Sitting of 14 December 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    A55/Flint-Mold Road (Junction)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is aware of the dangers to traffic at the crossing of the A55 and the Flint-Mold road; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): An alternative layout for this junction is now being considered.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that answer will give great satisfaction in my constituency? Does he realise that this is an extremely dangerous crossroads? Is he further aware that until such time as he can announce an early decision for the dual tracking of the A55 along its entire length he will get no peace whatever from me?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that warning.

    National Health Service (Reorganisation)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Flintshire County Council about the reorganisation of the National Health Service in Wales; and what replies he has sent.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Flintshire County Council submitted its observa-
    920
    tions on the previous administration's Green Paper on the Reorganisation of the National Health Service in July. The county council endorsed the views of the County Councils' Association, which considered that the administration of the health service should be the responsibility of local authorities. The county council's observations were acknowledged in the usual way.
    Sir A. Meyer: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware of the very great disadvantages which could flow from divorcing the administration of the National Health Service from existing arrangements? Is he aware of the advantages to be derived from tying all of this up with the recommendation of the Seebohm Committee? Does he realise that if the ambulance service is taken away from the county council it is liable to cause much more inconvenience than advantage?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend will realise that this question has been studied very carefully. The Government decided that the National Health Service should be administered by health authorities outside local government, primarily because of the difficulties of financing the service by the local authorities and because of the opposition of the medical profession to local authority control. I do not think that I can add anything to my original answer.

    Local Education Authorities and Parents (Consultation)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the machinery for consultations between local education authorities in Wales and parents of schoolchildren when it is proposed to move pupils from one school to another and there is a language difference involved; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This is essentially a matter for determination by the local education authority concerned. My aim is to encourage where appropriate the maximum consultation with parents, teachers' organisations and the managers and governors of schools before decisions are reached by local education authorities on such matters.
    Mr. Ellis: While thanking the Secretary of State for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a case of a school in my constituency where a decision was reached to transfer children from a Welsh-speaking school at fifth form stage to an English-speaking school, and that this was done without any consultation with parents? Is he aware that it was only due to some determined resistance on the part of the parents that the local authorities scotched the decision, at least for the time being? Does he not think that this is a deplorable state of affairs?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long questions delay progress.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Morgan Llwyd school. Any proposals which would make a significant change in the character of that school would require my approval before implementation.

    Welsh-Speaking Secondary Schools
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the development of all the Welsh-speaking secondary schools which have been instituted since 1945; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Since 1945 six bilingual secondary schools have been established by four local education authorities in Wales. Their development has been a most encouraging feature of Welsh secondary education. Some of these schools are experiencing the curriculum and organisational problems associated with small comprehensive schools. In these instances the local education authorities concerned are considering how these problems may be overcome.
    Mr. Ellis: Would the Secretary of State not agree that the development of the schools is to a great extent dependent on the enthusiastic support that they get from the local education authorities concerned? Would he not further agree that this support has sometimes not been as forthcoming in some areas as it might have been to bring about the liberal and enlightened policy we would expect?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that enthusiasm both by the local education authority and by the parents augurs well
    922
    for the further development of these schools.

    Wages Policy
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will introduce legislation to give himself the authority to meet industrial employees, including miners, to explain to them why the Government's policy of wage and salary restraint upon the part of the miners is not being implemented so far as the higher-paid civil servants are concerned.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No. I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department on 18th November, 1970.—[Vol. 806, c. 426.]
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that neither that reply nor any other reply that I have had has been able to explain why it is that a 10 per cent. increase appears to be inflationary to the Government when a 51 per cent. increase spread over two and a half years, which the Government are now paying to the higher-paid civil servants and the chairmen of the nationalised boards, appears to be non-inflationary? Surely a 17 per cent. average of increases is at least a little more inflationary than 10 per cent?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Increases in pay at all levels should be dealt with on their merits [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The reasons for the civil servants' pay increase were given in the answer to which I have referred.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that miners in Wales should not he treated any differently from miners in England? Would he not reinforce the policies of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in putting a brake on the increase in prices in the nationalised industries, including those for the products of the nationalised coal mining industry?
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: And including civil servants?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This matter was fully debated only the other day in this House.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the

    923
    conduct of the Government in offering these tremendous increases to people at the top of the scale is a provocation which is contributing to our present difficulties?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's remark, because the increases to which he has referred were recommended by an independent standing advisory committee in 1969. They were agreed in principle by the last Administration. They were being paid in three stages, and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is referring to the third stage.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    South Wales Ports
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay official visits to each of the South Wales ports.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already visited the docks at Newport, Cardiff, Barry and Swansea, and I hope to visit others in due course.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that it does not seem to have done him or them much good? Will he visit them again to explain why he has betrayed the essential dock interests of Swansea, Barry, Newport and Cardiff by giving the go-ahead to the Bristol docks development? Will he explain how the Minister of Transport has shown greater ability in protecting his local Somerset interests than has the right hon. and learned Gentleman in protecting his essential interests in South Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I greatly benefited from my visit to the South Wales docks. I was greatly impressed by what has been done there. I have no reason to doubt the ability of the South Wales docks to withstand competition from wherever it comes.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the Government's decision to authorise the Bristol docks scheme could do immense harm to the South Wales docks? Will he confirm his faith in the Govern-
    924
    ment's decision? As Chairman of the Conservative Party, did he give any consideration to the fact that there are more Conservative votes in Bristol than in South Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That is totally wrong. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the position about the Bristol port was a matter of policy declared before the General Election.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend exert himself in the Cabinet to ensure that all necessary help is given to the South Wales ports? Is that not a better method of doing it than merely fighting a battle with Bristol?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As I said, I was very impressed by what I saw in the South Wales ports, especially the managerial expertise and drive of the port director and his staff and the initiative and enthusiasm of all engaged in the docks in South Wales. I have no doubt that they will continue to be successful.

    Medical Education
    Mr. Ifor Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, Command Paper No. 3569, column 390, dealing with medical education in Wales, in the light of the recent implementation of the recommendations for England.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Decisions on the provision of facilities for medical education are taken by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the advice of the University Grants Committee and in consultation with the Health Ministers, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my right hon. Friend on 19th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 455.]
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the recent announcement of a new medical school at Leicester—I congratulate Leicester—brings the total number of medical schools in England to 12? In addition, there are five in Scotland. That compares with only one in Wales. Is he further aware that if it is decided to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission that a new school should be built in Wales in 1975 and located at Swansea, the decision is now

    925
    extremely urgent having regard to the essential long-term planning?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I know his proper interest in this. The Todd Report, which recommended Leicester and Swansea, was fully covered in the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to him the other day. Consultations are taking place between the various Health Ministers on this matter.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a desperate need in Wales for further medical educational facilities? May we have a firm assurance that he will use the full weight of his office to support the application in respect of Swansea.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have already made it clear that on both sides of the House this is considered to be an important matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not be backward in pursuing the interests of Wales.

    Agricultural Holdings
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many farm units there are in Wales; and how many he estimates will be in existence in five years' time.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many separate farm holdings there are in Wales and in Glamorgan, respectively; and what proportion of those in Wales and in Glamorgan is of less than 50 acres.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: With permission, I will answer questions Nos. 10 and 56 together.
    There are estimated to be some 36,200 agricultural holdings in Wales of which about 2,800 are in Glamorgan. About 45 per cent. of these in each case are holdings under 50 acres. No reliable estimate can be made of the number of holdings that will be in existence in five years' time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is important that the Chair should know in advance which Questions are grouped together.
    Mr. Jones: What effect does the Minister envisage the increase in size of farm which will qualify for amalgamation
    926
    grants having on the number of farm units in Wales? Will he also explain why his party, when in opposition, voted against the introduction of such a scheme by the then Government? Will he also give an estimate of the impact of an import levy system on the number of farm units in Wales, bearing in mind that 30 per cent. of Welsh farmers' income comes from grants and subsidies? If they lose that proportion of their income, where will the money come from, and how many units will remain as a result?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Mid-Wales Rural Development Board was opposed by the Welsh people because it was not wanted by anyone in Mid-Wales. Farm structure schemes are intended to help voluntary amalgamations, whose rate depends on decisions of farmers and landowners. His third point hardly applies to the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Gower: Has my hon. Friend compared the number of farm holdings in Wales with that of the rest of the United Kingdom in recent years, and has the decline in the number in Wales been excessive compared with the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. The Welsh figures are not much out of line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Local Employment Acts (Finance)
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the £25 million earmarked under the Local Employment Acts for the United Kingdom as a whole will be spent in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The amount to be spent in Wales will depend upon the response from industry and local authorities.
    Mr. Kinnock: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether he will assure us that it will be far in excess of the £1·9 million that the last Conservative Administration spent? Is he aware that even if the whole £25 million were spent in Wales, it would still be inadequate compared with the sum

    927
    spent by the last Government? Will he assure us that after the first year of operation of the new scheme he will compare it with the last full year under the Labour Administration to ensure that at least as much is spent?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The money is extra money, and I have no doubt that Wales will have its fair share of it.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember that it is a mistake to equate the expenditure of money with the provision of jobs, as the last Administration did? Will he bear in mind that the highest unemployment rate is not necessarily in areas which have development area status?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My hon. Friend is right. The record of the previous Government should indicate to those who are concerned about Wales that the policies of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were not very effective.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister aware that what he has just said is untrue? Is he further aware that there are 70,000 Welsh men and women who are working in Wales today only because Government money was put into building Government factories there?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am also aware that when the right hon. Gentleman left office there were 55,000 fewer men in employment in Wales than there were in 1964.

    Forestry
    Mr. William Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales, in view of the growth of private forests at the expense of Forestry Commission and hill farming in Wales, and of his rejection of a Rural Development Board, what safeguards he proposes to provide to put farmers in Wales in the same position in relation to forestry extension as the farmers in the Pennines Development Board area.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: None. I believe that both State and private forestry have a part to play in the development of Wales. I do not accept that this need to be at the expense of hill farmers or of the Forestry Commission, which is making steady progress in acquiring and planting land in Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, despite some uncertainty about the Rural Development Board's proposals as regards farm units in Mid-Wales, the protection given to farm holdings from the activities of the Economic Forestry Group was a welcome feature, since the group is allowed to take farming land without the restrictions which are put on the Forestry Commission? Is his only answer to amalgamate all farms of up to 100 acres, which takes in 75 per cent. of all farm holdings?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman talking like that. Many people in Wales thought that the Rural Development Board was a foresters' charter and would strengthen the arm of forestry. I cannot accept what he says in the second part of his Question.
    Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister not aware of the great concern in rural Wales about the amount of land taken over by private forestry? Is there not a case for subjecting private forestry interests to the same control as that applied to the Forestry Commission, namely, the county agricultural executive committee? Is he further aware that the death duty relief, originally intended to help good landlordism, is now used for dodging death duties?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementry question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the question of private versus State planting, the hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that the amount of planting last year was roughly the same on both sides, and as far as I am concerned forestry of both sorts is good for the economy of Wales.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms have been taken up in Wales by the Forestry Commission and private forestry groups in the last 12 months; and how many will be taken out of agriculture in the course of the next five years.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: In the year ended 30th September, 1970, the Forestry Commission acquired six whole farms and parts of 19 farms in Wales. I have no comparable information about acquisitions by private forestry groups, nor can I forecast the number of farms which

    929
    may be acquired for forestry in the next five years.
    Mr. Jones: With regard to that disgraceful reply regarding private foresters, in that the Government are not aware of the number of farms taken up, and the reply the Secretary of State gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) regarding the effect on the Forestry Commission, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not the acreage as between the Forestry Commission and the private foresters which matters but the number employed now by the Forestry Commission compared with 10 years ago? This has been the result of depopulation in the rural areas.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is extremely difficult to answer because it is so extremely difficult to follow. I say to him again that the Forestry Commission in the year ended 30th September acquired six whole farms and parts of 19 farms in Wales.

