts then than to-day. In 1922, there were 20 million working days lost in strikes and lockouts. This is ten times greater than the total to-day. But we must look at all the circumstances. The amount of time lost through accidents at work is also ten times greater than the amount lost through strikes; and if you take into account sickness, a hundred times more time is lost through sickness than through strikes.
Of course, the T.U.C. has tried to play its part. It cannot always achieve all that it wants; but we have tried to reduce some of these losses from year to year. Time after time we have made representations to various Governments trying to persuade them to increase the number of factory inspectors, so that there would be fewer accidents at work, so that working conditions would be better, so that less sickness would arise from work. But we have not achieved our objective. I do

807
not think the situation is as bad as some would have us believe. We shall always have the newspapers, the Press of this country, denigrating the trade union movement. That will always be—we know that—because they are not owned by our people. But I say this. As a past member of the T.U.C. General Council, I say that the British trade union movement is the finest in the world. This is the only country in the Western World that has a single trade union movement. If you go abroad you will find that there are two, three or four trade union movements in the Western World countries. They are split by politics and religion. That is not so in this country.
To say that the T.U.C. has done nothing over the last few years is not to tell the truth. The T.U.C. has done more over the last ten years, in trying to get amalgamation between the unions, in trying to avoid strikes, than ever it did before. It has more power than ever before and is using it. But Rome was not built in a day. You cannot persecute people for 50, 60 or 70 years and then suddenly expect to cuddle them. This will not work. There are plenty of bad employers knocking around now. I was on the Ford negotiating machine for many years, and there was more trouble at Ford's, and at the other American firms in this country, than we had with all the British employers put together. What is the good of our shouting about this? The Ford strike has happened at a bad time, but I cannot say that a loss of 1·6 working hours per man a year is a really bad figure.
My Lords, let me remind those who wrote the article that if they look at the matter a little more thoroughly they will find that British workers work more days per year than the workers of any other country in the world. I wonder whether they know that, or whether they know that in this country the workers have only six statutory holidays. In Sweden they have eleven, and in Italy they have fifteen. Why malign our trade union movement for 1·6 hours per year? You have to look at this matter in the correct perspective. I shall oppose with all the power I have any attempt to put in a penal code. That has not succeeded in other countries, and it will not succeed in this country.
808
My Lords, I said that I was going to be brief and I shall be, but let me say this: if you insist on fining the workers that go out on strike, they will not go out any more. They will do what Cabinet Ministers and top executives do; they will send in their resignations. They will ask for their books and their back pay and they will clear out. You will not be able to touch them because that is their perfect right. The workers can be organised in a way which can defeat even legislation. Do not let us be so stupid as to think that workers will not do a thing unless you force them to do it. I belonged to an organisation, the members of which, I am sure, would have done that. I say to the Government that it would be wise to withdraw these penal clauses from the White Paper, because you can rest assured that the British trade union movement will never accept them.
9.2 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I rise with a feeling that I have been given an instruction. When he opened this debate the noble Lord the Leader of the House mentioned my name as one who had had a great deal of experience about which I might speak. I hope that I shall do so in the way he expected. It is true that it is getting on for 70 years since I first became an apprentice in a shipyard. I joined the trade union and worked, I hope, to rule but I was stopped on one occasion by a shop steward for exceeding the time laid down for caulking a deck. It was a time when there was no other way in which a person could earn money if he was out of a job. I remember that a friend of mine, a colleague, said to me, "Aye, Dudley, when you're idle its bad when the kids start roaring for grub." That was the situation in those days. Certainly it became better later on, and it was, I suppose, the start of what we are trying to get at to-day; that is, a happy collaboration.
I went from that firm to another works and continued what I was doing, and things were a bit better from that point of view. The firm was a family firm which created a state of happy collaboration. Later on I went to other places, but always I experienced happy relations. To my mind that is something which cannot be created by a law. People must be happy together, because they appreciate that happiness. The works, where I re-

809
mained for a very long time and eventually became the chairman, had been in existence for a great many years. Most of the men there had been employed at the works for a long time, and their fathers had worked there before them. We used to be given little talismen to wear when we had been there for any length of time. I am wearing one now, indicating 50 years' service. It was easy—well, I will not say easy, but the effect was that we did not have trouble. There were expeditions at certain times and special meetings, and so on, for those who had served for 25 years and onwards. The firm was always busy and did a lot of export work. As time went on it got larger.
I went on to other firms where there was also that sort of feeling. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, I had a lot of experience. When I retired I was very fortunate, in that I could become a Member of this House. One thing that delighted me was that I found in your Lordships' House—there have been others since—prominent members of the Trades Union Congress, who had been a tremendous help. They came to our works and had talks with the apprentices. They gave prizes and encouraged the apprentices to feel that they had a proper future before them. I think that is more difficult to-day in certain cases. I am thinking specially of works which are looked upon as small, where there are, say, fewer than 10,000 employees.
In an organisation of that sort, to keep things happy the great thing is to get the wives into it, too. In the firm to which I am referring the shop stewards used to give parties and all the wives came to them. Some people think of shop stewards as ruffians of a sort. I can assure those people that they are quite wrong in that. We had an arrangement that in the morning, before work was started generally, the chairman and the convenor of the shop stewards' committee used to come to the managing director to discuss the day's work. When we issued the directors' report and accounts for the year a copy was made for every person employed in the company. It was not handed out from the office it was posted to each man's home, so that the "old woman" could see it, too. And we had very happy parties.
810
I need not go on describing things of this sort, but I am confident that they occur in many companies, particularly if they are not too large and have a reputation of which everyone employed is proud. We hear a great deal about our industrial troubles, particularly at the present moment, but I want to emphasise that a great many firms are not affected. That is not generally realised and nothing is said about it. When things are bad, it is published very fully and is on the wireless and television, and it goes abroad; but when firms are doing well and things are happy, nothing is said about it. So, almost deliberately, the wrong impression is given to foreigners. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory. referred to this same point.
We should let other people know that we are a great country and that the vast majority of people are good and sensible; and though there are many reports in the Press and on television of wicked doings, these are the doings of a small part of the population. We should always be proud of our country and do our best to carry on happily together.
9.12 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, first of all, I think that it is only right that I should declare an interest in the subject matter that is before your Lordships to-day. I assure you that it is not a financial one. But having been up to three years ago a member of the miners' union for nearly sixty years., I am sure it will occasion no surprise when I say that I have a deep and abiding interest in the trade union movement, and particularly in this subject of industrial relations.
May I say on this topic that I think that the mining industry is an example to the rest of the industries in the country. I remember the days when we used to refer to it as "the cockpit of the economic struggle." It is not that to-day. We have one union, negotiating for all the workers in the industry; and the system of consultation from the pits, the areas and the divisions right up to headquarters at Hobart House, while it does not give satisfaction to everybody, nevertheless provides machinery which, it my view, has been a success and is an example to the industrial life of the country.
In my lifetime, and much further back in time than that—indeed, really from

811
the inception of the trade union movement—there have been many ups and downs, with sacrifice and struggle from the beginning. The same qualities have been demonstrated by thousands of men and women to maintain its existence and to gain it a recognised place in our economic and social life. No one would dispute that this has now been accomplished. The fact that we are debating it, as we are to-day, is perhaps the best and most classic indication that the trade union movement is now looked upon as being of some importance, and has gained its rightful place in our social and economic life.
When so much of the debate is about the trade union movement and its part in industrial relations in our modern society, I cannot let the occasion pass without a tribute to the many who have done so much to give status, standing and prestige to the trade union movement in this country. It is true that throughout its life there have been penalties and pressures, legal and economic; and if my reading of the history of the trade union movement is correct, these things have characterised it throughout its history. Certainly—and I say this with some feeling—the men and women of my generation find it difficult to forget what the trade union movement has had to endure to survive. It is with thoughts such as these, and of the immediate and long-term future, that I approach the White Paper that is before us to-day.
The proposals before us are the result of the Donovan Commission's Report. What a vast amount of work they put into taking and sifting evidence, and trying to draw the blueprint of what the pattern should be in our industrial relations of the future! While I have some reservations (and if I have time I will go into some of them), nevertheless, the philosophy and the thinking behind the White Paper indicate to me that the intentions are very good indeed, and I look upon the proposals as a bold attempt to improve industrial relations in our country.
I read with great interest the debate in another place on these proposals, and particularly was I interested in one part of the speech by the spokesman for the official Opposition, Mr. Carr. The same
812
idea was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this afternoon, and I want to make one or two comments about it. First of all, I must confess that on reading Mr. Carr's speech, and also listening to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this afternoon, it put me in a very reflective mood. My first reaction was this: "Ah! How easy it is to be wise after the event." What the speaker in another place had in mind, and also the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this afternoon, were the legal duties of employers to recognise and negotiate with the trade unions. This is dealt with in paragraphs 56 to 59 of the White Paper. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in effect said this afternoon, and also Mr. Carr in another place. When there is a doubt about it—when there is more than one union, or maybe no union at all, as is the case in our modern industrial system—the wish of the majority of employees should be determined by secret ballot conducted by an independent authority; and the point was made, not in these words by the noble Lord, but certainly by the official spokesman for the Conservative Party in another place, that industrial democracy begins here. I do not challenge that at all; but I would remind the noble Lords opposite that under paragraph 56 of this White Paper a secret ballot can be taken at the end of the day after evidence from management and unions that the problem has not been resolved by the C.I.R.
However, be that as it may, my immediate reaction was this. Is this conversion to this view now—the right to recognition and to negotiate—really genuine and for how long has this been Conservative Party thinking? I would remind your Lordships—I know it is going back a long time, but forty years in the life of a nation is no more than that—that, had that been the position in 1927 under the Baldwin Government and again in 1937 under the Chamberlain Government, quite a lot of heartache, bitterness and even imprisonment would have been avoided in the British coalfields, and especially in Nottinghamshire. Your Lordships may be curious—certainly I hope you are—as to what I have in mind. I have desired for a long time to have this on the record. This debate to-day seems to be the appropriate occasion.

813
The question of a secret ballot to determine the issue referred to in paragraphs 57 and 58 is not the brainchild of the Conservative Party as laid down in Fair Deal at Work. It is really forty years too late—or they are—because it was actually acted upon in 1927 and again in 1937 by the T.U.C.
What I have in mind was briefly mentioned by the First Secretary in another place. What I am referring to is the emergence of the Spencer Union. This is now history. There is a long story to this, so long that time forbids me to go into it fully. Therefore, I will confine myself to one point, which is this. In the years that I have mentioned two ballots were taken by the T.U.C. in the Nottinghamshire coalfields on the very issue to which I am referring.
At that time there was no Commission for Industrial Relations; there was no legal authority at all to give expression to the wishes of the employees. The employers in Nottinghamshire at that time, believe me, my Lords, were as hard-hearted as Pharaoh. My noble friend Lord Citrine, if he were here, would recall how the 1927 ballot was organised and carried out by the T.U.C. He was Secretary of the T.U.C. at the time. I am sure that some of my noble friends will remember this extremely well as members of the General Council. A second ballot was held in 1937 by his successor, Sir Vincent Tewson. There were many difficulties in the way and it must have cost quite a lot of money. This is the point that I want to make. On both occasions there was an overwhelming majority repudiating the Spencer union as the negotiating body in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, but at that time no one took any notice. The weapon relied upon by the employers and by the then Government of the day was not majority decision by the employees but economic pressure.
My Lords, I am speaking now from experience. The point was reached when the inevitable explosion happened, and in sheer desperation the men in the mining village of Harworth in North Nottinghamshire, fed up with the situation, cried out, "This is enough". And no one except the organised trade union movement took the slightest notice. For six months the struggle went on, creating
814
enmity, the break up of family relationships, bitterness—and how many fines were imposed and how many people were imprisoned it would be difficult for me to say.
The point I wish to make, arising out of that brief history, is that had there been an authority like the C.I.R. it would be reasonable to say that the trouble to which I have referred would have been averted. I welcome the proposal in this White Paper to establish the C.I.R. Its duties are outlined in paragraphs 33 to 37. These duties follow the recommendation of the majority Report of the Donovan Commission. Of course there was a minority of one, Mr. Shonfield, and the Observer on Sunday made an observation—and I am paraphrasing now—that it would be wise to follow Mr. Shonfield's advice in giving the C.I.R. more teeth than it is proposed to give it in the White Paper. I look at it in this way: to give judicial authority and the power of imposition of legal sanctions to the Commission, which has been rejected by the Government, I think at this stage is right. They will be able to probe and prod, and the fact that collective agreements will have to be registered with the Commission will give it a considerable amount of leverage. The Government look to the Commission to be a disseminator of good practice and a focus for reform by good example.
The Commission have already started their work, and all I wish to say—and I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will join with me in this—is that I wish a speedy recovery to good health of the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. George Woodcock. He is sailing on a new, uncharted route. There will be difficulties. There will be uncooperative and, in some cases, recalcitrant employers so far as trade union recognition and the right to negotiate are concerned. The question of multi-unionism will also be one of the things they will have to investigate. It is a piece of machinery—I think the Observer referred to it on Sunday as a "piece of social engineering". However, I look forward to its success. It will not perform miracles overnight but if, by this process, industrial relations can be improved and sweetened it will be more than justification for the institution of the C.I.R.