    National Health Service (Administration)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales why he has delegated responsibility for the administration of the health service in Wales to the Minister of State; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is common practice for the day-to-day work of a Department to be divided between Ministers, and under my overall responsibility my hon. Friend the Minister of State deals with health service matters in Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that earlier he tried to shuffle off on to the Welsh Hospital Board responsibility for the staffing of hospitals in Wales, when it is, in fact, his own responsibility? Is he further aware that he answered me at the last Welsh Question Time by saying that he had delegated responsibility for the National Health Service to the Minister of State, whose job it is to assist him? Is he further aware that it is a public disgrace that he has not yet visited a hospital in Wales to show his own personal involvement in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall be visiting hospitals in Wales. I said that the duties of my hon. Friend the Minister of State are to assist me in all matters which are the concern of my Department. I said that, subject to that, he had special responsibility, inter alia, for the National Health Service. I am continuing a process which was followed by all my pre decessors. There is nothing in the arrangement which derogates from my prime responsibility for all the functions exercised by the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Gower: While it is valuable for my right hon. and learned Friend to visit hospitals, schools, ports and other places, is it not much more important that he should first of all improve the administration of his Department?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I should obviously like to visit many parts of Wales and many institutions in Wales but, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) knows only too well, the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales are in great part to be exercised in London.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he definitely said that he had delegated responsibility for the National Health Service to the Minister of State—it is in HANSARD—but that we look at him to shoulder the responsibilities that he bears as Secretary of State and not to run away from them as he has done during Question Time?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when I wrote to him on 4th November I said that I had delegated initial responsibility.
    Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, when, unfortunately, you will not be here.

    Primary Schools, Flintshire (Oversize Classes)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of over-size classes in Flintshire primary schools.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: In September, 1970, there were 38 classes in primary schools in Flintshire with 40 or more pupils. The current number of such classes is not available.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in my constituency, due to a population explosion in townships such as Connah's Quay, Flint and Buckley, there is considerable overcrowding in classes for young children in schools on new housing estates? Would it not be a good idea to have a realistic quota in the county and enable more mobile classrooms to be used? Will he use the combined powers of his twin offices to expedite the matter immediately?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that there was a problem in Flintshire. In January last the percentage of over-sized primary school classes in Flint was higher, at 9·2 per cent., than in any other county in Wales. I am happy to say that there has been an improvement. In september the figure was reduced to 5·5 per cent., and the local education authority has made provision for additional teachers. I think that the figure is probably lower now and will continue to be lower.

    Local Authority Expenditure
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those urban district and non-county boroughs in Wales which have indicated to him their views on his decision to introduce block allocation of money to local authorities for capital expenditure with effect from 1st April, 1971.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No local authority has so far indicated to me any objection in principle to the new arrangement under which, over a wide range of their functions, authorities will budget within allocations instead of being required to obtain individual loan sanctions. But a few have expressed anxieties about the way the arrangement may work out in relation to their local needs.
    Mr. Probert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this expected answer is due to the fact that these local authorities have not been directly consulted in this important matter? Is he further aware that there
    932
    is growing concern that it will have a serious effect upon their individual responsibilities and freedom?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that the local authorities were not themselves directly consulted but, as is the normal practice, the local authority associations were consulted before the announcement was made.
    Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many authorities in Wales are seriously concerned at the effects of this decision upon their resources? Will he give an assurance that if representations are made to him by those authorities he will give urgent consideration to them?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I will give consideration to any representations which are made to me. I think that most authorities welcomed the removal of central control and the fact that they will have a greater say in the allocation of money which is made to them.

    Derelict Land Clearances
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will give consideration to the placing of schemes for the clearance of derelict lands in the key sectors where Government Departments will have special responsibilities.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I think it is right that schemes for the clearance of derelict land should be among the locally-determined schemes for which local authorities have freedom to decide their own priorities.
    Mr. Probert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this new arrangement will no doubt have serious effects upon the schemes which local authorities have already budgeted for and that the inclusion within the local allocation, as it were, of the total cost of a scheme inevitably means that many schemes will have to be abandoned?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Well, I certainly hope that that is not right. If the hon. Gentleman has any information about any scheme which will be seriously affected I hope he will let me know, because I want to give every help to derelict land clearance, and I hope that local authorities will give it very high priority.
    Mr. William Edwards: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not look at my hon. Friend's suggestion again, and would he not accept that in many areas of Wales local authorities with a high degree of derelict land have sometimes grown accustomed to derelict land and that it would be helpful if the Government would take the initiative in relation to some of these schemes? Is he not aware that that was the experience of the Welsh Office under my right hon. Friend's administration?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I will certainly look into this, but: the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the grant arrangements are unchanged. Indeed, more money is to be available for grants, and the grants are very generous at 85 per cent. Together with rate support resources element, grants in many of these areas which have been referred to will amount to about 90 per cent.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there are local authorities in Wales which are already planning certain schemes for the coming year and that they are afraid that under the loan sanction arrangements they will not be able to carry out the schemes they have proposed for the coming year?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have said that I will look at these individual schemes, and if the hon. Gentleman will let me know what schemes he is referring to I will certainly look at them, but I see no reason why local authorities should be anxious.

    University Hospital of Wales (Private Pay-Beds)
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the recommendation of the Welsh Hospital Board that there should be no private pay-beds at the new University Hospital of Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is for the Welsh Hospital Board to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the extent to which it thinks accommodation and services should be made available at hospitals in Wales for private patients. It has made no recommendations to him for such facilities at the University Hospital for Wales.
    Mr. Roderick: The Minister must be aware of the fact that medical need should be the criterion for treatment in such hospitals, and that the existence of pay-beds naturally means a longer wait for those with greater need. I understand that the Welsh Hospital Board is recommending that there should be no such pay-beds in the University Hospital of Wales. Will he agree with that decision, because it will be welcomed in Wales?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: As I said, this is a matter for the Welsh Hospital Board and I see no reason to intervene.
    Mr. Gower: Subject to what has been said about the question of medical need, would my hon. Friend consider one possibility? Could there not be some advantages to the National Health Service if it were not deprived of this money, and if some of it were saved for the Health Service, rather than all being spent in private nursing homes?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Of course, this is a complicated business, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that there are at present five pay-bed hospitals administered by the Welsh Hospital Board and during the year ended 30th June, 1970, no use was made by private patients of two beds at Sully and Whitchurch Hospitals, but I will look into the matter further.

    Jobs
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for relating industrial development expenditure in Wales to job provision.
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the steps he is taking to secure for Wales the maximum number of jobs from the aid available.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The policies of the Government, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October, are intended to increase the effectiveness of assistance to industry in Wales and thus to create the maximum number of jobs from that assistance. The wider use of the provisions of the Local Employment Acts is directly related to the creation of additional jobs.
    Mr. Kinnock: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer and taking encouragement from it for future Welsh development, may I ask him whether he is aware that both he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given overwhelming emphasis, in connection with regional development policy, to the value of free depreciation and depreciation allowances? Is he also aware that since these are directly related to profit-making capital this will have comparatively little effect on the creation of job provision in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that great emphasis has been placed on the benefits of free depreciation, for that, of course, encourages viable industrial investment, which should assist employment in Wales at the moment. As to the grants available under the Local Employment Acts, they are directly geared to employment.
    Mr. John: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that by abolishing the regional employment premium he has abolished the only form of assistance which has discriminated in favour of the provision of jobs as opposed to the provision of capital equipment?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, that is not strictly so. In any event, the regional employment premium was wasteful, and the amount taken out of Wales by selective employment tax is far more than the benefits received from the regional employment premium.
    Mr. John Morris: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman, first, help us and reveal the Government's concern by disclosing what level of unemployment in Wales is acceptable to them; and, secondly, answer the question I put to the Minister of State last Wednesday and say whether the Government's proposals of last October will help or hinder the plight of small new firms in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There are two questions there. The first one is on the level of unemployment, which for the last three years has been hovering at about 4 per cent. and is far too high and should be reduced. The other question is about small firms. It depends very much on the small firms. Some will have liquidity problems, but others will greatly benefit from these measures.
    Mr. McBride: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what reply he has sent to the Welsh small firms section of the Confederation of British Industry which recently saw him and raised this matter of employment when he tried to pass the buck to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Would he now say what suggestions he has about the industrial estate in my constituency? I have written to him and to his right hon. Friend about this. They have done nothing but pass the buck. Will they stop doing that and do something about it and give it full-time attention?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am afraid that I do not know of the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
    Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. As this is the last time, Mr. Speaker, that you will be presiding during Welsh Questions, may I on behalf of all Welsh Members wish you, Nadoligllawen a blwyddyn newydd dda, and good wishes to you.
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I only hope that the translation was correct. It sounded frightening to me in its original form.

    Welsh Regional Hospital Board
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to pay emoluments to the chairman and members of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister not aware that the chairman of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board is responsible for a budget of £50 million and for the employment of thousands of people in Wales? Would he not agree that it would be a good idea for the chairman to have some remuneration throughout the year, if only because he works at least three days a week on hospital board business?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am very appreciative of the valuable work that is done voluntarily by the chairman and other members of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, but any change in the voluntary system would require amending legislation. Since the reorganisation of the

    937
    National Health Service is under consideration, it is inopportune at present to consider any administrative changes in isolation.

    Pembrey (Gunnery Range)
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce his decision upon the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the proposed location of a gunnery range at Pembrey.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government's views will be made known after the inspector's report has been received and fully considered.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Since the Secretary of State has told the House previously that he is mindful of his quasi-judicial capacity in this matter, and also since he refuses to give an undertaking that he will not consult the Ministry of Defence, will he now give an assurance that if he does consult that Ministry he will give local authorities which objected to the scheme an opportunity to reply to any proposals put to him by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir; I would not give that assurance. The procedure that is being followed is the normal Circular 100 procedure adopted by both Administrations. I inherited that procedure from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should have looked at that procedure before putting his name to a Motion of Censure.
    Mr. George Thomas: What steps does the Minister propose to take to restore confidence to the people of Pembrey that he will deal impartially with this question, uninfluenced by the views of the Minister of Defence?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the procedure which he adopted.

    Transport
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning the whole transport position in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is the Government's policy that, having regard to social
    938
    and economic costs and benefits, there should be a satisfactory provision of public transport services; and also that the road system should be modernised.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Would the Secretary of State consider calling a special conference of Welsh local authorities to discuss the whole transport position of Wales since many local authorities, particularly local education authorities, are now becoming disturbed at the rising cost of conveying children to school and the threats to the rural bus services of Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall certainly consider conferring with local authorities on this matter. The Welsh Council is at the moment looking at the particular problem of transport in rural areas in Wales.
    Mr. John Morris: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's odd replies to this Question last time we discussed it, may I ask whether he is being consulted by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries about the future of these socially necessary railway lines in Wales, and when will grants for them be announced?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am frequently in contact with my right hon. Friend about transport needs in Wales.

  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Staff (Ex-Service Applicants)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will issue a general direction to the Post Office Board that as a General rule it should not bar from employment in the Post Office otherwise suitably qualified persons, on the stated grounds that its refusal of employment is due to the applicant having purchased his release from the services.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister look into this and into correspondence which I have had with the Managing Director of the Post Office Board about one of my young constituents who joined the Navy

    939
    on boys' service who came out on the purchase of his discharge and wanted to get a temporary job with the Post Office pending taking up a course and was told that because he had purchased his discharge the Post Office could not employ him? Is this not a disgusting and disgraceful state of affairs? Will the Minister look into this and stop such things in the future?
    Mr. Chataway: I understand from the Post Office that there is no discrimination of that kind, but recruitment of staff is a management matter for the Post Office.

    British Broadcasting Corporation (Programme Content)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) if he is aware that the practice of broadcasting personalised programmes such as "World at One" and the "World this Weekend", in which newscasters give their opinions instead of straight news, enables the British Broadcasting Corporation to avoid the direction given to it to refrain from broadcasting matters expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs; and if he will issue a further direction to deal with this;
    (2) if he will undertake, formally or informally, to draw the attention of the British Broadcasting Corporation to any breach by it of the licence and agreement under section 13(4) which bind the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from expressing its own opinions on public affairs or matters of public policy.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The B.B.C. Governors are alone responsible for programme content; I am confident that they recognise the importance of their responsibilities.
    Mr. King: Does the Minister accept that to accord to one single news-reading personality twice a day power to dominate, interpret, and put a personal gloss upon, the news, however carefully he may try to do it, is to concentrate power more than such power ought to be concentrated in a democracy? Second, would he accept that if the Governors of the B.B.C. were to act illegally, as I am suggesting they are acting, it is his responsibility, and his alone, to take action?
    Mr. Chataway: I do not believe that the B.B.C. would accept my hon. Friend's description of the administrative arrangements for the particular programme he referred to, but I think that very probably most of the House would agree that it would be wrong that any Minister should intervene in B.B.C. programme content.
    Mr. Richard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is absolutely right to reject both the somewhat pretentious language of and the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's Question?
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I support what my hon. Friend has just said. Is the Minister aware that there is some substance in the view which has been expressed that there is a tendency for commentators to move into a political rôle which is foreign to them? One example was the 8 o'clock morning programme in which the commentator launched a totally unjustified attack upon electricity workers. Although this House will do nothing about it, the B.B.C. will, I am sure, take note of the remarks made in the Chamber.
    Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Governors of the B.B.C. will take note of these remarks. Equally, one of the arguments for an alternative radio service is simply that in a democracy it must be healthy for there to be at least two sources of programmes.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Will the Minister recognise that there is no need for him or his hon. Friend to be too worried since, in the last resort the B.B.C. can always be relied on to be anti-Labour?