815
May I now turn for a few moments to the proposals in paragraph 62 of the White Paper; namely, the creation of the new Industrial Board, which it is suggested will have power to impose financial penalties, these penalties to be recoverable
"in the appropriate county court by attachment of earnings and other civil remedies for the collection of debts …"
I should like to make my position absolutely and abundantly clear. This proposal in the White Paper I oppose, and for three reasons: first, on the basis of experience I do not think it will work; secondly, a law that cannot be really enforced is not very good; and thirdly, I believe that the later stage would be worse than the first. Again, the Observer of last Sunday said this:
"If the Government take power to fine unofficial strikers in certain circumstances it would not bring wildcat strikes to an end."
And, of course, the recent classic example is the case in the Kent coalfield in 1941. I will not go into it because it is very well described by Sir Harold Emmerson in Appendix 6 of the Donovan Report.
Paragraph 8 of his written evidence says this:
"The Court was advised not to enforce the unpaid fines."
The imprisoned men were released, and now the matter is hardly mentioned, and it is almost completely forgotten; but in discussing these penal sanctions I think we should bear in mind the experience in the Kent coalfield. On this matter may I just quote from paragraph 486 of the Donovan Report:
"The evidence which we have received from Sir Harold Emmerson… shows the fruitlessness of the use of penal sanctions for the purpose of enforcing industrial peace."
In conclusion, may I ask my noble friend, Lord Hughes, this question. On the assumption—I do not put it any higher than that—that the penal clauses with attachment are implemented (I hope they are not), first, to whom will the money go? Secondly, what is meant in paragraph 62 by "and other civil remedies for the collection of debts"? Will these people have the bailiffs of the county court coming round to their houses and distraining upon their furniture and goods? Thirdly, we are told there will be no liability to imprisonment for people in default of payment. But what does
816
this really mean? Could imprisonment take place for contempt by defying a court order? I hope we can hear something about this. I hope the Government, particularly on this issue, will think again.
In this connection I would quote the words of a well known trade union leader, the secretary of one of our biggest unions in membership to-day:
"If fines are to be extracted from workers by attachment of earnings a most intense resentment would be caused, for it would mean that workers were having money deducted by the very people with whom they had been in dispute. This would lead to further disputes including demands that the employers make up the wage packets to the full amount. A worker who was having fines deducted would be legally required to declare this if he went to a new employer, and the dangers of operating a legal blacklist in this way must be obvious."
In conclusion on this particular point, whilst welcoming almost the whole of the proposals in the White Paper, I hope that between now and the introduction of the Bill the Government will think again and bring forward a much better remedy.
9.35 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, at this late stage of the debate, and there being some seven or eight other noble Lords who wish to take part, I intend to be brief. But there are one or two aspects of this problem which have not been put during the debate and which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. First of all, I am sure that there is an erroneous impression which has been created, not only in this country but abroad, that British industrial relations are in chaos and that widespread reform is necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. British industrial relations are as good as they are anywhere in the world; in fact a great deal better than they are in most countries. The system of joint industrial relationships which has been built up over the years, covering industry and services, is the envy of the world. I personally have met with other trade union leaders, delegations from all over the world including the United States, which have come here to study our system of industrial councils, wages councils and other forms of joint machinery.
There are some sixty joint industrial councils and a large number of wages councils. Wages councils are legally enforced on those industries which are not sufficiently organised to have a voluntary

817
negotiating body; and they are so busy and efficient that we never hear about them. Nobody hears about something like 100 industries all going along happily. It is only the "strike happy" sections of industry which get the publicity. The classic example of this is, of course, what has been going on recently, and particularly the Girling strike of 10 people nearly dislocating the jobs of something like 10,000 people.
I was referring to our splendid system of industrial relations in most of our industries. Many of these industries have never had a serious strike in their history, and others cannot remember when they had a serious strike. But there is a grave danger that if the small sections of industrial recalcitrants who from time to time indulge in lightning unofficial strikes are seen to be cashing in on it, then it is elementary that others will assume, and rightly so, that this is the way to get things. The sort of anarchy we have recently witnessed can be highly contagious, and it could be quite dangerous if it is shown to be paying dividends. The trade union movement is not without its private enterprises who have no compunction whatever in taking whatever opportunity may present itself to grab what they can without regard to others who often have a better claim. Clearly, this is unfair and it is not in the national interest that it should continue.
What proportion of the trade union movement is resorting to the practice of the unofficial strike? There are some 25 million people in this country who are gainfully employed, and if we accept that about 5 million of them are self-employed or otherwise professional people not in the field that we would regard as ordinary trade unionism, I calculate that about 20 million people are earning their living in one way or another. All of those 20 million people have grievances. I have never met anyone who believes that he is getting the right salary; who does not believe that he ought to be getting more. Think of the unrest among civil servants, doctors, teachers, solicitors and other professional classes, not to mention Members of Parliament. They all think that they ought to be getting higher salaries. The same applies, of course, to a number of unions within the T.U.C. But fortunately they do not start striking for it, and it is a good thing they do not. They use the machinery which
818
is provided, and by compromise, or in one way or another, they have concessions and they carry on doing their work. I calculate that out of the total of something like 20 million there are not more than 300,000 to 500,000 who are indulging in unconstitutional strike action.
Public attention is being focused on the activities of shop stewards; and here again shop stewards are being disparaged because of the actions of a small minority. I have the report by me (I will not weary your Lordships with it) about shop stewards in industry. I would just mention two points. When shop stewards were asked the question, "Do you believe in co-operation with the management in maintaining discipline?", 143 replied, "Yes", and only 11, "No". Then, in answer to the question, "Do you agree with cautioning a trade union member when the shop steward finds him doing something wrong?", 106 replied "Yes", and only 25 "No". This inquiry showed that the vast majority of shop stewards have a full sense of responsibility and that, contrary to views often expressed, most shop stewards are prepared at all times to co-operate in maintaining discipline. My own experience of shop stewards in my own union—and we have here to-day my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, who followed me as General Secretary—was that they were capable, efficient, well informed and competent, and were performing their responsibilities with credit to themselves and to the union.
I think my noble friend Lord Hill also mentioned in his speech the comfort that some people find in referring to the number of days lost in this country, and contrasting it with what happens in the United States or Australia. I have only one simple observation to make about this: that the steel strike in the United States had very little effect on the United States' economy because the United States is able to take an industrial dislocation in its stride. But if a similar strike took place here we should lose orders; we should lose customers—and customers are much harder to win than they are to lose. Therefore we should beware of this dangerous complacency.
The last point that I would mention to your Lordships is this. I have great admiration for the right honourable lady the Minister of State for Employment

819
and Productivity. She is brave, courageous; and she is doing a valiant job in this situation. But I was rather depressed to read an official report of a speech made by the right honourable lady in which she said:
"We go further and point out that many unofficial strikes are justified because men in the situation in which they find themselves on the shop floor can find no other way to remedy a legitimate grievance."
My Lords, no unofficial strike is justified. And many of these unofficial strikes, lightning strikes, sit-downs, and go-slows, take place in the factory or firm where there is ample negotiating machinery to take charge wherever these grievances exist. Therefore I am pleased that the Prime Minister, in his speech at Huyton, Lancashire, on March 14, made it perfectly clear where the Government stood on this question.
I will close with this thought. We have built up in this country one of the highest standards of living in the world. Our social conditions and our health scheme, I think, are not equalled anywhere else in the world. This is what is at stake. I say to my fellow trade unionists that these things must be maintained and safeguarded, and if possible improved. But this will not happen if production is constantly obstructed. We must learn to come to grips with this matter or, as night follows day, we shall learn the hard way.
9.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, last Wednesday I was turning into Park Lane, rather late for an appointment, when I saw a demonstration of workers from Electric and Musical Industries. They were carrying banners (this is perhaps the only country in the world where one would see such a thing) imprinted with the words: "E.M.I. Workers will not Honour Agreements". There you have your anarchy. From the point of view of a bystander on the pavement, the unions could not have made worse propaganda for themselves. I agree that it is not the official union line, but because the unions cannot control unofficial strikes the general public are getting fed up with the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made a great point of the fact that there
820
were some 25 million people working in this country, with the implication that the number of unofficial strikes was very small. But I would point out that, of those 25 million people, only between 8½ million and 9 million belong to trade unions. If men do not belong to a trade union they do not strike—in fact it is quite unknown to strike. They strike only if they belong to a trade union. We can make what laws we like in this country, but if the human relationships are not right then laws will do no good.
My experience has been gained in small firms. After the war I started a factory engaged upon light industry. My previous experience of labour was in agriculture; but in agriculture the workers are all just like a big family, and it is not quite the same situation as that which one faces in industry. It is a fact that in small firms with, say, 100 employees one never gets strikes. The reason is that the boss knows all his people: he knows them by their names, he knows their family histories, and there are therefore good human relationships. I agree that one cannot have that same sort of relationship in vast corporations which employ 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 people.
Top management ought to pay tar more attention to the man on the floor, rather than leave it to personnel representatives. If only they would do so, there would be much better human relationships in industry. My experience of some people who serve upon boards of large concerns is that they know nothing at all about the men who work in their factories. There is an extraordinary attitude in this country, and I wonder if it is something peculiar in the British character. I used to go to the United States a great deal, and I have travelled all over the world. One does not find among the average employee abroad this attitude towards management. In America, if a working man sees a rich man drive past in a car, he does not shake his fist and say, "I am going to drag him down"; he says. "I am going to be like him." We have an extraordinary attitude in this country: a great many people want to drag such a man down. We must get away from that attitude, because it is the road to disaster.

821
For a long time the unions used to pump propaganda into the workers of this country, such as "Go slow", and "Beat the boss!" The unions do not do it now, but that attitude does not die in a few years and in the case of some people may take a generation. I should like all responsible trade union leaders—and the majority of them are highly responsible—to go on a great propaganda drive to explain to the people of this country that if they destroy the employer and drive investment away, as they are doing, they will destroy themselves, and of course the country.
We have heard many times this evening about ensuring that agreements freely made between unions and management are honoured, and this is the great problem. Such agreements are honoured in Germany, in America, in Sweden and in most other countries. Several lawyers speaking in this debate have gone into very involved arguments about the difficulty of having agreements between managements and unions which are legally binding, but it should not be beyond the bounds of the legal profession in this country, together with the unions and employers and the Government, so to frame the law that such agreements are binding. I quite agree that it is sometimes very difficult to make them enforceable, since it depends what is in the agreement. But there are too many difficulties being put in the way of this. The White Paper has made some very good recommendations but it has come a bit late. Also, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said, we really want to have this Industrial Relations Bill this Session because time is slipping by. I heard only the other day of two big firms who had intended building two plants in this country, but who are now going to build them abroad. That trend will continue unless we put our house in order. So we cannot afford to wait. I hope that the Government will make an effort to bring in legislation this Session.
There is something which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to tell us when he winds up. He is not here, but he presumably will be to wind up. The White Paper says that collective bargaining will be voluntary. Of course collective bargaining is voluntary, but the point is, how can it be voluntary under
822
this White Paper if we still have the statutory incomes policy? One cannot have voluntary collective bargaining if we have a statutory incomes policy; it is a contradiction in terms. I should like the noble Lord who is to wind up to explain that to me. Because if we are to keep the statutory incomes policy, any agreement freely arrived at will be subject to Whitehall veto. It is a contradiction in terms, as I say. Personally, I was for the wages freeze, the statutory incomes policy, as a stop-gap, but you cannot make it permanent. You can have a wages freeze permanently only if you back it up with a gun. You cannot have it made permanent in practice solely by law: it is just "not on".
My Lords, an author whose book was reviewed the other day wrote to The Times. May I just quote from his letter for a moment, because I rather think that he must have been "cribbing" some of my speeches here six, seven or eight years ago. He is Dr. Einzig, a professor of economics, and he said:
"The British worker only believes that he has rights and no duties towards the community."
I do not necessarily agree with this, but I am just quoting this professor of economics—and if you have a professor of economics you have to take some note of what he says.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: He says a lot of rude things, but I will not read them out because they are rather insulting to British labour. However, he does say here, which is not insulting:
"The British worker's attitude has deteriorated because he has been pampered and spoilt by Governments, politicians, trade unions and employers since the war."
My Lords, there is a bit of truth in that; it is not entirely incorrect.
Collective bargaining has been discussed quite a lot in the debate, but for myself I prefer my Party's approach towards it, towards agreements between management and trade unions. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, pointed out, as it is dealt with in the White Paper it means nothing at all, because if the parties make an agreement and they are both then free to break it they will break it. The Conservative

823
approach is far better, I think—that is, to make freely-negotiated agreements legally binding automatically unless the parties agree to exclude some or all of the provisions. I cannot see that there is anything so appallingly henious in that, but apparently noble Lords opposite appear to think that there is. If we do not try to make agreements legally binding we shall be back in square one. I. should also have thought that to try to make agreements legally binding—and I agree that we shall not be able to make all of them enforceable—will strengthen the unions. This country's trouble, in the last twenty years anyway, has been that the unions cannot control their own people. Of all our strikes, 95 per cent. are unofficial. It is the highest figure in the world. Even in the last ten years the number of unofficial strikes has increased nearly four times. I should think that if you made agreements so far as possible legally binding, the trade union leaders would be only too pleased. You would then have the sanction of the law against your unofficial strikers. I cannot really see what is objectionable in that.
But, of course—and my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford mentioned this—there is a great deal of trouble about the question of penalties if an agreement is broken. Personally, I do not agree with the attachment of wage earners' earnings. No employer—and this has already been said—ever sues his employee. It is just not "on". You cannot fine a wage earner. It would be quite impossible in practice; it would be far too complicated. But I think the union should be held responsible. If they have an unofficial strike they should be subject to a penalty; but you cannot take it from the workmen.
The question is how one arrives at the amount of the penalty? In Germany, if a firm suffers damages they prove their damages and the union pays. But that is very difficult with a manufacturing company. If they have a strike, how do they prove how much profits they have lost? An army of accountants would be needed, and it would be extremely involved. It is quite a different matter if you are an importer and have say, a cargo of tomatoes, which because of the strike go bad. You know the value of your tomatoes and you know what damages to go for. But a further
824
danger is that this might break some unions financially. I do not think that any employer wants to break the unions.
My Lords, I should have thought that penalties could be imposed on a sliding scale; that, for instance, there could be a fixed penalty per man for every day the men were out. If there were 1,000 men out for 10 days the penalty could be, say, 5s. per day per man. It could be something like that. You would need to have a fixed penalty on a sliding scale. But I do not agree with the White Paper when it says that you can attach the wages of the employee. But with legally binding agreements and penalties, there is the danger that we may be making a busman's holiday for the lawyer. I do not want to do that. With due respect to the many eminent lawyers in this House, in my opinion the legal profession is not really the most efficient profession in the country—certainly not when it comes to a question of time. I can see that if we had a lot of broken agreements the industrial courts would be choked up and employers and unions would have to wait a long time to get results.
My Lords, I am trying to proceed as fast as I can, but I should like to say a word about the secret ballot. I agree that there are pros and cons about it. Some employers do not like it and obviously the unions do not. If you are a negotiator you do not like to feel that suddenly there may be a secret ballot and your case may be undermined. It is extraordinary that in this country, where since 1928 we have had universal suffrage for making the most important decision of choosing a Government, when it comes to other, not so important, affairs we say, "No you cannot have that". The trade union official or the employer, or whatever the organisation may be, makes a decision for the working man. The decision must be made by those above him Either we have industrial democracy or we do not, and I cannot understand that procedure. I agree that some bad decisions may be made in a secret ballot, but surely it is the only just method to adopt. If employers are to negotiate with unions, employees ought to have the right of a secret ballot to decide whether they want the employers to negotiate with a particular union. I appreciate that there are drawbacks from

825
the union point of view and also, in some ways, from the point of view of the Government and of employers but on the whole it is a fair thing to have a secret ballot. We are a democracy and we ought to abide by it.
The other matter I should like to mention—it is a favourite hobby horse of mine, but I shall try to be brief—is the question of the closed shop. To me that is something like a red rag to a bull. I think that the White Paper almost makes matters worse. It does not do away with the injustice of the closed shop. I do not object to a union shop in a factory, but it is quite iniquitous that employees who were working there before the union came should be forced to join. If I remember rightly, the White Paper says that no employer can prevent an employee from being a member of a union. That is fair enough, but it ought to be the other way round, too: a union should not be able to bully workers into joining. It ought to be free association both ways, and I cannot think why the White Paper has not said that.
826
On the whole, the idea of the C.I.R. is helpful, provided it has good leadership, but that applies to everything in life. If there is not good leadership, we have "had" it anyway, no matter what we do. I have had to deal with shop stewards and I know working people very well. Trade unionists have said to me that it is unfair for a man who is not a member of a union to work in a factory because he is getting all the benefits the union has got for the workers. That is a very silly argument. You might as well say that all the ratepayers in Westminster should not pay for the upkeep of St. James's Park because they do not all use the Park. They ought not to pay for something of which they do not get 100 per cent. use.
The real position is that employers and employees have to fight out these battles largely by themselves. It has to be voluntary, but it would be a great help to voluntary agreements to have the right law behind them. Trade union law is out of date. It would be much simpler to

827
repeal the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and we should not need all this, because unofficial strikes would then be a contravention of the law anyway. I will end by saying that the Government must take a stronger line in this matter—and they have been courageous in these proposals, though it is courage born of desperation. If they do not do something, the country is sunk, the workers are sunk and everybody is sunk. When the Government bring in this Bill they must make it stronger to curb unofficial strikes than they have suggested in the White Paper.
10.15 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am not going to follow up the rosy picture which the noble Viscount has just painted for your Lordships about the spoilt darling, the British worker—the spoilt darling of the employer, the trade union leader, the politician, and now, I suppose, the Government—except to say that the British worker is also part of the community and of the public: there is no cleavage between the British worker on one side and the public on the other.
I hesitated before I put my name down to speak in this debate, so moderately and ably moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, knowing that there were many specialists in this field really qualified to speak. To be the 23rd speaker, and a non-expert speaker, is rather daunting, but this only makes it more necessary for me to maintain my usual practice of being the shortest speaker in this House. As one of the non-expert speakers, I do, however, have some knowledge of working conditions, having visited a great many factories and industrial plants. Without this experience, I could not begin to understand the stormy weather which the country has been going through as a result of the tensions between employers, employees and trade unions.
It seems to me that there are three main causes contributing to the problems of industrial relations, as many of the speakers in this House to-day have pointed out. One is the nature of the collective bargaining machinery. This to-day appears to me to be fragmented and antiquated, hardly matching up to the needs of the technological age of automation and computers in which we live. The second cause is often to be
828
found in the inadequacy of managerial attitudes towards labour. The third and not the least important cause stems from the conservatism of the trade unions themselves in the face of proposals for their internal reform. There is no doubt also that the class prejudice on both sides of industry that still exists as a result of our lingering segregated educational system aggravates all these problems.
What stands out in the White Paper, which is clear and well written (and here I must pay tribute to Lord Donovan and the Report of his Royal Commission), is that for the first time the Government are actively intervening to make collective bargaining more efficient; that is by making trade unions stronger and more effective. This is specified in the section dealing with the Commission on Industrial Relations which, incidentally, asks for the compulsory recognition of trade unions, as well as for their rationalisation. Of course, no amount of Government interference by exhortation can succeed without voluntary action on the part of the trade unions themselves.
There are other proposals, more controversial, like the conciliation pause, compulsory ballots and fines, all of which have been mentioned in the debate. But I do not think that these are the main proposals of the White Paper. In spite of the very persuasive arguments in the brilliant speech of my noble friend Lord Blyton I believe that he exaggerates the dangers of these proposals, which are played up by our opponents and by the Tory Press, and which distract attention from the real issues, just as they play up the dangers of unofficial strikes and insist on legal compulsion as the only remedy for these. Though I found the speech of my noble friend Lord Blyton very sympathetic in parts, I think that his arguments are rooted in the past.
As my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom pointed out, the unofficial strike is the symptom of bad industrial relations; it is not the primary or the only cause. There are many people to-day who, when there is no easy answer to a problem, invoke a legal compulsion and penalties as the panacea, the cure for all our industrial ills. The Conservatives ask that collective agreement should be legally enforceable regardless of what the employers and workers want. This is patently an unworkable

829
suggestion. I am not a lawyer but I judge a collective agreement to be a piece of private law-making which the particular industry legislates for itself. On this the White Paper speaks with resounding common sense. It says that if the parties want their agreement to be enforceable in the courts, then under the White Paper they will be able to write this into their agreement. If, on the other hand, they prefer informality, as is normally the custom to-day, then they will be able to keep away from the courts.
To submit reluctant parties to legal sanctions would be like forcing two incompatible people to marry while denying them the possibility of divorce. What is needed in industry, as in marriage guidance, is a deep concern with compatibility, with mutual respect and understanding, which leads to sensible compromise; not a forced legal relationship. Here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. This is not to say that there should be anarchy. On the contrary, what is needed are better drafted agreements where procedural provisions for settling disputes are observed by both sides. The proposal in the White Paper for fining those who take part in "wild-cat" strikes fills me with some misgiving. This suggestion seems to me impracticable. To turn again to my homely marriage analogy, it is difficult enough to keep track of a man when trying to make him keep up his maintenance payments for a child whose mother he has abandoned. I believe that a "wild-cat" striker could be just as elusive. What happens if a man changes his job or becomes self-employed? I believe that this question was pointed out in the Donovan Report itself.
I will not go into the Ford strike in any detail, but it seems to me that the voting by the joint negotiating body reminded one of the voting in the General Assembly of the United Nations. There each nation, however large or however small—let us take the United States or Guyana—has one vote. It seems to me that the Ford negotiating bodies, however large the union, or however small, each had one vote. This pattern of voting seems to me not to reflect the realities of power. I think that the real differences between the political Parties lie not in the assumption that the law has a vital part to play in our industrial life, but in what
830
kind of part it should play. The Conservative Party, and most of their followers, seems to think on lines of penalising workers, and I regard this as a negative role.
But this is not really where the law should intervene. It has a far more constructive role to play in guaranteeing basic rights for all workers, regardless of the strength or the weakness of unions in particular industries, or of whether the unions act effectively enough to win those rights. After all, the White Paper takes an important step towards a workers' charter. It is not a lawyers' banquet. This important step should be welcomed by all of us in the Labour Party and should not be obscured by the political smokescreen put up by our opponents. I do not wish to be partisan about this measure, but we have a responsibility to inform public opinion about the complexity of industrial relations. To blame all our economic difficulties on the unofficial strike is just to go "scapegoating". There is no lightning answer to the lightning or unofficial strike. Irresponsible leaders in industry foster irresponsible conduct among workers. Finally, my Lords, the White Paper gives us a great deal to act upon, to bring about the modernisation of industrial relations between management and labour so that they, and the community, get a fair deal all round.
10.26 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I have listened carefully throughout the debate and I think I have missed only two speakers. I sympathise with the House, because, although the hour is late I think I have something worth while to say. The title of the White Paper, In Place of Strife, immediately raises a question in our minds. The answer is simple—either we shall have more of it, or less, and there is no need for us to theorise. There have been references to the Girling strike, the Vauxhall strike and the Ford strike. May I say in passing, without analysing it because of the lateness of the hour, that I think the Ford strike and the Ford situation is a symptom of all that is wrong in industrial relations in this country.
Quite apart from the real things we have before us, we have been fortunate enough to have had the Donovan Report