    Radio and Television Services, Wales
    Mr. William Edwardsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will ensure that all radio and television licence holders in Wales are able to receive all Welsh channels before entering on any new services.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. It would not be fair to licence holders in other parts of the United Kingdom to give Wales that kind of overriding priority.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that there is in Wales no concern about

    941
    bias in news reporting because only half the people in Wales are able to receive radio and television programmes satisfactorily? How can he embark on new schemes for the Independent Television Authority and local radio until all the people in Wales are able to receive one satisfactory service?
    Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman is sadly astray in his figures. Ninety-seven per cent. of the population of Wales are able to receive television and somewhat more than that receive sound radio programmes.
    Mr. Hooson: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the equity of the matter? Why should people in mid-Wales who can receive only one programme, and that indifferently, pay the same licence fee as people who can receive three or four programmes? It is inequitable. What does the Minister intend to do about it?
    Mr. Chataway: One factor that the hon. and learned Gentleman should take into account is that the cost of getting that one television service to people in Wales may be many times the cost of getting all the services to people in the conurbations.

    Television Licences (Cost)
    Mr. Frank Taylorasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will refuse to sanction an increase in the cost of television licences until he is satisfied that every effort has been made to improve the quality of the British Broadcasting Corporation's performance, to cut out waste and to improve financial results by increased efficiency.
    Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister bear in mind that many people, especially old-age pensioners, are quite unable to pay a higher licence fee? Moreover, for people who are sick and have no other contact with the world television is of great importance.
    Mr. Chataway: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, it is important that the licence fee should be no higher than is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware of the curious attitude of many neurotic Tory M.P.s that the B.B.C. is fair game for criticism because it spends public money, whereas I.T.V. is sacrosanct because it spends its own money? Will the Minister confirm that both organisations spend our money?
    Mr. Chataway: No. If I accepted that all revenue from advertising was an addition to the cost of an item I should favour the suppression of all advertising. I do not take that view, nor, I believe, do hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Rost: Is the Minister aware that many pensioners and others on fixed incomes in my constituency, and no doubt elsewhere, are finding it difficult to budget for the existing licence fee, let alone for any possible increase?
    Mr. Chataway: I accept the importance of what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to the quality and efficiency of I.T.V., if there are to be further punch-ups on the Frost programme, as happened at the weekend, will the Minister try to arrange for all the participants to be informed in advance?
    Mr. Chataway: That lies outside my field of responsibility.

    Street Work (Power)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to arrange with the Central Electricity Generating Board to obtain electric current from junction boxes of the mains supply for their contractors who need light and power for carrying out underground work in residential streets, instead of compelling them to use the engines of lorries to generate their own current, thus adding to traffic and aircraft noise from which many residents already suffer.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. This would not be a suitable subject for a general direction.
    Sir R. Russell: In that case, will the Minister request the Post Office to do what I have asked? Is it not ridiculous that electricity generators should be used

    943
    in residential streets, causing noise and pollution, when the mains supply is available?
    Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Telephone Rental charges
    Mr. Gorstasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) what advice he has received from the Post Office Users' National Council with regard to the charging by the Post Office of telephone rentals in arrears; and what action he proposes to take to give effect to the advice he has received;
    (2) whether he will revise the financial targets of the Post Office to enable it to refund or waive the telephone rental charges in arrears that it imposed earlier in this year.
    Mr. Chataway: The Council has made its views public and I am placing a copy of them in the Library. Implementation of tariff proposals must be a matter for the Post Office and I have no intention of intervening.
    Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister say whether the views expressed by the Post Office Users' National Council represent a majority view of the members of the Council? Secondly, is he aware that about 11,000 subscribers have protested about the retrospective charges, and does he feel that retrospective charging by the Post Office is a proper commercial activity?
    Mr. Chataway: The proceedings inside the Users' Council are, rightly, confidential, and I do not know what voting arrangements have been made. The Users' Council criticised the public relations of the Post Office, because in the normal sense of the word, no retrospection is involved here. Notice was given in June that there would be an increase, and the increase has taken effect for all subscribers from 1st July.

    National Giro
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will restrict his consideration of candidates for the chairmanship of the Post Office to those who are in favour of retaining the Post Office National Giro.
    Mr. Sorefasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will restrict his consideration of candidates for the chairmanship of the Post Office to those who are prepared to give an undertaking that they will disband the Think Tank.
    Mr. Chataway: I have no wish to restrict the field.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the Minister aware that things have been looking up for the Giro and that the number of users has increased from 160,000 to 400,000? All the electricity and gas boards and most local authorities now have Giro accounts, and the Giro provides a useful service cheaply. In view of this, will he at least appoint a chairman who is likely to give the Giro a little time to show its mettle, as it has done in France, Germany and Holland?
    Mr. Chataway: I told the House in the debate the other day that the Giro is under review, and I have nothing to add to that.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: What is the cost to date of the Think Tank and how is it getting on?
    Mr. Chataway: I have not the figure with me, and this is a management matter for the Post Office.
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he intends to review the Post Office National Giro.
    Mr. Normantonasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office National Giro.
    Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to my statement on 30th November during the debate on Post Office affairs.—[Vol. 807, c. 992.]
    Mr. Tuck: Is the Minister aware that the writer of an article in the Economist on 12th December said that losses should gradually decline and that the Giro is never likely to be a threatening rival to the banks? If this is what the Minister is afraid of, will he kindly take note of those remarks?
    Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman knows well that what the Government are concerned about, as they are bound

    945
    to be, is that the Giro is losing more than was forecast when it was launched. We have to determine whether and when the Giro can break even.
    Sir J. Rodgers: In his review of the Giro, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the advisability of changing the name? Most people do not have a clue what Giro means.
    Mr. Chataway: I will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the results of the review of the Giro will be published in such a form that the House can debate them? Will he also recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that the Giro is providing a cheap, worth-while and efficient service. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is about time that he gave it an expression of encouragement?
    Mr. Chataway: It ill becomes anyone speaking from the Opposition Front Bench to criticise the Government for reviewing the matter. Of course I will take into account all the points that have been raised and will communicate the result to the House.

    Contracts
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office that companies contributing to the funds of any political party shall be excluded from Post Office contracts.
    Mr. Chataway: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Is it right and proper that there should be any suggestion that companies which have contributed to Conservative Party funds are the same companies which are in receipt of Post Office contracts of a considerable size now that that party is in power?
    Mr. Chataway: I would not think of discriminating against any company which had the good sense to contribute to the Conservative Party, nor would I think of discriminating against any union which contributed to the Labour Party.
    Mr. Fidler: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from the
    946
    hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) suggesting that Post Office contracts be withdrawn from those workers in the industry who are subject to the same restriction; that is to say, that of contributing to the funds of a political party?
    Mr. Chataway: No. I think it would be wrong to discriminate in that way, too.

    Radio Manchester
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications it he will now state his intentions regarding the future of Radio Manchester.
    Mr. Chataway: I have nothing to add to the announcement I made on 6th August, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister appreciate that there would be widespread indigation if such excellent stations were "scuttled" to please the shareholders in commercial radio stations?
    Mr. Chataway: The stations would not be scuttled, and if there were to be one network rather than two, it would not be for the reason the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend. Is the Minister aware that the Observer report of his meeting with the T.U.C. on this important matter caused widespread concern? Could he say anything about the reporting of that meeting?
    Mr. Chataway: No. I told the T.U.C. at confidential discussions exactly what I have told a large number of other people with whom I have been discussing the future of local radio; namely that the future shape must depend on, among other things, the frequencies and the finance available.

    Local Radio
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications if he will now state his intentions regarding the future of local radio.
    Mr. Chataway: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on 9th November to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North

    947
    (Mr. Gorst) and Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).—[Vol. 806, c. 29.]
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister be aware that we have taken careful note of his remark today that such stations will not be "scuttled"? Many of us appreciate that statement very much and we will hold him to it. Will he go further and say that, in addition, these stations should be allowed the use of the medium waves, which would perhaps treble or quadruple their listening audience without incurring any appreciable extra cost?
    Mr. Chataway: I made clear in August, and the position is still the same, that there is no commitment to the B.B.C. for permanent local radio. If there were to be a change it would be an independent radio authority, or whatever authority we set up, which would be responsible for all local radio. The position has not changed since August. So far as medium waves are concerned, equally this matter is now under review.
    Mr. Marten: Since most of the local B.B.C. radios are based on towns, would the Minister be careful in future to see that those who are appointed to the Advisory Council comprise people from the towns and from the country because country listeners want representation, too, unlike his predecessor who seemed to appoint such people all from the towns?
    Mr. Chataway: I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's observations.
    Mr. Richard: Would the Minister now tell the House when we can expect a statement on commercial radio? Is he aware that if he converts a B.B.C. local radio monopoly into a commercial local radio monopoly, he will in no way increase the choice of the people in the area who listen to it?
    Mr. Chataway: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's concern for choice and for ending monopoly. I assure him that whatever the result of the outcome which will be early in the new year, it will increase choice and end monopoly.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that South Worcestershire is between the devil and the deep blue sea and that there is no B.B.C. radio coverage between Radio Birmingham and Radio Oxford? When we get
    948
    some local radio, whether B.B.C. or independent, could rural areas please be taken into account?
    Mr. Chataway: I will certainly do my best to ensure that South Worcestershire is as well served in its radio coverage as it is in its parliamentary representation.
    Mr. English: Would the Minister give an assurance about the existing staffs of local radio stations? Is lie aware that since the recent leak, inspired or otherwise, many existing staff of local radio stations are personally concerned? Could he give some assurance about their future before his White Paper is published, since this would be greatly appreciated by the staff?
    Mr. Chataway: I appreciate the fact that there are difficulties for the staff involved, and I have been anxious today to make it absolutely clear that the position is in no way changed since the announcement in August to which I referred. Perhaps those staff may reflect that, whatever the outcome of this particular review, it is almost certain that there will be greater opportunities of employment in local radio than before.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  Proclamation of State of Emergency
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER, as follows:
  The Emergency Powers Act, 1920. as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the present industrial dispute affecting persons employed in the electricity supply industry having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:
  Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 12th day of December, 1970, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about—
  Mr. Speaker: Order, I was expecting a Motion from the Front Bench.
  Hon. Members: Put the Question.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Whitelaw.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be considered.
  Mr. Speaker: What day?—[Interruption.] Order. There is no need to be foolish about this.
  The Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Jasper More): Thursday.
  Message to be considered upon Thursday.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  I have to inform the House that Sir Edmund Compton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, has requested Her Majesty to relieve him of his office under Section 1(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967; and that Her Majesty has graciously indicated her willingness to accede to his request. It will take effect on 31st March, 1971. By then Sir Edmund Compton will have completed four years as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and thirteen years in the service of the House since he was first appointed Comptroller and Auditor-General in 1958.
  I know that I speak for all Members of the House in paying tribute to Sir Edmund's achievements, both as Comptroller and Auditor-General and more recently as Parliamentary Commissioner. As his final contribution to the public service, he assisted in preparing this Office, he became its first occupant and now he retires after establishing its traditions. He has used his experience of public administration to establish practical working relationships with Whitehall, while fully preserving his independence as an instrument of Parliament.
  950
  He has developed investigating practices which make full use of his statutory powers while doing justice to all parties to a complaint. He has maintained complete independence of judgment in the findings he has reported to Parliament as well as to individual Members. There is general and sincere appreciation of the effectiveness with which he has carried out his work in the service of this House over the past thirteen years.
  I have also to inform the House that Her Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Sir Alan Marre, Second Permanent Secretary in the Department of Health and Social Security, as Parliamentary Commisssioner for Administration from 1st April. To assist the changeover, Sir Edmund Compton, acting under Section 3(1) of the Act, will appoint Sir Alan Marre to service in the Commissioner's Office with effect from 1st March.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his very generous and fully deserved tribute to Sir Edmund Compton will be echoed in all parts of the House?
  I suppose that I am one of the very small number—two or three—who, having been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, with Sir Edmund as Comptroller and Auditor-General, and one of the somewhat larger number of those who have served on that Committee during his period as C. and A.-G., have very good reason to know of the utterly devoted, dedicated, and meticulous work which he put in in that capacity.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in my view, was equally right to pay tribute to his pioneering work in establishing the post of Parliamentary Commissioner. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would also wish to include a tribute to the work done by Sir Edmund as the first Parliamentary Commissioner for Northern Ireland, so far as the national position there is concerned, until they appointed another one for Stormont affairs.
  The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, as are many Members of the House, of the great work that Sir Edmund did, not only for this House, but for the whole concept of the control of Government expenditure throughout the Commonwealth. Some of us had the privilege of being entertained by him when he had