831
since June, 1968. The T.U.C. said of this Report:
"It is such an excellent reference book on industrial relations; for that alone the job was well worth doing".
I, too, add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, and to his Committee for this excellent analysis of industrial relations at the present time in this country. I am convinced (and I think it is interesting that I should say this) that the trade union situation and the management situation in this country is such that it requires an outside impelled force to change its state: it is not in a situation—rapidly, anyhow, and certainly not fast enough—to meet the changes required to change itself. I cannot go into all the problems involved in that situation.
I should like to say that, as one who has been in a trade union movement and who has been taught over forty years that the main objective is to improve the conditions of the work people you represent, to get them security, and so on, it really disturbs me that as a result of the concentration of British industry, of technological change, 10 men can throw 10,000 out of work. This is appalling, and in this situation I am not involved with the considerations as between trade union and employer; this is between trade union and trade union. I know that the greater part of the money I pay out in benefit is money paid to men who are not on strike but who have been thrown out of work because of the lightning strikes of other people and who are not entitled to go to the labour exchange because they are alleged to have an interest in the strike in which they are not taking part. Of course I am pleased to see a reference in the White Paper suggesting that something might be done about this.
At the end of the debate perhaps it is useful to consider the philosophy lying behind the proposals contained in the White Paper. The first is that conflicts of interest in industry are inevitable. I do not think we should exaggerate this, and say that strikes are inevitable, but there is a conflict of interest, and one that honourable men can face up to. To put it at its simplest, it is an argument about the sharing out of the cake and all the shares you get. So obviously there is a conflict of interest here; but that one can control.
832
The White Paper suggests that this conflict can be directed to positive ends. It then goes on to say that this can be done by management and unions but that Government intervention is necessary and can help considerably. I agree with this. The plea that we have heard to-day, that the Government should keep out, may have been all right in earlier days, but once you have the obligation proposed in the White Paper—the obligation on employers to recognise trade unions—it produces a completely new situation in industrial relations in this country, and things flow from this. Equally, if the purpose of the White Paper is to assist collective bargaining—and I am roughly quoting George Woodcock—it follows logically that you must strengthen the trade unions, because the trade unions are the instruments that the workers use in the process of collective bargaining. And, of course, the aim of the White Paper in relation to the conflict that is recognised is to contain the destructive expressions of industrial conflict.
I should like to say a very quick word about conflict and follow my predecessor in office in my union, my noble friend Lord Williamson. I think we have to get this clear: 1968 is 50 years after 1918, and quite a number of industries are having their 50th anniversary dinner in recognition of the adoption of the Whitley Report of 1918 and the setting up of National Joint Industrial Councils. There are industries in this country which have gone on for 50 years without any industrial difficulty. On the contrary, as the 50 years have developed, each succeeding year has established a better relationship between management and workpeople. But I am extremely worried about the situation, because the two industries that Donovan concentrated on, engineering and construction, represent a very large section of British industry. There are 3½ million engineering workers out of a manufacturing force of about 11 million. I was quite surprised myself when I tried to measure the relationship of engineering and construction to the whole labour force and found that the disputes in those two industries were out of proportion to the relationship to the total labour force. Nevertheless, that is a very substantial section and therefore a real cause for concern. In docks and

833
transport again there is a pretty bad relationship.
But take industries like the chemical industry, local government, public utilities, central Government, and a number of small industries such as those in glass, rubber, cement; they have really excellent records and, as Lord Williamson said, a situation where we can hold our head up with pride to the world. There are the two views—and I do not hesitate to say this, and I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes of Epsom, when he pointed out certain dangers in British industry. One does not want to over-emphasise this point, but there are the views that believe that conflict can be contained, and there are the views that believe that conflict is a good thing in itself and should be encouraged and strengthened. And these are the views of people who do not have regard to the general situation and what is best for the country at large; they are people who are out to get their own narrow objectives and to promote them with all possible skill.
People who say that this is an exaggeration should think of this. I have in mind the Communist Party and its influence in the unions, and the Trotskyists and their influence. Every time we have meetings, such as the one at Croydon when we considered the Economic Review, you can see there the industrial representative of the Communist Party, who is very well known, outside, meeting the chaps he knows, putting them right, giving them briefs and so on. I do not want to exaggerate, but I do not hesitate to say this here, and any trade unionist leader who puts his head in the sand and ignores it is not very wise.
The other great difficulty for democracy, and for democracy in the unions, is the apathy of the majority of the work-people because they do not want to be worried. The average worker expects his trade union to get results for him with the minimum of inconvenience to himself. That is why they do not want to go out on strikes. The majority of workpeople will say, "Thank you very much", if you bring in some form of legislation which will enable them to be protected, instead of their being dragged out time and time again when they do not want to come out. I am sorry to say this in connection with Fords—and I do not want to exag-
834
gerate the point, because the evidence was not given to me; it was given to my national officer. But we had people who wanted to carry on working, and we had quite a few who have carried on working, on our advice. But some who wanted to go on working had acid thrown at them, cars turned over, cars scratched with knives. This is not very healthy for British industry. This is a great worry. This is done by a vociferous minority, who can be tackled, and who cannot sustain their position; but unfortunately, the average fellow will realise that he is in real danger only when this kind of element is getting on top.
The real prospects in British industry lie in many fields, but, as has been said—I know it is a cliché—in non more than better attitudes on the part of employers, positive attitudes by the employers towards each other, and better attitudes by the unions. But I repeat, I believe that there is a part for Government to play, and the Government can in the forms it is proposing to give assistance to create better attitudes in British industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, quoted what I think is the important paragraph in the White Paper, paragraph 18, which sets out the four objectives by which better industrial relationships may be achieved. These are most positive: the reform in collective bargains; the extension of the role and rights of trade unions; new aids to those involved in collective bargaining, and new safeguards for the community and individuals. Again, I will race through these and will not dwell on them, but on the reform of collective bargaining sufficient has been said for this great experiment, the Commission on Industrial Relations. I do not think the fact that there have been other Commissions need in any way prejudice this Commission. I do not envy them their job—it is a tough one; and it is, in the main, to oversee what negotiation procedures exist, and to see whether or not, by persuasion, they can encourage better procedural agreements and so on. This is their job. They cannot punish anybody; they have no statutory force. But this is a method that we always employ in the trade unions. You cannot force people to do things, but you can bring them along with you if you can persuade them; and this body

835
will have this interesting experiment and new departure.
To help the Commission, the registration of agreements proposed by Donovan and accepted in the White Paper, makes sense, because the purpose of registering agreements is first to impress upon management how important agreements are—and it has been admitted to-day that the initiative is with management. Donovan himself criticises management and trade unions, but management gets much the bigger "thump" from Donovan than the trade unions get; and both Donovan and the White Paper say that it must be the responsibility of boards of management, and governors and so on, to make sure that they have proper procedure agreements for negotiation. In passing, I can tell your Lordships again of firms with some 5,000 members who have already acted on this. But some are not so well organised. Just imagine a firm of more than 5,000 who have not got any organisation. How can you have an agreement without some kind of collective organisation, whether it is trade union or an association, or whatever it may be? Therefore, this is going to encourage organisation. It provides the trade union movement with a great opportunity for another lurch forward. The C.I.R. will look at the agreements to sec whether or not they are making a positive contribution to better collective bargaining.
Perhaps I may take the second objective very quickly. There are some most important provisions here, such as the right of an individual to belong to a trade union without employer interference. This is basic. This is a revolution in industrial relations. Then there is the right of trade unions to recognition. I must say that this right is the only cause of strikes in which I get involved, and I support it. These are not strikes about conditions of work. They arise where a union representative goes along and sees the people, and asks them: "Don't you think you ought to be in the union?" They say: "Yes", but the employer says: "We have managed without the trade union for 30 years. We are a happy family. Leave us alone". In such cases a strike is the only way you can force a person's hand after every possible conciliation has been
836
tried. I think I have two on at the moment, and I know that in one case I admired my officer because on reading his report I found that he had spent about nine months trying in one way or another to get this man to agree. We have a 100 per cent. organisation, but this man had the cheek to say, "I would like a chartered accountant's certification", and that is the way he stalled it. So again this is a sensible thing.
Then there is the new Industrial Board, and I will not dwell too long on that subject. I think we have to reserve judgment until we know more about it, but an interesting item is this proposed aid to collective bargaining by helping the trade unions. I am one of those who believe that trade unions should be rivals. My noble friend Lord Hill is here, and we had reserves of about £5 million when he retired, and it is about £10 million now. I say this with pride, because you cannot function effectively without viability. Many of the things mentioned here we have anticipated and we have already done. In our own research department we have about ten chaps; two years ago we had one. I do not know how a union of our size, with 800,000 members, managed without a decent research department. That is one example. We also have our own training school and are spending about £50,000 a year on training. That is not really enough. We could use more space for taking in more people. This is said to help mergers; to help to train officers and shop stewards, and research in the use of consultants. We train shop stewards, and we have a very interesting experiment of getting shop stewards and foremen face to face. It is a marvellous confrontation, and, believe me, in a couple of days they do not know whether they are foremen or shop stewards. It is a wonderful experiment and I think it is one of the best things we have done to cultivate understanding.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I am most interested in what the noble Lord has just said, and I should like to say that that is an excellent idea and I hope that it will be widely followed.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I thank the noble Viscount very much. Already certain training boards will reimburse the employer who sends the stewards to us, but only on

837
the basis—and again this is the outside judgment—of an agreed curriculum. In other words, we do not finalise the training we give to the shop stewards. We have our scheme, we submit it, and it has to be accepted by the training board. That is the difficulty. However, we do not mind our scheme going outside to someone else for his judgment as to whether we are giving a fair and objective training and turning out people that are worth while. Possibly in this field Government money may be acceptable, but on the other hand I would say for the record that trade unions have a very keen sense of independence born over the years. It is better for them to be healthy and stand on their own feet rather than have to be helped in this way. In fact, if I saw a trade union needing help in this way and I had any influence I would be trying to put it in a healthier financial state.
The fourth objective is where all the controversy arises—and that is quite proper. If you are going to make trade unions stronger then in my view you are equally obliged to create new safeguards for the community and the individual. As I say, this is where the controversy arises. Of course, the Ministry themselves can help by developing their own services, the manpower department and so on. And they propose tackling the whole question of strikes. I must make myself clear; I have gone along with the T.U.C.; this is how trade unionism works. I am a member of the General Council, and for the sake of unanimity I accepted the broad view within the T.U.C. But in this House I shall say what I think.
I cannot get too excited about a ballot in the case of official strikes. I do not think that it will be effective. My union balloted in the last threatened engineering strike about September or November last year. We had a majority of two to one against strike action, and in one part of the country the majority was four to one against. I presented this to my Executive and said, "There is the ballot showing two to one against. It is obvious what we should do." It had taken about ten days to conduct the ballot. To my amazement, the man from the district in which the vote was four to one against strike action said, "The ballot was not reliable because circumstances have changed during the
838
ten days. If there were a ballot to-day in my area, the result would be different." That is the real difficulty that one faces.
Negotiating, rough and ready though it may he, is an art. I have always said to people who have wanted to tie my hands: "If you want to do that, then send and errand boy: don't send me." There was a time when it was thought, "Never trust your trade union", they would say that a shop steward should go into the negotiating room with the union representative as a policeman. I would never accept this because I thought it was ridiculous. I think it is a little foolish to have a ballot to decide whether or not to go back. It can tie the hands of the negotiator and create rigidity. If one has a ballot at one stage and then the circumstances change, one has to face that situation. The principle is sound enough if it can be made to work, and especially if it is proposed only in circumstances where there is danger to the State.
I am rather worried about the conciliation pause because of the method proposed. It is suggested that if an unofficial strike takes place—and it may be of a serious nature—the Minister will issue an order. My union gave evidence on this matter to the Royal Commission, but it was not in fact accepted. I do not grumble about this because it was they who were sitting in judgment. But it is my view that conciliation ought to be compulsory before any strike action takes place. I should like to see rein posed something on the lines of Order 1305, which went out in 1950. I do not think that anybody could grumble about it. Order 1305 provided that if a dispute was apprehended, it should be reported to the Minister so that machinery could be set in motion in an attempt at conciliation. This is a good deal to ask, since it means a network of conciliatory machinery covering the whole country; but I feel that it would be a very good investment. It would not take from anyone the right to strike; it would only oblige people in the first instance to submit to conciliation.
I feel that where the law exists there must be sanctions. The civil sanction which has been so much discussed to-day was the outcome of pressure by the T.U.C. upon the Government to avoid punishment of a criminal nature. I do

839
not think that anyone has the right to set himself above the law. I cannot understand all this opposition to a sanction in an extreme case. If we had time we could work out how an individual could get himself into a position of having a fine imposed upon him. It would be only in a case of sheer desperation, when he had flouted every other method of settlement. I should not like to be the Minister who, having a strike on her hands, says, "Get back to work." The best method is to tackle the problem beforehand and get conciliation earlier.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to ask two or three questions. First, what does this White Paper mean for the country and the trade unions? The changes that may arise from the Government's proposals are new and can be very effective in improving industrial relations. They are a challenge to the trade unions, who must modernise, train officers and stewards, and ensure better and adequate communications, which at present are woefully lacking, partly because of indifference at the bottom. This is a great problem which requires attention. Some of us have already started on this road, but to be effective we must have the co-operation of management.
The country must overcome its present inherent economic weaknesses if the aspirations of our people to enjoy security and a decent standard of living are to be satisfied. No Government can allow any section of the community, however large, to prejudice these objectives. I believe that the present Government are tackling this problem courageously, and that the principles and aims set out in the White Paper deserve our most careful consideration.
10.52 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sure you will agree that it is very difficult to follow the dynamic speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath. Nevertheless, I shall try. My reason for contributing to this debate is that I am still a card-holding member of a trade union, although I speak very much as an individual. There is no doubt that industrial legislation is long overdue, and the growing amount of unofficial disputes is both costly and damaging to the nation. But I was astounded to see that in the whole 40 pages of the White Paper
840
the word "human" appears only once. Surely the basis of industrial relations is human feeling, human achievement and human faith.
The White Paper gives an accurate picture of the industrial unrest today and, consecutively, the measures which the Government propose to take to put the matter right. But the reason for the growing amount of discord has been left out, and that is what I want principally to discuss now. There are many who are of the opinion that there is an increasing lack of authority among the working population to-day, but I attribute this largely to lack of confidence in management. Every man has his own shortcomings and the British working man has plenty. But if he is handled correctly he is still the best in the world.
To quote the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Wivenhoe, who spoke to me privately, and who has had a long and distinguished career in the trade union movement, the answer in settling disputes is first to find the cause. So many disputes could have been avoided if both sides had not gone at them like a bull at a gate, and had first put things into their right perspective. Any man will work under one whom he can respect. That man has to be honest, strict—in fact, stand no nonsense—but still have human feeling and understanding. This prototype must come from senior management right down to foreman and chargehand.
Up till now I have been only an operative and, like other operatives, will readily co-operate with those who know their job and what they are talking about. Under such a strong character any man will accept all reasonable commands, admonishments and even punishment. Even the so-called agitator will fade out and cease to exist. There are too many vacillating sycophants, ignorant, two-faced and unforthright, in the world to-day. It is the old story. If the man at the top is not fit, the rot will set in all the way down.
I was pleased to see paragraph 29 of the White Paper, where the Government urge employers where possible to remove out-dated distinctions between staff and other workers. It is true to say that a lot of unnecessary trouble is caused by these social differences. All sorts of unpleasantnesses and complexes creep in, like condescension on the part

841
of one and inferiority complexes on the part of the other, with inverted snobbery rearing its ugly head. Therefore, it is essential for industrial relations to break down these barriers at once. I am not suggesting over-fraternisation on the part of management, because the old saying, "Familiarity breeds contempt", still rings true. A very simple way of clearing the air is for everyone to share the same canteen—that may sound very mundane—and to take part in the same sporting activities. It is essential to make workers feel that they are part of the firm by having profit-sharing schemes, productivity bonuses and pension schemes; and also to tell the workers of the firm's progress and future plans. So often people's intelligence is insulted and underestimated. When people belong to a progressive firm they soon realise that to strike would be cutting their own throats.
To-day, I feel that there are three national bones of contention—and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I am slightly Party political here—which have caused dissatisfaction among the workers. The first has been the Government's policy on prices and incomes; and, secondly, the amount of direct taxation—that is to say, income tax. I am strongly of the opinion that this slows down a great amount of productivity and manpower. I feel that less tax would inspire men to work a good deal harder and longer, and would also stop men wishing to curtail others who want to have a crack at earning a lot of money for such things as buying a house or a car, for holidays, or even to invest and save. Thirdly—and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for being outspoken here; but, quite truthfully, it is very much a bone of contention among people of this country to-day—there are many people who are increasingly living off the State when they are quite capable of working. People are saying, "Why should we keep a lot of lazy devils?"—and they are right. I am all for helping people (and I am sure your Lordships are, too) who help themselves, but not those who do not. It is about time the Government began to separate the sheep from the goats.
As to the rest of the White Paper, my experience is very limited, but I should just like to mention one or two points.
842
About the trade union organisation, I should like to make a few comments and to pay a tribute to shop stewards—a tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, also paid. These men have an extremely difficult job, and on the whole they do a very good one. It cannot be very enviable for them to be a buffer between both sides. They have to give up a great deal of their own time, which can disrupt their family lives. Also, they work with a great deal of altruism. Their job is often thankless because, I am sorry to say, the majority of card-holding trade union members are there only for what they personally can get out of it, and for their protection; and, often, five minutes after a shop steward has pleaded on a miscreant's behalf he is stabbed in the back by that same man.
The question of closed shops is to my mind fairly straightforward. If a man is an employee of a firm whose wages and conditions are negotiated by a trade union, he should be obliged to pay his dues. After all, when you belong to a club and enjoy its amenities but do not pay the subscription or abide by the rules you are quickly shown the door. Alternatively, as mentioned in paragraph 118, if a man does not wish to belong on conscientious grounds, or, as several noble Lords have said, if he has had a personal grievance against his branch other than being in arrears, he should have to pay the equivalent amount to charity. That seems to me an excellent idea. Usually, the men who do not belong to or complain about the union are the men who have not paid, and it is their excuse and "get out". After all, we have been told this afternoon that out of 22 million people working there are only 8 million trade unionists, so there are a lot of places to which people can go which are non-union.
This brings me to the point of view of firms not wishing to have anything to do with unions. Personally, if I became an operative again I should wish to belong to a union again for a variety of reasons. Personally, I felt protected by the very good service I had from the branch to which I belonged. There are some good firms and some bad firms who do not wish to have a union, but, after all, it is still a free country. Therefore, I advocate that in that case it is right to hold a secret ballot, and if at least 50

843
per cent. of the workers want a union they should be allowed it.
My Lords, I hope I have been very brief, but there is one point which I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, although he is not here. His final point was about strikes being uncivilised, and he said that as time progresses they will diminish. I fail to see that this can ever be possible unless we become a nation of robots and work mechanically. We shall always, surely, have our differences while we hold our individuality. I should like to know what my noble friend expects to see in their place.
11.0 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, we have had a long and wide-ranging debate and there are only a few points that I should like to add to those already made. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, with whose views on industrial questions I found myself in a substantial measure of agreement. I have been preceded by several of my noble friends who spoke from a long, participating experience of the trade union movement, and by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath who, like myself, is still continuously, from day to day, involved in trade union activities.
The White Paper that we are discussing is firmly, and very wisely, based upon the British tradition of voluntary collective bargaining. As has been pointed out, it is directed to developing and strengthening that tradition. The ways in which it will affect that development are quite striking. The changes to be made in respect of union recognition; the assurance of negotiating rights; the proposals for a trade union development fund, and, above all, the proposals for the Commission on Industrial Relations (which, I think everybody will recognise is the heart of the White Paper) are all of tremendous significance. They are, necessarily, as has been repeatedly emphasised, to be seen as a part of the White Paper taken as a whole. Some of the provisions in the White Paper have attracted a great deal of comment and attention, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell pointed out, very often to the disregard of the more vital parts which are directed to the constructive purpose of developing collective bargaining.
844
I hope that we shall not be too obsessed in this matter by the statistics of strikes, and in this connection I think that the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hill of Wivenhoe are very relevant. When we talk of unofficial strikes it is of great significance that, as the White Paper points out, they are to be found predominantly in four industries: in the motor car industry, in the docks, in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry and in coal mining. It is worth while reflecting on the conditions which may be common to those industries and which are perhaps particularly conducive to the atmosphere in which unofficial disputes take place. Certainly one feature of these industries is the proneness of the workers in them to insecurity of employment for one reason or another.
When I think of the condition of our industrial relations and the weaknesses of industrial relations, it is not primarily of strikes that I think. There are many industries which have for many years been strike-free. Some of them have good industrial relations; some of them, although strike-free, have very poor industrial relations. A measure of good industrial relations is to be found, I suggest not merely by looking at strike statistics but by reflecting on such factors as willingness to innovate and accept change; to make effective use of people and to avoid the sourness of lack of co-operation and lack of mutual respect which, unfortunately, exists over certain parts of our industry. I am not suggesting that these features are universal; but I am suggesting that they exist more widely than they should and that in the field of industrial relations they are quite as serious a problem as the problem of strikes—indeed, in my view more serious. Strikes, as my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom said earlier in the debate, can be seen as a symptom—and not the only symptom—of poor industrial relations. The significance of this point, I think, is that if we concentrate merely upon seeking to avoid strikes we may find that we have taken steps which do not in the end lead to any real amelioration of the industrial atmosphere.
It has been a welcome thing, I think, my Lords, that a number of speakers have paid tribute in this debate to the trade union movement. Since it is so

845
often the subject of adverse criticism, it is perhaps well worth while reminding ourselves of the immense contribution which the trade union movement has made, and is continually making, both to industry in this country and to the shape of our society. I was very happy to hear the tributes paid to shop stewards by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, and by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. It is true that there is a great deal of apathy in the trade union movement, and many who are prepared to rely on the efforts and leadership of others. But the trade union movement is a vast movement, and we should not forget that it includes a substantial minority of men and women—because of the size of the movement a very substantial in aggregate numbers, although perhaps relatively small as a proportion—who take a continuing and active part in the development of trade union policy and administration. They give to the movement a character and a value which it would not necessarily have if it copied, rather slavishly, the practices of some trade union movements in other countries.
My Lords, it is through the trade union movement, in the past and now, that hundreds of thousands of men and women who would not otherwise have had such an apprenticeship and such an opportunity have come into the wider life of the community. They have become members of local councils; they have come to Parliament and on to the magisterial bench, and into all kinds of public activity from the apprenticeship which they served, and by the lessons which they learned, in the trade union movement which was their starting point. Our community has been, and is being, immensely enriched by this participation.
It is for reasons like these that those of us who have a deep concern for, and a fairly wide knowledge of, the trade union movement value so intensely some of its characteristics, and above all value the voluntary basis of our collective bargaining in this country. As has been said, the roots of our industrial relations often run very deep into our social structure. At the same time, while those roots may run so deep the contribution which has been made by the industrial organisations on the workers' side has been very substantial indeed.
846
The task of Government in this field of industrial relations must be one of leadership. The amount which may be affected by legislation and by changes in the provisions of the law governing industrial disputes is in my view relatively limited. Nobody, I think, seriously contends that the framework of industrial relations should remain at the moment exactly as it has been in the past. But, equally, I believe that many of us fear the impression given that there is some simple panacea, such as making a collective agreement legally enforceable, by which all kinds of remarkable ameliorations may be effected in our industrial relations very quickly and painlessly. This, my Lords, is a great mistake. It is based on a great misconception of the difference between a normal contract and a collective agreement. In the case of a normal contract one may have two individuals, or two firms, supported and sustained by batteries of legal advisers, reaching a contract which is possibly the sole relationship between them. The relationship between an employer and an employee, which is the essence of a collective agreement, is a vastly different relationship. It is a relationship which continues over a long period of time, which enters into almost every part of the working life of the employee; and to try to regulate such a complex relationship as that solely by reference to legal provisions and legal enforcement is, in my view, to show a great misunderstanding of that relationship.
When noble Lords talked of curing unofficial strikes by imposing financial penalties upon the unions, I could hardly believe what I heard. Anybody who has had experience of trying to get people who take unofficial action back to work, and back to the process of negotiation, will know that in their eyes at that particular moment the standing of the union is not very high, and they may be quite impervious to the thought that the union is suffering financial penalties as a result of what they are doing. In such a situation we must be concerned not with legal obligations but, much more, with establishing a right human understanding, a right sense that what is in the agreement is basically sound and fair, and that it is in the interests of the workers to observe that agreement. I believe that the British workers, men and women, are more likely to be got