  951
  as his guests, and as the guests of Parliament, the Comptrollers and Auditors-General of practically every Commonwealth country.
  Concerning his successor, the right hon. Gentleman can take it from us that we believe that the right appointment has been made. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Sir Alan Marre's was one of two or three names which were being considered last summer when we thought that the vacancy might be occurring somewhat earlier. I share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence in the distinguished public servant who has been appointed. He will have a hard task, as the House will agree, in following the high standards set by Sir Edmund Compton.
  Mr. Pardoe: While not in any way questioning the high qualities of either Sir Edmund or Sir Alan, who I am sure will do a marvellous job, may I ask the Prime Minister why he has turned down the possibility of recruiting a Parliamentary Commissioner from outside the ranks of the higher echelons of Government service? I recognise the advantages of recuriting gamekeepers from among the ranks of poachers, but is it not a bit much to ask a man to forget the habits of a lifetime in questioning the actions of the Administration?
  The Prime Minister: I very much appreciate the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that Sir Edmund Compton will be most appreciative of his warm-hearted remarks.
  The position in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. The appointment there is personal to Sir Edmund and I understand that he will continue to hold it.
  As regards an outsider being appointed, obviously very careful consideration was given to this point. But, on balance, it seemed to me, as indeed I think probably to my predecessor, that whereas it might be thought that somebody outside might bring more independence of judgment, though I doubt it, the advantage which somebody who has been a member of the public service has in knowing the way in which the Administration is carried on counterweighs any
  952
  other advantage and leads to the appointment, certainly in this case, of somebody from inside the public service. The House has recognised over a long period that a member of the public service can be put in the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and still retain complete independence when in that position. I am sure that this will be true of the new Parliamentary Commissioner.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Prime Minister aware that all those who have served on the Public Accounts Committee or elsewhere with Sir Edmund Compton will be grateful to him for his tribute to a great public servant and that the House as a whole will want to wish Sir Edmund health and happiness in his retirement?
  Mr. Gorst: Is it possible to use this occasion of the change of Parliamentary Commissioner to enable his powers to be altered so that he can look into the case of individuals who feel themselves aggrieved by the contents of B.B.C. programmes?
  The Prime Minister: Various aspects of public administration are being considered, some of them in the light of the Select Committee's reports, and some the Select Committee is considering, but I have no statement to make about that at the moment.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
  The House will wish to know that if the situation requires the continuation in force of the Emergency Regulations beyond the rising of the House on Friday, 18th December, consideration will be given on Thursday, 17th December to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message and to a Motion to approve the Emergency Regulations before proceeding with the business already announced for that day.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I have recently been informed that the trade unions representing industrial staff in the electricity supply industry have decided to end forthwith their work-to-rule and overtime ban. I am sure the whole House will wish to welcome this responsible decision.
  The House will realise, however, that the dispute still remains to be settled. Both the unions and the Electricity Council have become convinced that there is no hope of further progress towards a solution by negotiation between themselves. After many long hours of discussion with them, I have been forced to conclude that this is indeed the case. The matters in dispute can now only be resolved if they are submitted to independent judgment which can consider all the issues involved. The unions are not prepared to make use of arbitration provided in the procedure but, like the Electricity Council, have asked me to refer the problem to a Court of Inquiry.
  In these circumstances, I have decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry and, in doing so, I have been able to accept suggestions from both parties about possible terms of reference, including the suggestion from the unions that reference to the industry's productivity record should be included. At the same time I must make clear that the terms of reference must also expressly ensure that the Court of Inquiry takes into account the public and national economic interest.
  The membership and terms of reference of the Court will be announced as soon as possible, and I should like to add that I have agreed to lend my support to the wish of both parties that hearings should be in public.
  In these changed circumstances, the Emergency which, as the House knows, was proclaimed on Saturday, will not, we hope, need to be maintained for very long. The Government will keep the position under close review; and meanwhile the Emergency Regulations and the Order prohibiting the consumption of electricity for advertising, show window displays and flood-lighting will remain in force.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House welcome the statesmanship of the unions in calling off the work-to-rule? Is he also aware that we welcome the wisdom of the Government in setting up this Court of Inquiry? Those two points meet the ones that were proposed to the right hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as long ago as last Tuesday. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Government did not take this way out a long time ago and thus save millions of people from six days of unnecessary hardship?
  Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the composition of the Court, as well as its terms of reference, will be agreed with both sides in the dispute?
  Mr. Carr: The essential and vital reason why I have been able to announce the setting up of the Court of Inquiry only today rather than last week is that last week there was no question of the unions being able or ready to call off their work-to-rule or their ban on overtime without first being assured that, if they did so, as a precondition they would be guaranteed a substantial increase in the amount already on offer to them. They have today changed that decision. That has entirely changed the situation, and I have immediately agreed to appoint a Court of Inquiry.
  As to the membership and the terms of reference of the Inquiry, the right hon. Lady will know as well as I do that under the Act a Minister in my position has a responsibility for fixing the terms of reference and for appointing the members. That is a matter for which I and I alone can and must take responsibility.
  I have already listened at length—and I shall continue to do so—to the views of the parties about these matters. I made it clear in my statement that I felt no difficulty in envisaging that the things which they wished to have included in the terms of reference would be included, and I mention particularly productivity, but, as will be clear from the statement that I made earlier this morning, in spite of many long hours of discussion yesterday, it was impossible to obtain the unions' agreement—and I know that far from objecting to my making this clear their hope was that I would make it

  955
  Clear—to the express injection of the public and national economic interest into the terms of reference. This is something which the Government not only feel it their duty to have included, but which they are absolutely certain an overwhelming majority of public opinion in this country demands should be included.
  Mr. Tapsell: While expressing my great admiration for the personal qualities which my right hon. Friend has shown in the handling of this matter, an opinion which I am sure is shared by the whole country, may I voice a disquiet which has been put to me by many of my constituents? How will any Court of Inquiry be adequately equipped to judge the national interest?
  Mr. Carr: That is an important point. We have in this country a tradition of men of skill and public service who no doubt find it difficult to do these difficult jobs perfectly but who will, I am sure, have a very adequate shot at it.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general pleasure that there is a return to normal work and also general approval for the setting up of the Court of Inquiry? Without seeking to press the right hon. Gentleman on any matter which may well be a matter for negotiation, may I ask how the public and national economic interest will be made known by the Government to the Court of Inquiry? Will the Government, for example, be represented by someone appearing before the Court? Will they provide one of the assessors? In any event, will the right hon. Gentleman concede the general principle that if the Government are to make known these criteria they should be made known publicly so that they can be generally examined?
  Mr. Carr: I have already said, on the last point, if I may reassure the right hon. Gentleman by repeating it, that I have agreed to lend my support to the request of the parties that the hearings of the Court, when it is set up, should be in public, but it is for the Court to decide. I cannot order the Court, and that same principle really answers the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I cannot order the Court how it shall carry out its terms of reference. We must get the Court appointed and let
  956
  it consider how it should do its job in the light of its terms of reference. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government will obviously be ready to give the Court any assistance that it requires.
  Mr. Biffen: Arising out of that last question, either on his own initiative or else if requested, will my right hon. Friend seek to give evidence to the Court indicating what, in the Government's view, constitutes the national economic interest?
  Mr. Carr: I must ask my hon. Friend and the House to be a little forbearing. I only had this news from the unions just before lunch. The decision, therefore, has only just been taken. These matters, I think, do need some calm and careful consideration. I really believe that it is proper that a Court of this kind, when set up, should first of all have the chance to consider its terms of reference and make up its own mind about the ways in which it wants to proceed. I do not think that it would be helpful if I tried to do that job for it before the Court is set up, but clearly, as I told the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Government will be ready and willing to assist the Court in any way that it requires.
  Mr. Palmer: Will the Government accept the Court's findings, irrespective of whether those findings are favourable to the Government's previous arguments or otherwise?
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman and the House must realise that there is one difference—there are others, but this is one of them—between a Court of Inquiry and arbitration: that a Court of Inquiry is essentially to inquire and inform. Arbitration may or may not—sometimes does, sometimes does not—require the parties to it to accept the conclusion. I think that it is right and proper to preserve the freedom of all parties in dispute—and the main parties concerned are, of course, the employers and the unions—to see and think about whatever conclusions the Court may reach. I do not think that anyone can bind himself in advance, and I believe that it would be contrary to the Court of Inquiry procedure and Act to ask that anyone should.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Are there any matters, and if so what, which can be taken into account by the Court of

  957
  Inquiry which could not have been taken into account by the normal prescribed arbitration procedure? What reasons, if any, were given by the trade union for objecting to arbitration? Will my right hon. Friend be vigilant that arbitration is not eroded as the normal method in collective bargaining?
  Mr. Carr: I think that the main difference is that in arbitration the issues which are normally considered are normally narrow. They need not be, but in practice they normally tend to be confined to the much more limited aspects of the particular dispute. When it comes to a Court of Inquiry, by means of the terms of reference one can ensure that a wider sphere is taken into account. It would not be proper of me to go, even if there were time, into the reasons why the unions were not prepared to consider arbitration, but it is important for the House and the country to realise that the Court of Inquiry procedure allows these much wider issues—including the ones that I have made it clear the Government regard as so important—to be taken into account. That would not, of course, have been possible in the case of normal arbitration.
  Mr. Orme: Is not the key question in relation to this still the issue of the 10 per cent.? Is it not a fact that the unions would not go to arbitration because the Government had closed the door in relation to the 10 per cent., and the arbitration tribunal would almost certainly have followed that. Therefore, will this Court of Inquiry be free to look at the electricians' claim in full, to make recommendations, and not be circumscribed by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has already made about the national interest? Will the national interest in fact stop the tribunal from going above the 10 per cent.? That surely is the key issue.
  Mr. Carr: The Court of Inquiry will be free, as all courts of inquiry always have been and, I hope, always will be, to take into account all the issues it wishes which are encompassed by those terms of reference. I have already said that while we, the Government, have felt it our duty in the national interest, and, I am sure, in line with strong public opinion, to make sure that the public and national economic interest is one of
  958
  the factors, so equally I hope it will be found that the terms of reference will meet the union's wish that the productivity record of this industry shall also be specifically taken into account. The Court of Inquiry will certainly be an independent body, free to take all these matters into account. I cannot admit that under arbitration an agreement would have been inhibited.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that there is an important debate ahead.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that the terms of reference will permit the Court of Inquiry, if it considers it appropriate, to recommend that the increase, or any increase, should be of an amount less than that already offered by the Electricity Council?
  Mr. Carr: I can only repeat that the Court of Inquiry is absolutely free, without restrictions in any direction, to come to its own conclusions about these matters in the light of its terms of reference.
  Mr. John D. Grant: The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to define to the House today the criteria which constitute the national interest. What definition did he give of the national interest to the trade unions, who after all will be the guinea pigs in this case?
  Mr. Can: I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in talking about the trade unions or the employers as the guinea pigs. I should have thought that for some years now it might have been the public at large who had felt that they were in the position of guinea pigs. I believe that when one trusts a Court of Inquiry to do its job it must be allowed to ask for all the information, take whatever evidence it thinks is relevant and make up its own mind on these issues. I do not believe that it would be right—nor do I believe, incidentally, that I would get the thanks of the trade union movement or, I hope, of anyone else—if I tried to write vast, lengthy terms of reference trying to limit and define precisely the national interest.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Of course, I fully understand why my right hon.