847
back to observing an agreement by argument firmly and fairly put than by threatening them with legal penalties.
That leads naturally to consideration of the items in the White Paper which have caused concern to some of my noble friends. It is of the essence of my argument that the provisions respecting ballots, for example, or the conciliation pause, will not be of good value if they are regarded as for automatic application without regard to the circumstances of cases. But nobody who looks at the White Paper and sees the terms in which the proposals are set out can possibly have the idea that these are envisaged as automatic arrangements for application irrespective of circumstances. It is manifest that the provisions are seen, not as for universal application, but as for use as a last resort in special circumstances where, after the operation of the ordinary machinery, and after every attempt to effect conciliation, it appears that some exceptional step will be necessary and helpful.
It is always possible, of course, that there may be misjudgments, that the powers may be incorrectly used in particular cases. But it is clear that the powers have to be kept in reserve for use only after all preliminary steps have been taken. It is equally clear that they will be powers which will be exercised with the closest scrutiny by Parliament, with that scrutiny which Ministers with powers of this kind will be subject to when an industrial dispute is taking place.
I come to the provision for the imposition of fines in certain circumstances. I think it is important again to examine precisely what the White Paper says and to bring out the fact that it is envisaged that these powers should be in the hands of an Industrial Board, which will include trade union representatives, and used even by that Board only in the most exceptional circumstances. If one really looks at the sort of circumstances in which the situation would arise, I think one can get the situation into perspective. There can be no doubt that any question of penalties for engaging in an industrial dispute is one which raises, for historical and social reasons, very many objections and suspicions. I am sure that my noble friend who is going to reply to the debate will have taken note of the opinions
848
that have been expressed, and will be able to assure us that these opinions, and the views which have been put forward by noble Lords on this side from such a wealth of experience, will be taken into careful consideration.
I conclude by saying that it has been pleasant to hear from noble Lords opposite so much upon this subject. I do not think that in the period when they were on this side of the House there was such an initiative taken in the field of industrial relations. This White Paper has indeed, in my view, to a large extent been made possible by the work of the Royal Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, which did so much to illuminate dark places, which cleared away so much confusion and which put industrial relations and their discussion on a plane of information on which it has never been before in this country.
Whether one agrees in every single respect with the recommendations made by the Royal Commission or not, it has made a most notable contribution to the whole examination of this subject. It has been followed by this White Paper. The White Paper may be subject to criticism, and there may be aspects here and there which should be re-examined, but, seen as a whole, I venture to suggest that this White Paper represents the greatest, most constructive and, I believe, probably the most fruitful initiative that has ever been taken in the field of industrial relations by any British Government.
11.17 p.m.
LORD DONOVAN: My Lords, I take the view that the Chairman of a Royal Commission should not become a protagonist for or against the recommendations in the Commission's Report. The Commission have investigated and advised: action or inaction must now be the right of those who bear executive responsibility. Nevertheless, I think one can, without becoming an advocate, briefly recall a number of considerations which led the Royal Commission to certain of its decisions which have a direct bearing on this White Paper.
We considered carefully whether collective bargains should be made into binding contracts whatever the wishes of the parties, and we rejected the idea. The reasons are set out at length in the Report and they have never been refuted, not even tonight by the noble and learned

849
Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, or the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. The objections are partly technical and partly practical. The technical objections are that these bargains are struck at a number of levels, from industry level down to the shop floor. The last named are almost always oral, and they are always fragmented; and no judge could get the clear and unambiguous account of the agreement which he must have if he is to enforce it. Yet to omit these bargains altogether from the scope of legal enforceability would be to leave a large hole in the system. As it is, plant bargaining in many instances is more important and more realistic than bargaining at industry level, and it is likely to become more so.
Even in written bargains, the identity of the parties is at times extremely difficult to ascertain. Take, for example, the collective bargain in Rookes v. Barnard. It was an agreement
"between the Employers' side of the Draughtsmens Planners and Tracers Panel, and the Employees' side of the same Panel."
And it was signed by two secretaries. Now whom would you sue if you wanted to go to law on that? Some collective bargains are simply resolutions of joint industrial councils and similar bodies. And here again the identity of principals to the agreement and the imprecision of their language would make most of them void in law for uncertainty.
As regards the practical objections, one must distinguish between substantive collective bargains—that is, those that deal with terms and conditions of service—and procedure agreements, which deal with the means of resolving disputes. In the case of substantive agreements there is no need to make them into enforceable contracts because they are very seldom broken. Indeed, why should they be? They are almost always open-ended; that is to say, they are not fixed to run for any definite term. So when the time comes when the union think there should be a rise they do not need to break an existing agreement; they simply ask for a fresh one. A necessary concomitant of the proposal to make such agreements binding, therefore, would be to make them binding for some substantial term—say, about two years. This in an era of rising prices would present fresh difficulties, and I have not yet heard this essential ele-
850
ment in the proposal seriously or responsibly advocated.
Accordingly, to go on representing to the nation that a solution to our problems in the industrial field lies in making collective agreements legally enforceable, while at the same time ignoring all the attendant difficulties and the Lick of reason, is not merely misleading but has become tiresome. The latest version of it is that the contract shall not become binding if both sides expressly so declare. This is a distinction without a difference, for it would confer a unilateral right of compulsion on one side alone and does not even begin to deal with the difficulties which I have mentioned.
When one comes to procedure agreements the position is this. Again, unions themselves seldom break them, though recently there have been regrettable exceptions involving three unions organising at the one concern. But trade unionists in three or four particular industries repeatedly break them. At the moment, however, they are not bound by them because technically the union does not act as their agent in concluding them. This certainly could be altered by Act of Parliament. The difficulty lies not in enactment; the difficulty lies in enforcement.
The White Paper proposes the conciliation pause which involves as one of its features ordering unofficial strikers back to work for 28 days. We on the Royal Commission doubted, not the propriety of any such proposal, but its efficacy. How do you make, say, 7,000 dockers out on unofficial strikes on Merseyside, as happened in 1967, go back to work if they do not want to? The answer of the White Paper is, by fining them if they do not. But presumably the industrial board will inflict the fine only after hearing any defence put forward. A man may say, for example, "I was not on strike; I was sick"; or a man may say that the fine should be mitigated at least on the ground of employer provocation. There is at present operating in the London docks a statutory scheme having the same practical effect as the fining of unofficial strikers; and in the last few days we have seen it choked to death by a mass of appeals. But if fines are successfully imposed and they are to be deducted by the employers from pay, is the employer himself to be under any compulsion in this matter? If he is not,

851
and the number of strikers is not unduly large, there will be employers who may prefer to pay the fines themselves, particularly as it will be arguable that they are legitimate deductions against profits for the purposes of tax. If this happens on any scale where is the deterrent effect?
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, by inadvertence, that we on the Royal Commission put forward no short-term remedy. We did. A majority of the Commission put forward a proposal which would, in effect, deal with the ringleaders of unconstitutional strikes. At the moment such a person can say to fellow workers. "Come out on strike at once; don't bother about giving any notice". In other words, he may induce a breach of the contract of employment. This is an actionable tort, but in the context of a trade dispute, legal action is barred by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. The majority of us recommended that this immunity should henceforth be confined to trade unions and their officials. This recommendation is rejected. The grounds given in the White Paper are these: First, employers would not sue, any more than they will now; second, trade unions could have a rule that all strikes were official unless otherwise declared. Thus the immunity would continue to be enjoyed by the unofficial strike leader. And third, even if provoked the unofficial strike leader could not advance the defence of justification.
All these objections are invalid. It is true that employers do not sue now for breach of a contract of employment. But they do sue for inducing breaches of contract, which is a different legal wrong altogether. They do so for this reason: that in this class of case they can, at the same time as they issue their writ, get an injunction restraining continuance of the tort pending trial. And this is exactly what employers do today in the case of commercial contracts which are at present outside the scope of Section 3. There is no reluctance to do so at all. Recent cases are Stratford v. Lindley, the Emerald Construction case and the Torquay Hotels case. In all these cases inducements of breaches of commercial contracts were halted pending trial of the action. If the protection of Section 3 were withdrawn from unofficial elements they would find themselves in
852
the same situation if they induced fellow workers to come out on strike without notice. They could find themselves at once in unpleasant collision with the law.
The second objection, that unions could have a rule declaring all strikes official in advance, is hardly likely, for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, to commend itself to many unions, and in any event the law could, if need be, declare it void. The third reason, that the defence of justification would not be open to the person sued, is wrong. Justification has always been a defence to an action for inducing a breach of contract, though naturally one cannot predicate in advance what facts will amount to justification in any particular case.
Therefore I hope I may be forgiven for saying that the reasons for rejecting this majority proposal are mistaken. The point is a not unimportant one. We recommended that the protection of Section 3 should, where there was a trade dispute, be extended to inducing a breach of a commercial contract. This is the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, so much dislikes. The reason for it is set out in extensor in the Report. In brief, it was this. There are five ways of inducing a breach of a commercial contract, three of them legal and two not; but we thought it wrong, in a complicated legal matter such as this, to ask that trade union leaders should, so to speak, walk a legal tightrope before they decided on what they ought to do.
But if Section 3 is extended in this way, then an employer's source of materials can be cut off by inducing the supplier not to supply, and the outlet for his goods can be cut off by inducing the customer not to buy. The inducement could take the form of threatened strike against the supplier or the customer. Again, the majority of us proposed that this extension of immunity should be confined to trade unions and their officials because they could be made accountable for its abuse. But if unofficial elements and ephemeral combinations which are here to-day and gone to-morrow are to have the same licence then a prospect is opened up which I find alarming. Yet this is apparently what is contemplated, and I find it all the more alarming because it

853
is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said, that there are those who have a vested interest not in industrial peace but in industrial unrest, and here we give them another opportunity for exploitation of a licence which they should never have.
As regards compulsory ballots in certain cases, we on the Commission saw no objection in principle. We did not favour the idea because, on the evidence, it did not seem likely to reduce official strikes; and in unofficial strikes it can of course play no part. But I see no reason why the idea should not be tried out. One question, however, will have to be answered. If a union thinks it knows better than the Minister what degree of support it has among its members for a strike and ignores the Minister's order for a ballot, will the ensuing strike be illegal, and will all the present immunities under the law be withdrawn? The White Paper does not say. Nor does it deal with the cognate question of alleged election malpractices. The House knows that the E.T.U. case lasted 42 days and cost the union £80,000. We felt that there ought to be some better method of settling the question whether such malpractices had occurred, and so we made detailed recommendations. But upon these the White Paper is completely silent. It may, nevertheless, of course be one of the matters that is still in mind.
I find myself regretting that the unanimous recommendation of the Commission, which included two members from the T.U.C., that trade unions should receive corporate status is not to be implemented. The T.U.C. were before us giving evidence for two whole days, and they had no complaint to make then about this proposal. Instead, the White Paper announces that all unions are to be registered. The Tag Vale judgment of 1901 laid down that for some purposes, though not for all, registered unions had corporate status, and this is still the law. So that registration will give all unions corporate status for some purposes and leave them without it for others, and the dividing line between those purposes will remain to be drawn or redrawn by the courts. This seems to me to be getting the worst of both worlds and extending an area of legal uncertainty where certainty ought to prevail.
854
Finally, may I say this? If I were a trade unionist I should welcome the proposals in the White Paper with open arms. The proposed extension of Section 3 to cover inducement of breach of commercial contracts is alone worth all, and more than all, of the proposals which cope with unofficial strikes. As regards these, I doubt, as I say, as did my colleagues, not their propriety but their effectiveness. Once a sanction is seen not to work against much numbers of men, then the last situation is worse than the first. Time alone, of course, will show which of these conflicting views is right, but in the meantime the Government are at least to be commended for the courage which underlies their own.
11.37 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we were already greatly in the debt of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and now, after his speech, we are, I am sure you will all agree, even more so. This Motion of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given us all a welcome and a timely chance to record our common conviction, common to us all, that despite all the wonders of modern science and technology and the great importance of production and economics, nothing has altered the fact that it is the men and women in industry and the relations between them that matter most.
In so far as this White Paper helps us to enhance the status of men and women working in industry, and protects and secures their position, we on this side welcome it. In so far as it foreshadows an overhaul of out-of-date legislation, we welcome it. In so far as it provides a firmer statutory framework for collective agreements and an independent and impartial Commission to help to fashion and to promote them, we welcome it. In so far as it gives employees further protection from the law in relation both to the trade unions and to their employers, we welcome it. In so far as it lays a statutory obligation on employers to recognise unions freely chosen by their employees, we welcome it from this side as much as any noble Lord from that side. In so far as it makes it possible to transform collective agreements into contracts, we welcome it. In so far as it curbs the impulsive,