  959
  Friend has felt it wise to set up the Court of Inquiry, but will he also bear in mind that the improvement in productivity in the industry was presumably taken into account in the original 10 per cent. offered by the Electricity Council? Therefore, may I express the hope that my right hon. Friend will not assume automatically that if the Court were to recommend a higher recognition of that improvement in productivity it necessarily should be accepted?
  Mr. Carr: That is certainly the case of the Electricity Council, that they have made provision, and, as they think, fair provision, for the productivity gain in the industry. But this, of course, will no doubt be a case which the Electricity Council on this point will wish to make before the Court, just as the unions will wish to make their case that it has not been adequately taken into account. I think that we must leave it to the Court to form its own judgment on these matters.
  Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the public and national interest as in some way qualifying or limiting the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry, as he did, would he bear in mind that these workers, like millions of other trade unionists, are also members of the public and citizens of this nation and are as entitled to a just wage and a good life as anyone else?
  Mr. Carr: Of course, that is true. They are so much a part of the public and national interest that I should be very surprised if the Court is not able to take that point into account.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in drafting the public interest aspect of the terms of reference that on the last occasion on which reference was made to public interest in a court of inquiry, namely, the Pearson Inquiry into the seamen's dispute, it was by no means clear to most observers that the end result took very much note of the public interest? In view of the fact that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has described the 10 per cent. offer as already inflationary, would it not be difficult to reconcile a large offer with the concept of the national interest?
  Mr. Carr: I must ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind what I have said about this point—that the terms of reference expressly ask the Court of Inquiry to take into account the public and national economic interest. It is our duty to see that the terms of reference expressly require that; but I really believe that we must leave it to the Court of Inquiry.
  Mr. Bidwell: Since this was never a strike but merely the application of a policy of work-to-rule and a ban on overtime, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he proposes to record in his Department's statistics what happened so as to reveal the dislocation that is likely to arise out of disputes of this kind, both now and in future, under his trade union legislation?
  Mr. Carr: I suspect that the public will be more interested in avoiding such dislocation in future than in my finding out how to record statistics about it.
  Mr. Longden: While in no way wishing to impugn the statesmanship of the unions, to which reference has been made by the right hon. Lady and which will be needed in large measure in the coming weeks, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether at any stage during these negotiations the unions have denied that the national and economic interest was a relevant factor to be taken into account by the Court of Inquiry?
  Mr. Carr: As I have explained to the House, they were not prepared to agree to the specific mention of these in the terms of reference. They felt that it could be assumed that the Court of Inquiry would do this. I wish to make it clear that at no time did they argue that the Court should not do it; simply that they felt that it should be assumed. I believe that, just as on many previous occasions it has been thought right to draw attention to particular matters which the Government and the country would wish to be taken into account, so it was right and absolutely essential—indeed, would have been strongly resented by public opinion if we had not said so in this case—that the public and national economic interest should be expressly referred to.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the Business of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: More than 60 hon. Members have so far indicated their wish to speak in this debate, among them are 12 who wish to make their maiden speeches. Much as I would like, it will be impossible for me to call all hon. Members who have been waiting for a considerable time to make their maiden speeches. I propose to call today the following five to make their maiden speeches: the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry); the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney); the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton); the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs); and the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith). I may be able to fit some in tomorrow.
  4.3 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before I begin the substance of what I have to say, I crave the indulgence of the House on two points. The first is in connection with the important matter about which we have just had questions and answers and on which I made a statement. It may be necessary for me to leave the Chamber to continue those discussions. I feel sure that the whole House will acquit me of any discourtesy if, therefore, I am not in my place as much as I would otherwise have been during the evening.
  The second is partly for the same reason and partly because of the length of the Bill. Because of the need to give as many hon. Members as possible on both sides of the House an opportunity to contribute to this debate, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I am not as generous as I hope I usually am in giving way to interventions. Even if I deal only broadly with the contents of the Bill, it is inevitable that I will have to address the House for a considerable time.
  The Bill is essentially about regulating the eternal tension between, on the one
  962
  hand, the desire of the individual person and group for complete freedom of action and, on the other, the need of the community for a proper degree of order and discipline. Unfettered freedom destroys itself. Liberty cannot exist without order, or rights be long sustained without corresponding duties.
  We must, all of us—both as individuals and in respect of the groups to which we belong—accept some restraints on our actions wherever they affect other people and other groups. In other words, we must all accept some rules governing every aspect of our activities.
  In the private sphere these rules can, of course, be informal—often unwritten and almost subconscious. They can also be self-regulating. In the public sphere, as our personal and group activities infringe more on other people's lives, the rules and their regulation need to become more formal; and when they reach the point when they have a major effect on the social and economic life of the community as a whole, they become the subject of law. Law, in a civilised society, is a condition of freedom and not its enemy.
  So it is with this Bill. I respect the genuine fears which some may have, but looking ahead in this unknown sphere—because this is hitherto unexperienced legislation—I am convinced that they will prove unfounded. However deeply some hon. Members may disagree with the principles of these proposals, I hope that they will accept that their purpose and object is the basic one I have just stated. My right hon. Friends and I are convinced that those fears will prove unfounded and that the years will show that the Bill will increase the strength of the trade unions—[Interruption.]—and their size and the degree of their freedom and independence from State control and interference.
  Whatever may be our views and however fundamentally opposed to each other we may be, I hope that it is not necessary for anybody to doubt motives. I can only say that this is what we intend should result from the Bill and that this is what we believe the effect will be. Only time will show, and we believe that we will be proved right.
  The proper balance between liberty and order is a delicate one. There is no

  963
  external objective standard by which to measure it. It must be a subjective judgment and the right mixture will change from one time in history to another. I am not vain or stupid enough to believe dogmatically that adventuring, as we are, in this new and complicated sphere, we have got the balance precisely right, even for the moment, let alone for the next 10 or 20 years. That is why I shall welcome and want to listen to constructive debate and criticism.
  However, I am convinced that anybody looking objectively at the industrial scene in Britain today must agree that new rules are needed, that liberty has in some areas degenerated into licence, that the balance between order and chaos is in need of being redressed in favour of a more orderly and disciplined system and that the freedom of the ordinary industrial worker will be increased and not diminished by a change which brings that about.
  Clause 1 lays down the basic purpose and principles by which we ask the whole Bill to be judged. The basic principles are four. The first is the principle of collective bargaining, freely and responsibly conducted. The second is the principle of developing and maintaining orderly procedures in industry for the peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration, with a due regard to the general interests of the community. The third is, the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions and of employers in employers' associations, so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers. The fourth is the principle of freedom and security for workers, protected by adequate safeguards against unfair industrial practices, whether on the part of employers or others.
  Subsection (2) lays down that the Secretary of State and all the other officials and institutions established under the Bill must be guided by these four basic principles in carrying out all these functions under the Bill.
  I come now to Part II which deals with the rights of workers. I wish that I could have found a less Victorian word than that of "workers" to describe what we
  964
  had in mind, and I dare say that the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) may have had a similar wish when grappling with earlier legislation.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: It is an honourable word.
  Mr. Carr: Of course the worker is honourable. I am really surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I thought, however, that he would know that for all sorts of reasons, unfortunately, the word does have, and I do not wish to labour the point, a certain Victorian connotation about it. But in this Measure we have to include both employees in the literal sense and those who come under contracts of service. There was no single word that I could discover which could be a better name or, at the same time, a more accurate name to apply.
  Mr. Atkinson: There is nothing wrong with "workers".
  Mr. Carr: I do not say that there is anything wrong with the word, but there are many people on both sides of the House—and, perhaps, on both sides of both parties—who believe that it still has a certain sectional and Victorian connotation. However, I thought that I was making a very non-controversial aside, and I can only assume that the whole of the rest of the Bill is so uncontroversial that hon. Members are hard put to find anything to argue about. I expect that they will recover their form in due course.
  Part II deals with the rights of workers in principle: the right to join a union; the right to remedies against unfair dismissal, and the right to longer periods of notice. I believe that we have in the Bill the most comprehensive and enlightened code of workers' rights in the history of our country.
  The Bill establishes absolutely the right of every worker to join a trade union and to take part in trade union activities. Any infringement of these rights by an employer will entitle the worker concerned to take his complaint to an Industrial Tribunal for redress. If an employee is dismissed because he joined a union that would automatically constitute an unfair dismissal. In short, here is a massive buttress to support the organising effort of the trade union movement. Although I

  965
  am sure that blatant discrimination by employers is nowadays exceptional, I believe that this support should prove valuable, particularly in certain fields where unionism has traditionally been weak and where employees have often been very uneasy about joining a union.
  The Bill also secures, in Clause 7, the right of any worker not to belong to a union or to any organisation of workers—[Interruption.] I know that this is strongly disliked by many trade unionists, and I should have understood it in the context of the conditions of the past—[Interruption.]—but in modern conditions, and in the context of a Bill which in general encourages union membership—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, it does, and it will—and which, in particular, for the first time gives unions a legal right to recognition which they have never had before, I do not believe that it is necessary on grounds either of union solidarity or of good order to force people to join unions against their will, and I am sure that it cannot be justified in terms of basic personal liberties—[Interruption.]—If any hon. Member—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a serious debate with running commentaries.
  Mr. Carr: If any hon. Member likes to say that it is justified in terms of basic personal liberties to force people against their will to join a union he is welcome to do so both here and outside in the country, and I am willing to judge what sort of answer he will get from the great majority of the people.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a moral principle involved which says that if people are gaining the benefits of trade unionism, such as holidays and pay increases, they should pay their subscription to finance the machinery which enables them to get those benefits?
  Mr. Carr: Of course—but that is precisely what the Bill does. I will come to that point in just a moment.
  I am well aware of the argument that the right not to belong to a workers' organisation will undermine the position of strength built up over many years by unions in many industries. To many, the outlawing of the closed shop as such seems to encourage those dissatisfied with
  966
  their union—perhaps dissatisfied quite irresponsibly or for some temporary reason—to withdraw support. Many employers, it is fair to add, take a similar view to most trade unions and both sides are—and I recognise this in some industries—genuinely concerned that the removal of the discipline and control which a closed shop agreement enables unions to impose on members will exacerbate the problems we are trying to solve.
  Well, there is a risk, but I do not believe that these are the sort of means that we in this country, in the 'seventies and beyond, ought to seek to retain.
  If I thought that that would happen to any grave extent I would not be recommending this Bill today. But in the "agency shop" proposals I believe we have struck a fair balance between an individual's right not to belong to a union, his social responsibility to contribute toward the support of the negotiations from which he benefits, and the reasonable need for discipline and order for industry—[Interruption.]
  This is a balance. No one can pretend that it is an easy matter but we have to determine it as near as we can at this stage. I ask the House to remember—and this is the direct answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—that our proposals eliminate what the unions call the "free rider". I also ask the House to remember that we are by no means making it quick and easy for disaffected union members to break away and join a rival union to challenge for negotiation rights. We make it possible—and I believe that it is right to make it possible—but it would be wrong to make it too quick and easy. Here again, and anyone who looks at it seriously must recognise, there is no absolute balance. It is an awkward matter of balance between freedom and order. As I said at the very beginning, this is really what law in this or any similar field is all about, and why it will no doubt need, and does need, adjusting from time to time. What is right in 1970 would certainly not have been right in 1900, or even perhaps in 1906.
  I do not propose to say more about the concept of the agency shop today, because this is one of the issues which we are bound to discuss further during the Committee stage. I simply reaffirm my view that these agency shop provisions

  967
  offer not only a fair but an attractive opportunity for trade unions to consolidate their position in many situations where they are now recognised.
  I shall naturally be ready to consider whether in some sectors special problems call for special solutions complementary to the agency shop agreement Clauses. But I am quite sure that these Clauses provide the most just and equitable basis for union security in the future.
  Now, still on the subject of workers' rights, I come to the question of unfair dismissal, which is dealt with in Clauses 20–31. As the Royal Commission pointed out, we are almost the only advanced industrial country that does not have some kind of statutory protection against unfair dismissal. We agree that it is high time that this is put right. I believe that that at least is non-controversial. The previous Government's Bill showed the same intention. However, I want to correct some misinterpretations which have gained currency as a result of attempts—I hope not deliberate—to suggest that our proposals are in essential aspects less liberal than those of our predecessors.
  First, I think that there is a misconception on the question of burden of proof. Clause 22 provides that a dismissal shall be regarded as unfair unless the employer can show a good reason for it, such as redundancy, or a reason connected with conduct or capability. Even if the employer does show that he dismissed the man on one of those grounds he still has to show that he did not act unreasonably in doing so. In the light of this, I do not accept that we have tilted the burden of proof to the disadvantage of the employee. We accept that it must be for the employer, since he carried out the dismissal, to show the tribunal what the reasons for his action were. I believe, therefore, that as far as burden of proof is concerned, our proposals have substantially the same effect as those in the right hon. Lady's Bill, but this is an important point which the House may well want to debate in detail in Committee.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The Tight hon. Gentleman is describing fears that are in the minds of the constituents of many of us. Will he address himself to a real fear that many people have
  968
  written to us about? The main sanction against unfair dismissal has so far been a bad employer's fear that the fellow workers of the man he has victimised will come out, declaring their solidarity with that man. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House and the country that such sympathetic action will not be regarded as an unfair practice under this Bill?
  Mr. Carr: This is a very important but very detailed question which needs a very considered and properly defined reply. I should like to ask one of my hon. Friends to deal with it in detail later, and perhaps we can also return to it in Committee. Generally speaking, we want to provide proper machinery for resolving disputes and possible causes of disputes. What we are saying in the Bill is that where proper machinery exists for their resolution it should not be right to take strike action while that machinery is being used. I believe that that is a sound principle, and that hon. Members will also consider it to be sound when they think about it. Let the hon. Gentleman argue about it, but I believe that I have put an important point of view which commands a good deal of support, and not only on one side of the House or among one set of experts or party adherents. But let it be debated.
  I come now, under the heading of unfair dismissal, to the question of reinstatement and compensation, another matter on which misleading attempts have been made to compare our proposals unfavourably both with the Donovan proposals and those in the previous Government's Bill. Although our proposals are contained in Part VI, Clause 94, dealing with the power of industrial tribunals, I think that they can be most conveniently mentioned at this point.
  First, Donovan acknowledged, at paragraph 551 of the Report, that there were strong arguments against making reinstatement the only remedy, principally because of the difficulties of enforcement. Although it provided for reinstatement, the right hon. Lady's Bill did not provide for the enforcement of a reinstatement order for the same reason that Donovan had in mind, so I maintain that the difference between her Bill and mine is a difference in words only. I prefer to call a recommendation a recommendation, not an order, unless there can be enforcement behind the order.

  969
  As to the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal, I must remind hon. Members opposite that under this Bill the maximum possible compensation for unfair dismissal is about £4,000, whereas in their Bill it was about £1,900, rising in exceptional circumstances to about £2,800.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: But the other Bill had reinstatement as well.
  Mr. Carr: It is true that under this Bill the award will be determined less on the basis of an automatic formula as under the right hon. Lady's Bill, and more according to the loss suffered in each particular case. I accept that this is a matter for debate, but I ask hon. Members to ask themselves this. Are there not at least strong reasons for having a larger maximum for someone who really has suffered a serious loss rather than a smaller maximum with sums more equally and more widely distributed? There are good arguments on both sides, but I ask the House to weight the fact that they are not all on one side, either on the side of our proposals or entirely on the side of the right hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Apart from the question of compensation, on which we shall clearly want to challenge what the right hon. Gentleman said when we come to Committee, is not the difference between an order to reinstate and a mere recommendation this—that if the order is defied the additional damages which the tribunal can then levy will be punitive?
  Mr. Carr: My hon, and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will no doubt deal with this technical point better than I can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It may be a very important point, but it is a technical point. The right hon. Lady proposed an order but with no means of enforcement. "Punitive damages", says the right hon. Lady. I prefer to call a recommendation a recommendation, but if a recommendation is disregarded that fact will and should be taken into account by the court under the principles of calculation of damage when it assesses damages. Therefore, if a recommendation was not implemented, and the court took a serious view of that, and the loss that it would cause, it could lead to a higher maximum compensation for the
  970
  individual than was possible under the right hon. Lady's Bill.
  The House should consider very carefully what I have said. I have admitted that there are pros and cons about each way of doing it, and that the issue is not clear-cut. Hon. Members opposite must not just shake their heads and imagine that all the advantages are in favour of their way of doing it and that our way has all the disadvantages. It is difficult balance to achieve. After careful thought, we have chosen this method rather than that proposed by the right hon. Lady last summer.
  Mr. Orme rose—
  Mr. Carr: I am sorry. I have given way a lot to the hon. Gentleman over the years. I want to remind him and the House of what I said earlier. We shall have to debate this at considerable length in the Committee and, since the Committee will be held on the Floor of the House, I think that this makes it easier.
  I press on to the last point which I shall deal with briefly under this section of workers' rights, and that is the disclosure of information to employees. In Clause 53 we say that all employees in large companies have the right to information about the affairs of the undertaking in which they are employed and we believe that they have as much right to the information as the shareholders. So we are providing in Clause 53 that all employees shall have that right, written into law.
  I turn to Part III of the Bill dealing with collective bargaining. Clauses 32 to 56 are the Clauses containing the Governmen't major proposals relating to the development of collective bargaining and the improvement of collective agreements, particularly procedure agreements.
  This Part of the Bill embodies four major principles to which the Government attach great importance. First, is the legal status of collective agreements, second the selective enforceability of procedure agreements, third the recognition of a sole bargaining agent and fourth the disclosure of information to trade unions for the purposes of collective bargaining. The House will realise that is different from the sort of disclosure with which I was dealing a moment ago. There is also the other aspect of the disclosure of

  971
  information to trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. I want to say something about each of the four points in turn.
  First I will deal with the legal status of collective agreements. Clause 32 simply creates a presumption that, in the future, when parties enter into a collective agreement they intend that it shall have legal force. This in no sense implies that the Government intend collective agreements to be enforced willy-nilly. The purpose is to secure greater certainty about the legal status of collective agreements, to encourage greater clarity and comprehensiveness in collective agreements, particularly in relation to their procedural aspects, to inculcate a greater sense of responsibility on both sides in honouring agreements into which they have voluntarily entered.
  We believe that in clarifying the legal status of collective agreements the law will exert pressure on both sides to reexamine and improve the rules which govern their relations and will encourage both sides to examine and reconsider ways of securing compliance with rules which they have voluntarily agreed upon.
  I know that these provisions have been criticised from varying points of view but I cannot go any further into the arguments now.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: They will not work.
  Mr. Carr: I look forward to discussing them with the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members in due course at another stage.
  I come now to the controversial question of the remedial action where procedural agreements are non-existent or defective. Here I am referring to Clauses 35 to 40. These Clauses outline the provisions under which it will be possible for procedure agreements recommended by the C.I.R. to be made enforceable in selected cases where one or other of the parties concerned applies to the National Industrial Relations Court.
  I want to emphasise some fundamental points about these provisions. First, as will be seen from Clause 35(1) they are to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where a company or plant has a history of unconstitutional industrial
  972
  action or where a procedure agreement is defective or non-existent and as a result where orderly industrial relations are seriously impeded.
  Secondly, as Clause 37 makes clear, it is no part of the Government's intention that an existing procedure agreement should be enforceable as it stands. I want to emphasise that because there has been some genuine fear and misunderstanding about it. I want to make it clear that it will be the responsibility of the C.I.R. to carry out a thorough examination of the procedure and to recommend any improvements that it thinks should be made to the procedure agreement before it could be claimed to be made enforceable.
  Thirdly, these provisions contain no presumption that responsibility for the unhappy state of industrial relations in the company or plant concerned rests largely with the union or with employees who have been prone to industrial action. As drafted these Clauses imply—in my view realistically—that much of the responsibility for disorderly industrial relations will rest with the inadequacy of the procedure agreement itself. That is why we are laying this importance not on enforcing existing procedures but insisting that the procedure agreement shall be made a proper one first of all before any action of enforcement is considered.
  Fourthly, there will not necessarily and in all cases be an enforceable order at the end of the road. After the C.I.R. has made its recommendations the National Industrial Court will only make an order on the application of one of the parties concerned enforcing the recommendation of the C.I.R. where an order is necessary for the recommendations to be implemented and observed.
  This procedure which we propose for selective enforcement should be seen not as the antithesis or denial of free collective bargaining so much as a means of giving collective bargaining, in individual cases where it has fallen into a chaotic situation, a chance to make a fresh start on a new and more satisfactory basis recommended by the C.I.R. and we hope voluntarily agreed by the parties on the recommendation of the C.I.R.
  Mr. Orme: It is not working very well.
  Mr. Carr: It is not, and that is why we need these new procedures.

  973
  Let me next turn to the question of the recognition of the sole bargaining agent. Clauses 41 to 51 contain the main provisions on trade union recognition and bargaining structure. The objective we are seeking to assist by these provisions is the establishment, in difficult cases, of a single negotiating agent for a single defined group of workers—an objective to which the Donovan Commission attached much importance.
  Issues referred under these provisions to the C.I.R. will all involve, in some form or other, two basic questions. First, what should be the bargaining unit or units and, second, what organisations, if any, should be the sole bargaining agent for the unit or units? These are the major questions which the C.I.R. has to answer in these cases.
  The range of problems or disputes which may be referred to the C.I.R. is considerable. Clause 42 will, for example, permit a single union claiming recognition to refer its claim to the National Industrial Relations Court. The Clause will also cover situations where two or more unions are contesting recognition in a given company in respect of a particular group of workers.
  The Clause provides too for an employer to apply to have the competing claims of two or more unions referred to the C.I.R. for resolution. It will also be possible under the Clause to refer to the C.I.R. disputes about the extent and scope of the definition of a bargaining unit and also about the composition of a union negotiating panel or committee. I want to mention this point about the possibility of a joint negotiating panel or committee because we recognise that in the British industrial relations scene it may often be preferable to have a joint negotiating panel as long as it is properly mandated by its constituent unions rather than try to insist on a single union being given the negotiating rights in a particular unit to the exclusion of all others. The system we envisage will prove to be flexible and effective in dealing with some of those obstinate cases about union recognition which arise in our economy.
  I turn to the question of ballots of employees in relation to trade union recognition. I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to the method by which we envisage that the C.I.R.'s recommendations will require
  974
  —as we believe they should require—the endorsement of the employees covered by a recognition dispute reference. There will be a ballot in two different situations. In the first case, under Clause 46, the ballot will determine whether the employees concerned wish to accept the C.I.R.'s recommendation that a particular union, or a panel of unions, should be accorded the right to be sole bargaining agent. In this situation, provided that a majority of employees voting supports the C.I.R.'s recommendation, the recommended union or unions will be accorded statutory recognition rights, and the employer will be under a statutory duty to negotiate with the union or unions constituting the sole bargaining agent.
  The second situation where a ballot might take place is where a percentage of employees feel dissatisfied with the union which represents them, and where they have presented a claim to the Court that the union should be deprived of its negotiating rights. This situation is covered by Clauses 48 to 50. Here I want to stress something I said earlier, namely that the Government do not believe that it ought to be too easy to "disestablish" a union which is in situ simply because of a passing dissatisfaction on the part of a minority of employees. None the less, it would not be a healthy situation—there have been cases recently which have shown this—if there were no orderly method whereby a union which had completely lost the confidence of the people it represented could have its negotiating rights challenged and if necessary withdrawn. Therefore we have provided in Clause 48 that if an application is supported by 20 per cent, of the employees in a bargaining unit, and if the C.I.R. is unable to resolve the difficulties between the union and its discontented members, but only if the C.I.R. has failed to resolve the difficulties, then a ballot can be held to determine whether or not the union should continue to he the bargaining agent. Where a bargaining unit has been established, following a previous reference to the C.I.R., under a statutory order, the claim under Clause 48 would have to be supported not by 20 per cent. but by 40 per cent, of the employees. These provisions strike a reasonable balance between a constant threat to a union's security of tenure on the one hand, and provide the possibility, on the other hand, for employees to change a