855
the greedy, the aggressive and the irresponsible, and in so far as it supports and strengthens firm leadership, proper democracy, trust and honour, we all welcome it most heartily.
All this welcome would be still more heartfelt if we could see a real and urgent desire from Her Majesty's Government to legislate upon this White Paper with despatch, and to get from them in that connection a firm undertaking that they will not be re-enacting their current Prices and Incomes policy when at last it runs out at the end of this year. It would be helpful, I think, to have a view from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and I have given him notice of this—on this point at the end of the debate.
Having said what can be said, and it is a good deal, in favour of this scheme, there are numerous points which I should want to add by way of criticism, but at the end of a long debate I confine myself to only three points. The first will have to be on this question of collective agreements in order to try to get the position of my Party as clear as possible. After all, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that he regards collective agreements as constituting the main line of advance in these reforms. The question is: are they or are they not? Could they be, should they be, enforceable at law?
To the Donovan Report, which dealt with this extensively, we can now add the ruling of Mr. Justice Lane on March 6 in the Ford dispute. It appears from that ruling that the great majority of present current collective agreements are not legal contracts: (a) because it is generally assumed by the parties that they are not enforceable; (b) because in most particular cases the parties making them do not intend them to be; (c) because they are not framed in such a way that they could be; and (d) because the Trade Disputes Act 1871, Section 4(4), expressly prevents employers' trade associations—which are trade unions in law—from making agreements with other trade unions. This seems to me, if it is true, to mean in effect that at present almost the whole basis of British industry rests on foundations which, however appropriate they might be for family, domestic or social affairs, would be considered too fragile for a hire-purchase agreement or for renting a flat.
856
The wonder to me is that this system has survived so well. It is a great tribute to the honour and the integrity of the men on both sides who have operated it so far, and I should like to join with all the other noble Lords who have taken this opportunity of saluting them, particularly the shop stewards. I believe that Britain is the only country that has been able to do this, and but for the strain imposed on the system by the Government's current prices and incomes policy I believe it might have been continued. But at present, under this policy, the temptations on the aggressive, greedy, and irresponsible to take greedy, irresponsible action have proved too much. It has proved infectious, and the number and the scale of breaches of agreement by unconstitutional and/or unofficial action are now seriously impairing the freedom of our citizens to work, and I believe can no longer be tolerated and must be curbed.
There is common ground between both political Parties, and indeed among everyone so far as I know, that the law must be amended—and now I am referring to the Trade Disputes Act 1871, Section 4(4). That, as I understood it, would make it feasible for all future collective agreements—instead of only some—to be capable of being made enforceable in law. There is divergence between the two political Parties—and I apprehend also in industry—about how far future collective agreements should actually be made binding.
The right honourable lady the Minister at the Department of Employment and Productivity says in her White Paper that there are some who think that all collective agreements should be made legally binding. I believe that this is only an Aunt Sally put up for the sake of knocking it down. I know of no one who thinks this. The Royal Commission rejected it, and so do we. The issue is—and I think this has been rather exaggerated because it is not all that great—whether collective agreements are in future to be regarded as capable of transformation into legal contracts, except for those parts the parties agree to take out, or are collective agreements to be continued to be regarded as social, domestic and family affairs, except for parts which the parties agree should form legal contracts?

857
I should have thought that there was now considerable and growing support for a stabilising assurance of some firm contract henceforward to undergird the main structures, agreements and procedures that make up our industrial relations. This assurance is needed not least to make the whole laborious and painstaking effort of drawing up a proper agreement worth while. This form of contract will need to be combined with a freedom, flexibility and enthusiasm for dealing with other matters at workshop and plant level and with personal relationships on the shop floor day by day. Some of these last indeed partake of the nature of domestic and social affairs. But these last local day-to-day matters cannot be well handled unless the framework in which they are tackled is felt to be firm. This refers particularly to the procedure agreements.
Accordingly, we say let collective bargaining start and go on, on the assumption that one outcome is going to be something on which all parties can firmly rely for some time to come. Let them take care that it is precise, comprehensive, practical and likely to last. Let that be signed as a legal contract. Surely no one who has negotiated honourably up to that point in that way need have anything to fear. Those who have not will not want to sign, and we shall all know where we are.
But it is inconceivable, and we nowhere suggest otherwise, that everything that needs to go into a collective agreement can also form part of a legal contract. Therefore there should be some scope for every collective agreement always to contain elements over which the parties do not bind themselves in law, even though they express their current intentions and present agreements in writing. Is it not clear that the whole process of collective bargaining, on which the prosperity of industry depends, is going to be greatly refined and extended if these further informal negotiations can be undertaken against a background and in a framework that is firm, settled and binding for some time ahead?
I turn now to the question of industrial democracy which, as the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, has said, was the main plank of the Government's policy. Membership of a trade union is the form of
858
industrial democracy which, more than any other, provides employees with the machinery for exerting their influence and obtaining their fair share. We would agree with the Royal Commission Report which rejects the idea of workers' participation. In paragraph 1105 they reject the scheme which is put up in paragraph 49 of the White Paper. The democratic features in the system which depends on the trade unions are not in particularly good shape. If plant bargaining and collective bargaining at plant level is one of the democratic features, and if we are going to follow the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and put our faith in it, then several reforms are going to be needed.
I put first the need to establish by secret ballot among each grade of employee and in each plant what union, if any, the employees want to represent them, and to decide what pattern of trade unionism they prefer to conduct their negotiations for them. I was much impressed and intrigued by paragraph 267 in Research Paper No. 10 in the Royal Commission Report relating to the pattern of trade unionism in our different industries. The paragraph deals with what pattern they require, who their shop stewards are to be, what relationships they want with national and district offices and officials, how much local independence they want, how much control and guidance from outsiders. I see every advantage, for employer and employee alike, in this democratic choice coming first and being exercised freely and locally.
It will be necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, has reminded us, to have a much more vigorous election campaign to overcome the apathy, and to have careful and impartial supervision of voting arrangements. But if this stage can be well managed, then a suitable response can be required of employers and given statutory force. Full recognition of whatever unions or 'patterns of unions are chosen, full facilities for union meetings at the place of work, and full access for shop stewards in genuine negotiations are steps which seem to me to be far more likely to lead to strong, reinvigorated, independent industrial democracy with firm roots in the place where it matters, than recognition imposed upon employers by

859
the C.I.R. and enforced by the Secretary of State. I must say, however, that an employer who accords recognition deserves better treatment from his employees than he sometimes gets. Your Lordships will remember that Barclays Bank were some way in advance of other clearing banks in according recognition to the N.U.B.E. The only reward that they got for their pains was that when the unions staged a one-day strike on January 30 against the Government's prices and incomes policy it was Barclays' branches which suffered most. This is not much of an inducement to an employer embracing trade unions for the first time.
I turn now to the status and value of trade unions. At present, as the White Paper reminds us in paragraph 53, trade unions are in decline. The numbers of people in unions, especially the large ones, are falling. The percentage of employees in trade unions is falling, too. The value that a trade unionist sets upon his union is about one-third of what it was before the war. That is in paragraph 174 of the Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan. It is not the wish of us in this Party to see this process continued, for, as the White Paper says—and we agree—the best basis so far devised for involving employees fruitfully in their own industry is by collective bargaining through efficient and responsible unions. It is therefore our policy to do what we can to ensure that trade unions are responsible, efficient and strong, and we believe that if we can help towards that end they will not lack for resources of manpower or money or members.
We therefore welcome the proposals in the White Paper that serve to enhance the status and legal standing of trade unions, but, unlike Her Majesty's Government, we follow the proposals of the Royal Commission and the Society of Labour Lawyers, and would seek to confer corporate legal status on registered trade unions. I cannot think why the Government do not do likewise. While, on the other hand, we will ensure that unregistered ah hoc groups of employees retain their basic right to withdraw their labour without fear of legal liability, we, again following the Royal Commission, reserve all the other rights, privileges and
860
advantages to properly registered trade unions.
It is good to see in paragraph 109 of the White Paper that Her Majesty's Government recognise the need to tighten up the conditions under which trade unions may secure registration, though we would not go so far as to fine a union which failed to make the right rules for itself, as the Government would do according to paragraph 109. We again prefer the approach of the Royal Commission to get trade unions to comply with the proper conditions for registration; that is to say, making the protection afforded by the Trade Unions Act 1906, Section 3, available only to registered unions.
We think that it is in everyone's interests—of industry as a whole, of trade unions seeking increased membership and of potential individual members most of all—that trade unions should have to work out and set out all their rules clearly and in detail; and we would require something much more stringent than the proposals in the White Paper. Our hope and expectation is that these measures, when brought into force, will give fresh impetus and new life to the trade union movement as a whole. We far prefer the approach which encourages growth from within the trade union movement—from its roots in each plant, in each place, in each grade—to the Government-sponsored Trade Union Development Scheme set out in paragraphs 71 to 75 of the White Paper. With the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, I would ask noble Lords opposite: are they really so sure that they want to put so much power in the hands of a Minister when that Minister may well one day be a Conservative? I think it is much better that the strength of the unions should come from within the unions, and that the powers of interference that are to be exercised should be exercised by the courts.
There is no doubt that more money, more full-time officials and better organisation at the work place are all required in the unions to-day, but I cannot believe that employees themselves will not resspond so as to meet those requirements when the trade unions themselves, helped by these many much-needed changes in the law, begin to demonstrate, as the union of the noble Lord, Lord Cooper,

861
clearly is already beginning to demonstrate, that they are ready and trying to assume the responsibilities that industry and the country expects of them in the 1970s.
My Lords, there are some who say—and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said it to-day—that the ills within our industry and our industrial relations are exaggerated, and that for every one of the Ford men, of the Girling men, of the Vickers men, of the dockers, of the Vauxhall men or of the bank employees there are thousands and thousands of others who are getting on with their jobs and who are already getting a fair deal at their work—and getting it without strife. Those who say this are right to remind us of it, but in the end what matters is what people feel, and what is happening to-day is already more than enough to make others feel that England cannot much longer be trusted as a trading partner and that England cannot be relied upon as a supplier. It is more than enough to make all who have her prosperity as a country at heart feel sick to death at the strife that spreads to-day so easily in our industrial relations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, when he says that the duty of the Government, having set up this Royal Commission and having produced their White Paper, is now clear. It is to bring forward their first instalment of legislation based upon it with despatch, and to let us in Parliament get our teeth into it.
11.59 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I think I shall be expressing the opinion of all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and of the reasonably large attendance of noble Lords still present at what I think I can describe, even in the parlance of another place, as this late hour, when I say that this has been an excellent debate. In following my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, began by congratulating my noble friend on the reasonable and constructive way in which he had put this White Paper before your Lordships' House. I think I should be correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, proceeded along similar lines. And if I may jump to the end of
862
the debate, I would also wish to say that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, apart from perhaps a reasonable amount of political coat-trailing in relation to the prices and incomes policy, adopted a similarly reasonable approach to our discussions.
My Lords, it is now I think technically correct to refer to the debate which started "yesterday", and I am sure that in these circumstances noble Lords will forgive me if I do not take time to deal adequately with all the many valuable points that have been raised. It is clear that noble Lords are extremely concerned about the state of industrial relations. But having said that, I would remind the House of what my noble friend Lord Williamson said: that we must not get this out of perspective; that we must not persuade ourselves—and in doing so seek to persuade other people—that industrial relations in this country are the worst in the world. It might be an exaggeration to claim that they are the best in the world; but they certainly are among the best. It does not do any service to ourselves or to our trade unions, or to our industrial capacity, if we over-exaggerate the situation which exists.
It is clear that almost every speaker, implicitly or explicity, has recognised the difficulties and the complexities of reforming industrial relations. There are no easy remedies. While we shall all, I think, accept that the law has a part to play, it seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from much of the comment is that we should beware of expecting too much from legal changes. A great deal has been said about the desirability or otherwise of making collective agreements enforceable in the same way as other contracts. I think that most of us would agree on three things. First, we should not insist that collective agreements must be legally binding regardless of the wishes of the parties concerned. It would be a backward step to impose legal contracts on unwilling parties. To attempt to do this would inhibit the development of satisfactory and comprehensive collective agreements and also sharpen disagreements between unions and employers. Secondly, if contracts are to be enforced, if this is the wish of the parties, there must be greater clarity about the obligations undertaken and about the precise intentions of each side.