  975
  union which they genuinely and substantially feel no longer effectively represents them.
  If we are to deal and talk in terms of industrial democracy, then there is one subject about which, under controlled conditions—I emphasise, under controlled conditions—there must be occasions when those affected by decisions on negotiating rights should have the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval by means of a secret ballot.
  An Hon. Member: Anarchy.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Member says "anarchy". In industrial democracy terms, this will be equivalent to the right to choose or change the Government. It is fundamental, and it works. I believe that this is right and that it is an important addition to the freedom and the democratic rights of those who work within British industry. It will be shown to be so in practice. These important provisions provide a great opportunity for well-supported unions to secure negotiating rights whenever these are unreasonably resisted. At the same time, these provisions enable the more serious recognition and bargaining structure problems to be resolved by an objective agency without the pressure of industrial action being brought to bear to influence the outcome.
  I emphasise that the provisions allow a genuine measure of democratic decision-making after the C.I.R. has examined and made its recommendations. Where a ballot favours what the C.I.R. has recommended, the law will support and maintain the decision that employees have taken.
  Finally, under this part of the Bill, I want to come briefly to the disclosure of information for the purposes of negotiations, that is to say, for purposes related to collective bargaining. We provide that where there is collective bargaining with trade union representatives, employers have a duty, subject to certain safeguards, to provide information without which the trade union would be handicapped in carrying out its job of bargaining. The safeguards are on such things as national security, protection of commercial interests and information relating to individuals. This is one part of the Bill which the right hon. Member
  976
  for Blackburn will agree need not be controversial between us.
  Park IV deals with the important matter of registration, which is of central importance in the reform of industrial relations law. In the debate on 26th November, and on other occasions, I have expounded the philosophy of our proposals for the registration of trade unions. Today I want to explain what registration involves. Hon. Members, and many people outside the House, have been free with the charge that we are requiring that trade unions obtain "a licence from the State" before they can operate. That is very wide of the mark. In the first place, there is nothing in our proposals that interferes with the basic right of workers to associate, whether or not they choose to register their association. The existing immunities in respect of conspiracy are preserved. The crucial change, in Clause 85, is that the immunity from legal action for inducing a breach of contract is withdrawn from unregistered associations. We believe that this privilege should not be enjoyed—because it is not deserved—by a body that is not prepared to accept the obligations of registration. The same goes for the new positive rights created by the Bill, for example, the right to statutory recognition and so forth. I am confident that once the heat of the present controversy has cooled down, once our provisions are in force, the trade unions will come to recognise that this right should be confined to properly established, responsible bodies like themselves—whose position, I repeat, this legislation is intended to strengthen and will, I am sure, strengthen as it works—
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Cloud-cuckoo-land.
  Mr. Carr: Perhaps the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) finds that he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
  As regards the obligations and conditions of registration, they are fair, moderate and reasonable. No union that conducts itself in a democratic, constitutional way should have the slightest difficulty in complying with them. I do not believe that the Opposition has any chance of persuading public opinion, or for that matter rank and file trade unionists at large, that anything here represents an iniquitous interference with trade union principles.
  In Clauses 61 to 71—
  Mr. Russell Kerr: What about 114?
  Mr. Carr: —we have set out certain guiding principles, principles of democratic right and constitutional process, to establish the standards which the rules of unions and employers' associations must satisfy. We have supplemented these guiding principles by another set of rules and requirements about rules in the Third Schedule. These do not require that unions should have rules which say this and that in particular terms, because, as voluntary associations, that is their affair. They merely require that they should have clear rules on certain subjects; for example, the rules must state those bodies or officials within the union who have authority to instruct members to take industrial action and in what circumstances. The rules must also cover such important matters as electoral procedures, the conduct of meetings and the manner in which the rules themselves may be altered.
  The guiding principles and the other requirements apply in three ways. First, they are conditions for the approval of rules and, ultimately therefore, for the keeping of registration. Second, the Bill provides in Clauses 77 to 79 for a right of complaint by any member of an organisation of workers or employers, registered or unregistered, that he has suffered as a result of a contravention of the guiding principles or a breach of the organisation's rules. There is a right of complaint. Third, the registrar may also, in the case of a registered trade union or employers' association, initiate an investigation of his own accord if he thinks that there is a serious or persistent transgression of the guiding principles or of the rules.
  The registrar is the custodian of trade union rules and behaviour, the guardian of the public interest, and the protector of individual trade union members against unfair or autocratic treatment. But he does not act and has no power to act by administrative fiat. He cannot penalise a union or employers' association. He must apply to the National Industrial Relations Court or to a tribunal, and his own decisions can be appealed against by those affected.
  I turn now to the matters dealt with in Parts V and VII, namely, restrictions
  978
  on legal procedures. These Parts of the Bill will make important changes in the existing Trade Disputes Acts. It is important to emphasise that the full protection of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act will remain to registered trade unions, except in so far as they engage in clearly defined unfair industrial practices which are specifically identified at various points in the Bill. In general, these unfair industrial practices concern industrial action to achieve trade union objectives which the Bill provides other and better statutory methods of securing; notably, for example, the obtaining of negotiating rights and the agency shop.
  I do not believe that any union need indulge in the unfair industrial practices listed in the Bill in order to achieve their justifiable aims. Unless a case could be made out that a union, in the 1970s, had to indulge in any one or more of these practices in order to achieve its justifiable aims, I do not believe that such practices should be tolerated without liability in the public interest.
  I must emphasise that unregistered organisations and individuals acting outside their authority as officials of a registered union will not continue to enjoy the immunity provided by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act to induce any other person to break a contract in the course of an industrial dispute. This limitation of a special legal privilege follows the recommendation of the majority of the Donovan Commission. It is consistent with, not to say essential to, the principle that only registered organisations should be protected from legal action for calling a strike in breach of individual contracts of employment.
  In the Government's view, this restriction of immunity is essential both to strengthen the authority of trade unions and to discourage unconstitutional action which is at odds with voluntary agreements, at odds with union instructions and in breach of individual contracts of employment.
  Clauses 86 and 87 deal with secondary industrial action. The purpose of these Clauses is to protect an innocent third party not involved in the original industrial dispute. Under these proposals, it will be unfair for anyone to call or organise a strike, a lock-out or irregular industrial action in order to aid and abet

  979
  anyone in doing something which is itself an unfair industrial practice. It will also be an unfair industrial practice to induce anyone to break a commercial contract if that person is not a party to the original dispute or is not supporting one of the parties to it. But I want the House to realise that these Clauses do not rule out reasonably sympathetic action—
  Mr. Orme: Good gracious!
  Mr. Carr: No, they do not rule out reasonably sympathetic action.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman should tell the 1922 Committee that.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: All good funny stuff!
  Mr. Carr: They do not rule out the sort of action which is proper to trade union activity and which unions in other countries have found to be proper. Those unions have not found that the things that the Clauses are ruling out are necessary or proper.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I think that there are two points here. The first is that the definition of an industrial dispute is changed under this Bill and no longer includes a dispute between employees and employees. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify Clause 86, with regard to aiding and abetting, which hitherto has been a strictly criminal concept? Does it mean that the trade union which supports action under Clause 85 and turns a strike into an official strike is guilty of aiding and abetting and loses the immunity of the 1906 Act?
  Mr. Carr: Perhaps I might ask one of my hon. Friends to deal with that point—[Interruption.] I have spoken for some time. I have made a particular point—
  Mr. John Mendelson: No, made an assertion.
  Mr. William Molloy: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman say that he does not know?
  Mr. Carr: I made a particular point at the beginning of my speech. I would have hoped, without referring to the hour at which I went to bed, that the House
  980
  might have realised that the many hours of detailed preparation that I had expected to give to this speech over the last few days has not been possible. I hope that I shall—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The House must realise that it is in the interest of hon. Members on both sides to hear this speech, as I hope it will hear other speeches.
  Mr. Carr: I appreciate the nuance in the question put to me by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), which is not just in sympathy with my position but because he knows that his question is a very difficult one. It gives difficulty to lawyers under the present law. It will give difficulty to lawyers under any law that we have. It always has done, and it always will do. It is a question which needs the reply of a lawyer—Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have appealed to the House before. I hope that it will be accepted that it is in the interests of the whole House to listen to both sides of the argument about this admittedly controversial Measure.
  Mr. Molloy: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman was asked questions because we on this side are following his argument closely. Clearly he does not intend to answer and, instead, he passes the buck by saying that someone else will answer. We assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for this Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Molloy: It is a point of explanation.
  Mr. Carr: I am sure, anyhow, that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that what I have said is true. This has nothing to do with the introduction of new law. This is the position under our present law, the law as it has been for the last 100 years. This sort of definition is a difficult and highly technical matter, and I suspect that very few laymen over the last half century—
  Mr. Russell Kerr: This is a lawyer's Bill.
  Mr. Carr: In case the hon. Gentleman is too thick to understand it, I am talking about the law as it stands at the moment.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: We were talking, as opposed to the right hon. Gentleman, about he law he is trying to introduce at this moment. If we are at cross purposes with the right hon. Gentleman it is probably because most of us have been half asleep.
  Mr. Carr: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has been half-asleep. That may be my fault, and if it is I apologise to him. But I want to make this serious point. The question referred to a change in the law. The law on this point is very complicated, and has been for several generations. It will be complicated also in the new situation. We are not taking labour relations on one point of legal non-complexity and introducing complexity. We are already in a position of great legal complexity of definition. Neither I nor anyone else, I am afraid, has discovered how to remove this point from great complexity. Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wish to intervene?
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I will deal with it when I reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for an hour now.
  Mr. Carr: Not an hour. I want now to summarise what we are achieving by the Bill in relation to strike action.
  First, no change is made in the individual's right to participate in a strike, and we make it quite clear that no court will be able to compel anyone to remain at work against his will. This is very important because of a misunderstanding that has arisen in the past. Orders or, as we used to call them, injunctions, are often believed to be made against the mass of people who are or may go on strike. That is not the case.
  Secondly, anyone who calls a strike will be protected from an action in tort in the ordinary courts on the ground that he has engaged in a civil or criminal conspiracy, or on the ground that he has induced others to break their contracts, or on the ground that he has interfered with another person's trade or business.
  Thirdly, any individual acting without the authority of a registered union or em-
  982
  ployers' association will be engaging in an unfair practice if he persuades others to strike in breach of their contract but action against such a person will be take-able only in the N.I.R.C.
  Fourthly, a secondary strike will only be unfair if it is carried on in support of another unfair practice or if it forces any person who is not a party to a dispute to break a contract.
  Finally, a number of clearly identified unfair industrial practices will be actionable in the N.I.R.C., whether the person engaging in them is a registered organisation or not. These practices may consist in calling or authorising in certain circumstances either a strike or any irregular industrial action short of a strike. But I should emphasise, as I emphasised on Clause 6, that collective industrial action short of a strike may be unfair if it involves a breach of the contracts of employment by some or all of the employees concerned.
  I turn now to Part VI of the Bill, which deals with the institutions set up by the Bill. The N.I.R.C. is one of the key institutions which we propose to set up. Its existence shows in fact as well as in symbol that the provisions of the Bill will not be arbitrarily implemented by the Secretary of State of the day but will depend on the rule of law. The court itself will be something new in British justice. It will have the same status as the High Court but will consist of judges together with laymen who have special knowledge or experience in industrial relations. It will be able to sit anywhere in the country and an important feature will be the emphasis on keeping its proceedings simple and informal and avoiding, if I may say so, without disrespect to my lawyer friends, those attributes of an ordinary court which, to the layman at least, make the latter a rather forbidding place.
  The N.I.R.C., however, will have the same rights and powers as the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland. Another important difference from the proceedings in other courts is that there will be no equivalent to an ex parte injunction, which may be granted in the absence of one of the parties to an action, as is the case at the moment. The court will he obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that anyone against whom an