863
We are all very much aware, because of the events of the past two weeks, that few agreements at present are capable of being interpreted and enforced in the courts. Thirdly, it is the improvement and development of procedures that should be our major goal.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, seemed to me to exaggerate the benefits which would flow from the legal enforceability of collective agreements. Nor are these agreements always the result of land and hard negotiations; often they are worked out very quickly, ad hoc, to deal with new items of work or some other immediate problem. The noble and learned Viscount suggested that the C.I.R. might secure the observance of agreements. I do not think that the C.I.R. can be expected to handle that particular chestnut in place of the employers. In any event, the C.I.R. could not proceed without evidence supplied by the employers to be used against employees. The C.I.R. is intended to be an adviser, not a policeman. I think it would be a distraction from the Commission's main job of securing improvements by analysis and persuasion if it were made responsible for enforcement.
My Lords, the Government have accepted the need for a thorough-going reform of the collective bargaining system so as to bring its structure into conformity with the realities of industrial life; to improve the procedures for negotiation, for settling disputes and for consultation between management and employees; to make collective agreements richer in content and to make employers' associations and trade unions more efficient in serving their members. In particular, I must stress the responsibility which lies with management, because it is they who are in a position to take the initiative; and of course it is often they who have most to gain from improvements in industrial relations. The manpower and productivity service of the Department of Employment and Productivity will play a valuable part in giving advice and encouragement.
This movement for reform, however, needs a leader and a pacemaker. This is the role of the new Commission on Industrial Relations which has just been set up under the Chairmanship of Mr. George Woodcock. The Secretary of
864
State for Employment and Productivity will refer to the new Commission for examination important questions concerning the functioning and development of the procedures of collective bargaining and of the institutions—employers and their associations and trade unions—which carry it out. It will also deal with problems of trade union recognition. The Commission will therefore play the central part in pushing forward reform in this vital area which has been allowed to fall into disorder, with such serious results to the economy. The Government are convinced that expert analysis of problems, followed by reasoning and the persuasion of those directly involved, is the only real way to get improvements.
It was no surprise to me that a number of noble Lords expressed reservations about what I suppose, in the current jargon, we must term the penalty clauses in the White Paper. I must make plain that the Government have deliberately avoided general remedies for dealing with strikes, such as removing the protection of the 1906 Act in relation to sympathetic strikes or making unconstitutional strikes illegal. None the less, the Government are anxious to see that voluntary procedures are strengthened and that important strikes are not embarked on without full account being taken of the wishes of individual union members. I emphasise that these powers are to be used sparingly. They are reserve powers, for use only where potentially damaging strikes might occur. Moreover, the power we propose will not prevent a strike. It will simply provide the opportunity for conciliation or for balloting, as the case may be, before the right to strike is exercised.
It is, my Lords, quite ridiculous to regard these provisions as undermining the powers of the trade unions. It is equally wrong to see them as the main solution to our industrial relations problems. A number of noble Lords have indicated their reservations about the proposal to give the Secretary of State discretion to require a ballot of members before an official strike. My noble friend Lord Shackleton has already explained that the purpose of the requirement is to ensure that the degree of support by the membership for a strike should be known before a decision is taken to embark on a major strike that could affect the

865
national economy. It has been suggested that the Government wish to restrict the right to strike or to delay the calling of a strike even when negotiations have broken down. The White Paper states quite categorically that the power of unions under their rules to decide whether or not to strike, or to end a strike, will remain unaltered. We recognise that a union may decide to call a strike even although the result of a ballot is against such action. The freedom of a union to take such a decision within its own rules would not be interfered with. The problem of the delay caused by holding a ballot can easily be overestimated. If a union knows in advance that it may well have to take a ballot of its members, it can clearly prepare for it in advance, as I am sure those unions do who are required by their own rules to hold a ballot.
It has also been suggested by some noble Lords that the requirement to consult the members will undermine the authority of the union leaders in their negotiations with the employers. I must say that I find this difficult to accept. Some of our trade unions, as has been stated during our debate, already have provisions for a compulsory strike ballot in their own rules and they are not noticeably weakened by it. Moreover, we recognise that a union leader who is free to decide under his union rules whether or not to hold a ballot must have valid reasons for not wanting to do so. That is why the White Paper refers to the holding of discussions with a union before the Secretary of State requires a ballot to be held. It is reasonable to expect that there would be occasions when a union leader could persuade the Secretary of State that his reasons for not holding a ballot are valid, as well as occasions when the Secretary of State remains convinced that a ballot would be desirable.
Doubts have been expressed about the practicability of the proposal. The Government are not suggesting in the White Paper that there should be a ballot before all strikes. They simply suggest that there are some occasions when it may be desirable to hold one. The Secretary of State will have to consider, in consultation with the unions and the T.U.C., what practical problems have to be overcome in a given case. There is nothing rigid
866
about the proposal. It is certainly not true to suggest that the corollary of a strike ballot is a ballot to call off a strike. The ballot simply provides a means for members to be consulted. It does not irrevocably commit the leaders of a union to a particular course of action. Similarly, the Secretary of State will have discretion whether to require a ballot or not, and need not do so if circumstances do not justify it.
The attachment of earnings is a matter upon which strong feelings have been expressed by my noble friends Lord Blyton, Lord Hill and, to some extent, Lord Taylor of Mansfield. There has been much misunderstanding of the proposal—perhaps it is because the White Paper is not clear enough on this aspect. For instance, there will be an upper limit for penalties on individuals and there have been no decisions yet on what the limit will be. Earnings will not be attached unless the man concerned refuses or unreasonably neglects to pay the penalty within a reasonable period. The Government understand the widespread suspicion of attachment, based on the fact that the employers against whom the strike has been conducted will be responsible for attaching earnings and on the misuse of attachment by employers in the past. They regard this suspicion as unjustified. Attachment will have to be carried out in exactly the way the county court prescribes, and there is no scope for any employer to abuse it. Employers are indeed likely to regard it as an unwelcome accounting chore rather than as a way of scoring off employees. The T.U.C. and most trade unions fully support attachment of earnings as the ultimate means of collecting other types of judgment debt. It is clearly preferable to the obvious alternatives of imprisonment and seizure of goods. Nevertheless, the detailed arrangements for the collection of Industrial Board penalties will be considered in the consultations now in progress between the Government and industry about the proposed legislation.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield asked a number of questions about paragraph 62 of the White Paper. First, he asked to whom the money collected in penalties would go. This is one of the detailed points that has not yet been finally decided, but the simplest answer no doubt would be to treat them in the same way as ordinary fines. One thing

867
I wish to make clear. My noble friend may have had in his mind that they might go to the employer. They will not go to the employer. Secondly, he asked about the reference to "other civil remedies". I am advised that, at least in theory, this could include the seizure of goods by bailiffs. But the Government fully recognise how unpopular this would be if applied against individual strikers. Both that and imprisonment seem to me to be much more undesirable than the attachment of earnings, despite the protests which the proposals for attachment have given rise to. Thirdly, my noble friend asked whether there would be a danger of imprisonment for contempt. This is another detailed point which the Government will have to consider during the preparation of legislation and upon which they will be consulting both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., and my noble friend's view will, I can assure him, be taken into account. In the meantime, I think he can take some comfort on this matter from the strongly expressed views of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about imprisonment.
Several noble Lords have expressed the wish to remove the Prices and Incomes Act from the Statute Book so as to ensure, as they have stated, that industrial relations can develop unhampered by Government powers under this Act. These powers are said to undermine union leadership, to weaken collective bargaining, to stimulate militancy and to cause injustice. As noble Lords will know, these powers lapse at the end of this year. The Government are naturally considering how their prices and incomes policy can best be observed after 1969, and this must depend entirely on our economic situation at the time. I think it is common ground among most of us that we must have an effective economic policy. To argue that the abandonment of incomes policy would cure all our industrial relations ills is, I would suggest, a gross misreading of the situation.
On the subject of the incorporation of trade unions, the Donovan Report recomended in paragraphs 782 to 785 that trade unions should be incorporated, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, has pointed out, this is one of
868
the recommendations which the Government have not accepted, stating in paragraph 111 of the White Paper that the T.U.C. has represented that this corporate status would be undesirable as it would have no significant advantages and would not be appropriate to unions' constitutional structure. We do not think that the comparison with a limited company is really apt. The process of registration and incorporation of a company is so closely linked as to be virtually inseparable. Whereas a company is created by a registration and incorporation, a trade union is in existence before registration can be applied for and effected. At present, registration is voluntary, but registered unions represent about 85 per cent. of trade union membership.
I do not wish to go into all the legal arguments which are presented in the brief before me and which would mean a lot more to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, than, I must confess quite frankly, they mean to me. I have read through paragraphs 782 to 785 of the Donovan Report and the impression these paragraphs have left on me is that although this was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Commission, the Commission were saying: "We do not think any great harm would be done if incorporation took place." I did not get the impression that this was one of the recommendations that any of them, including not only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, but the other three Members of your Lordships' House who served on this Commission, would find themselves dying in the last ditch for. It is my impression, and it could be a wholly wrong one as I am not a lawyer, that the main argument in favour of compulsory incorporation appears to be one of legal tidiness.
I was most interested in some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had to say at the beginning, or near the beginning, of this debate. The suggestions he made have their origin in the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act in the U.S.A.; the use of the ballot to determine whether a union, and if so which one, should have bargaining rights, the outlawing of sympathetic strikes, and the power to order a 60-day cooling-off period. We must always be

869
careful not to adopt any practice just because it has been successful in another country. But, equally, it would be wrong to reject it for that reason only. Let me comment, without undue prejudice, on these three possibilities.
The Government do not rule out the use of a ballot of employees concerned as a means of determining whether a union ought to be recognised. Quite the contrary. We envisage that the C.I.R. will have power to conduct a recognition ballot, but we do not think that we should make this the only method of deciding whether a union should be recognised. We prefer to leave it open to the C.I.R. to take account of all the relevant facts in any situation referred for their advice. Moreover, I think it would be quite unrealistic to suppose that it will usually be possible or desirable for a single union to have exclusive bargaining rights in a factory. This development was possible in the United States only because unionisation had made relatively little progress up to the time of the Wagner Act, which made provision for exclusive bargaining rights in each plant or bargaining unit.
Then there is the question of sympathetic strikes, which the Conservative Party would take outside the protection of the 1906 Act. It is not surprising, perhaps, that trade unions regard this as little more than a transparent device to reduce their powers to secure their objectives by concerted action against employers. We must say frankly that we cannot accept that it would be either wise or just to take this course of action. As to the cooling-off period, the major difference between this and the conciliation pause suggested by the Government would seem to be that the Conservatives visualise using this in official and constitutional strikes, whereas in the Government's view there is already normally ample time for negotiation and careful consideration before such a strike is called. The fact is that often in the United States the cooling-off period tends to discourage serious attempts to reach agreement before the collective contract expires. What we really need, and what the Government propose, is the power to require unconstitutional strikers to return to work when they have downed
870
tools at a moment's notice with little or no attempt to use the machinery to discuss their grievance properly. In the United States the strike problem is an official strike problem; not so in Britain. Our remedy, therefore, must be different. It is designed for British conditions and not borrowed from American law.
I now venture, with trepidation, on a brief which I received from my friends along the way, to reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan. The noble Lord advanced some interesting arguments in support of the majority recommendation of the Royal Commission that it should be possible to sue unofficial strike leaders for inducement of breach of contract. As he pointed out, this recommendation is rejected in paragraph 88 of the White Paper, but he challenged the reasons there given for rejecting the recommendation. He said that there had been cases in recent years where employers had obtained injunctions against strike leaders for breach of contract—
LORD DONOVAN: My Lords, this is the misunderstanding which underlies paragraph 88. It is not for breaches of contract but for inducing others to break their contract, which is quite a different thing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will regard these words as being added to what I say I do not think it will alter what I wish to go on to say. So far as I am aware, all these cases have involved injunctions against union officials in official strikes. If in these circumstances an injunction can be obtained against a union official the union naturally calls off the strike, but in an unofficial strike, while there might be ringleaders against whom an injunction could be obtained if the recommendation of the Royal Commission was implemented, these are not in any position to call off the strike. The pressure for the strike may have come from these ringleaders, but, on the other hand, it may come from underneath. Indeed, if I have understood the matter correctly, this is what was shown by the research which was carried out for the Royal Commission. In this situation there is at least the danger that if we were to pick out the alleged ringleaders this could create allegations of victimisation and thus make the dispute worse.

871
The noble and learned Lord also asked whether, if the Secretary of State required a strike ballot and the vote went against a strike, this would make the subsequent strike illegal. The answer is, No; the executive would be free to call a strike, but would be likely to take account of the views of the members concerned.
I do not propose to refer now to any other individual point which has been raised, but I think it would be wrong if I were to close my reply without making particular reference to the many speeches which have been made by my noble friends with long and distingushed trade union experience, and those who still occupy high trade union positions. I do not mean to suggest that we necessarily place any less weight on contributions from other noble Lords when I say that I am quite certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be particularly interested to read all their reactions to the White Paper, and the general welcome they have given to the many constructive proposals contained in it. She will, I am sure, have regard to the reservations which they have expressed about some of the methods proposed in the White Paper. Perhaps I might couple with that comment the speech which we had from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, who gave strong support to certain actions which the Government propose in the White Paper, but gave perhaps equally strong criticism of some of the decisions which the Government have taken. I should like to assure him that I am quite certain that all his remarks, whether for or against Government policy, will be considered most carefully by my right honourable friend.
Once again your Lordships' House has given evidence of its ability to discuss, with knowledge and with prestige, a serious situation facing our country. I should like to close by expressing my appreciation to all who have taken part in this debate. You have most admirably followed what my noble friend Lord Shackleton asked in his Motion, that you "take note of" the White Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
Reported, without amendment.
  COMMODITY AGREEMENTS AND IMPORT PRICES
  COMMODITY AGREEMENTS AND IMPORT PRICES