  983
  interim order is sought has been given notice of the application and has an opportunity to appear.
  It is also important that the court should be a means of last resort and not of first resort. As I have often said before, our intention is that the Bill should provide a framework of law within which industrial relations may be improved. It does not provide either the excuse or the opportunity for litigation at the drop of a hat. Because of this, we intend that in cases which come before it the court will be obliged to satisfy itself that other avenues have been explored before it is resorted to. So the court will be able to ask parties to an action before it to use the services of the conciliation officers of my Department or, indeed, of other opportunities for conciliation which may be available. In its composition, its informality and its attitude on a number of other matters, the court will therefore be a new departure as one of the cornerstones of our policy.
  Similarly, the Industrial Tribunals are to have an extended jurisdiction to match and will form the lower tier of the system. Broadly speaking, they will deal with individual cases while the N.I.R.C. will deal with collective issues.
  The Bill also provides for the Commission on Industrial Relations, which at present operates under the provisions of a Royal Warrant, to be established on a statutory basis. I want to emphasise that we regard the Commission as having a leading role in the new system. Perhaps I may emphasise, to dispel some current misunderstandings, that many of the references to the Commission will continue, as we envisage it, to be of the present kinds and by the present procedures. Thus, the Commission will continue to tackle problems by exposure of the facts, and by analysis, argument and persuasion. The Government regard this task of voluntary reforms as the main job of the Commission and intend to give it every encouragement.
  Finally, I want to say something about Part VIII of the Bill, dealing with emergency procedures. Perhaps understandably, but none the less unfortunately, a good deal of the commentary on the Bill has focussed too much on the emergency powers as if they were the central feature of the Government's proposals. I say
  984
  "unfortunately", not because I think these powers unimportant or unnecessary—far from it. Any modern society should have the right and I think has the duty to protect its members from threats to their lives, their health and their safety, wherever the threat may come from. But the Government see the emergency powers to defer a strike or to call for a strike ballot as a last resort and as marginal to the central purposes of the Bill. They will not prevent strikes; they can be invoked only to defer them, and only where the N.I.R.C. as well as the Secretary of State is satisfied that an emergency situation exists or is likely.
  Quite aside from these protections of the right to call a serious strike, I must emphasise that the powers will only be available where the Secretary of State believes that the strike has been called with undue haste or that a period of reflection or further negotiation is desirable. I am certain that neither the present nor any other Government will lightly invoke these powers. I am equally sure that their existence will encourage employers and unions to do all they can to compose their differences before they embark on damaging Industrial action.
  Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carr: I would rather not. I am sorry.
  Mr. Atkinson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Carr: I am sorry, but I am in a difficult position. This is a very long and complicated Bill to explain and I have taken a lot of time. I have given way quite a lot already and I must now draw my speech to an end.
  Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. I must insist upon raising the point because the right hon. Gentleman has just contradicted something—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order.
  Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have had already—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
  Mr. Ashton: Whom are you calling?
  Mr. Atkinson: May I repeat my point of order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order.
  Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There can be no furtherance of a point of order if it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have asked that there should be no interruptions and interventions and noises from this side, but that in the debate on the consultative document only two back benchers, apart from Members making maiden speeches, were called from this side, and that your predecessor in the Chair said he hoped to call five or six speakers today, and tomorrow, apart from Front Bench speakers, who are taking an inordinate length of time? Will you allow some questions to the Minister so that people who know something about the subject can thus get in?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hardly think the hon. Member is furthering his own point.
  Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order. May I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I seek your advice to find out how it is possible to raise questions with the Minister on something which he published today outside the House and which he contradicted in his statement just now? How is it possible for points of that sort to be raised with the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will know that there are likely to be further opportunities for him, but not at the present time on a point of order.
  Mr. Carr: I want to draw to a conclusion. It really is impossible to expound shortly a Bill of this nature. I know that, despite the length of my speech, there are many points with which I have not been able to deal, though I think I have tackled the most important ones, and in a two-day debate I trust there will be time for those I have not dealt with to be raised, and replied to by my hon. and right hon. Friends.
  In conclusion, I want to stress that this Bill is the product of much thought by many people and organisations over a good many years, and that it is woven from various strands of knowledge and advice. Many of the proposals of Lord Donovan and his Commission are included. Whether or not we have adopted this or that proposal of their particular recommendations, or this or that important attitude, the fact remains—I think the House would wish me to say this—that their analysis and argument have had a profound influence on the development of thought about this problem, and, in one way or another, on the shape of our Bill.
  I repeat, yet again, that the law can only help gradually in changing behaviour. It will be judged by the extent to which it supports the constructive evolution of the voluntary system of industrial relations in British industry. That is the test we set, and that is the test we shall be judged by. We do not expect the law to produce a direct or immediate effect, or to cure problems simply by the principle of punishing offenders. Good law will, however, assist, while bad law handicaps, responsible voluntary action. It will put on record what the community believes to be fair and reasonable conduct. It can help continuously and cumulatively to form opinion and mould behaviour. While it may be some deterrent against irresponsible action, its main purpose is to stimulate positive, responsible leadership by management and trade unions.
  Having created a better environment, as I said in our debate two and a half weeks ago, the House and the country will expect such leadership from both sides of industry, and particularly from management, because, by definition, the duty to take initiatives rests upon management. Leadership must start at the top, with the chairman, directors, and senior managers of every company in

  987
  this country, because if they do not lead, no one else will follow. What we are creating are better conditions for positive leadership, first from management, and then from the trades unions. I believe that the new environment will promote that leadership, and it is with that hope and in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: May I say at the outset how much I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman? I can well understand his anxiety to get away. I can well understand how fatigued he must be, and what strain he has been under, because I have been in a similar situation myself. None the less, I would say to him that I hope that he will not have to dash away from the House till I have concluded my speech, because I have a lot of very direct points I want to put to him. I am afraid that they are going to be technical points, for the simple reason that this Bill is riddled with technicalities, and for the simple reason that, by the right hon. Gentleman's own choice, industrial relations in this country are going to be bedevilled by technicalities from now on—
  Mr. Dan Jones: And by law.
  Mrs. Castle: I am talking about legal technicalities. I really do say with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not good enough to come along to this House and say, when he is asked about one of the legal technicalities, which lie at the very heart of this Bill, "I am sorry, but one of my expert friends will answer". It is not good enough, because he is responsible for the industrial relations system and the conditions the Bill is going to create, and he, therefore, I should have thought, ought to have understood what it was he was proposing to the House.
  I can assure him that none of his hon. Friends behind him understood a word he was saying from beginning to end. They did not. They nodded wisely at every generality, and a glazed look came over their eyes whenever the right hon. Gentleman became specific—just as a glazed look comes over the eyes of the public when we talk about making collective agreements legally enforceable, blah blah blah blab. They just nod and
  988
  wait when they are told that this Bill will help reduce strikes. They have not a clue how it will do so. The right hon. Gentleman has not shown how it will do so. They have no idea how this complex of 150 Clauses will impinge upon the industrial relations situations as they are. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know, and the public do not know.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member knows that if the right lion. Lady does not give way he must resume his seat.
  Mrs. Castle: I hope—
  Mr. Iremonger rose—
  Mrs. Castle: No. I am sorry. I cannot give way. I have barely started. If on any specific point which I query anyone wants to challenge me, I will give way. I listened to the introductory homily by the right hon. Gentleman, as did my hon. Friends, with courtesy, attention and seriousness, and I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite learn a few manners for once.
  I repeat that, much as I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman having had very little time to prepare his speech, none the less I find his inability to answer detailed points inexplicable. After all, he must have taken these points into account when he was drafting the Bill. I ought to know. I drafted an Industrial Relations Bill myself—[Laughter.] I learnt, and I know. The hilarity of hon. Gentlemen opposite just proves their unfittedness to deal with serious industrial relations problems. I know of the complexity and how one has to put wet towels round one's head and get the lawyers to explain it before one can proceed to draft a Clause.
  The right hon. Gentleman must have done this when he was drawing up the Bill; or was it his Bill? Was it not rather the Bill of the Solicitor-General who was incarcerated in that special room at the D.E.P. for months and months? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is merely the front man for the Government. That is why he can be so earnest and moderate in introducing a Bill that is far from moderate and is indeed a deeply frivolous and irresponsible Bill.

  989
  This separateness of the right hon. Gentleman from the policy of which he is nominally the author was revealed very interestingly in a remark which he made in the House only the other day. It was one of the most penetrating remarks I have heard for a long time, certainly from the benches opposite, on the subject of industrial relations. It was not a remark made this afternoon in the middle of his elaborate apologia for a complex Bill, but one made in the heat of an industrial relations situation, when we all suddenly come up against not the theories or the legal clauses but the facts of a situation in which men and women are on strike.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: What strike?
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry—the power workers' dispute. Challenged last Wednesday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as to why the employers had not exercised their right under the constitution of the J.I.C. and taken the matter to arbitration unilaterally, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House whether it is sensible for one side to push ahead with arbitration like that against the wish, or at least the willingness, of the other side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 513.]
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman came along a couple of days later with a different explanation, but this was the instinctive response of a man of practical experience who had temporarily mislaid his Departmental brief. By that instinctive reaction the right hon. Gentleman has given us the whole case against the Bill.
  I suggest to the House that the power workers' dispute is an object lesson in the sort of situation we shall have to deal with which it is worth spending a little time examining. Many people in this country support the Bill because they believe that through the exercise of legal sanctions the Bill will prevent the disruption of power supplies, just as they believe that, if it had been law, it would have prevented the "dirty jobs" strike. The Bill, of course, will do nothing of the kind. We all know why our dustbins overflowed. The strike was official, not in breach of procedure, and
  990
  it could not have been prevented under any Clause in the Bill.
  The power workers' dispute is a little more complicated. There are on the Statute Book Acts which are supposed to prevent the disruption of electricity supplies. The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, make it a criminal offence for a person employed in an electricity undertaking wilfully and maliciously to break his contract of employment when he knows or has reason to believe that the consequences of his doing so will be to deprive people wholly or to a great extent of their electricity supply.
  We have been through a traumatic week and have heard stories on the television about the effects of the interruption of supply on hospitals, on the elderly and on mothers with children, and one would have thought that in this situation these Acts would have been neatly applicable. Certainly people were deprived of their supply. Was it to a great extent? Was it done wilfully and maliciously? Was there a breach of the contract of employment? In the last resort only the courts can say.
  The law is a complicated and chancy business, but the Electricity Council had no doubts; indeed it had people on television in the last few days saying that the inconvenience which the public had been suffering was not due to lack of contingency planning by the Electricity Council or the Government, but to the fact that the power workers had been working to their own rules and not those of their agreement.
  In other words, the accusation has been made that the public has suffered this inconvenience because the power workers had broken their employment rules and so their contract of employment. The right hon. Gentleman has given implicit support to this view. Challenged in the House last Friday by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who asked him if he thought he was doing his duty by not drawing the attention of the power workers to the existence of these ominous powers and how they could be caught under them, the right hon. Gentleman did not enter any cautionary note by saying that perhaps the power workers were not breaking the law, but

  991
  merely said, grandly, as we have heard him say it so often:
  "… we on this side of the House do not believe in the detailed application of the criminal law to industrial relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 821.]
  As is becoming rather usual, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Gentleman was not being entirely honest with the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—listen and judge. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that the Government are retaining the criminal law in the Bill. The Bill merely repeals Section 4 of the 1875 Act. The right hon. Gentleman nods; he knows that it is spelt out in the Consultative Document. The Government are retaining Section 5 as, in the words of the Consultative Document,
  "a necessary safeguard against industrial action leading to serious harm."
  I am not complaining about his retaining Section 5—it has never been used anyway—but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman drops his air of injured superiority. The fact is that he merely prefers his criminal law in these situations to be general rather than specific.
  The right hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in other ways, too. He says that he prefers to rely on civil actions, though how he thinks this will encourage industrial peace is a mystery—a matter between the right hon. Gentleman and his Maker. I do not know an intelligent employer who believes he can promote good relations between himself and his employees by taking them to court. However, for the sake of this debate, let us accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If he knows his law—and if he does not, he had better start to learn it quickly because, from now on, we shall all have to employ legal advisers—he will know that a civil action could have lain in the power workers' case. Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers Cunard v. Stacey in 1955? If he does not, he had better begin taking Lloyd's List Law Reports to bed with him, as the rest of us do. [Laughter.] I can assure hon. Gentlemen that they are merely proving that they are ill equipped to comment on the Bill, because law books have never been in such demand from the House Library.
  992
  Cunard v. Stacey was a case in which it was held that, as certain seamen had committed a criminal offence by conspiring to break their articles of engagement, they had also committed a civil wrong. And Cunard obtained an injunction against them for the civil tort of conspiracy. Therefore, in the power workers' dispute the Electricity Council, which has hinted that there has been a breach of contract, could have taken the power workers to court for an injunction as a civil case. Why did they not do so? Since we have heard all these stories in the last few days about the sufferings of the public, did the right hon. Gentleman press the Council to do so? If not, why not?
  I suggest that this is the kernel of the whole argument between us over this Bill. The Electricity Council did not do so, and the Secretary of State did not press it to do so, because they all knew it would not have helped. They knew that the power workers were reasonable men, and not criminals. It was not done because this dispute, like other industrial disputes, will be settled by the good, old-fashioned, well-tried method of an inquiry—I was going to say by a Jack Scamp type of inquiry, except that the Government will be damned sure not to have Jack Scamp this time!
  This is not a legal farce in which we are engaged, although I agree that it sounds like it. It is an industrial relations tragedy because this kind of legal fandango permeates the whole Bill. If the Bill is passed, a code of good industrial practice will become a museum curiosity. Instead we shall all need to have a code of court cases.
  This Bill, as the lawyers are the first to admit, is a lawyer's paradise. It is not only a lawyer's breakfast; it is his dinner and tea as well. By the time the present Government have finished, the legal profession will be the only growth industry we have. It will not only be the Government who are finding millions of pounds more, as we are told in the financial Clauses of the Bill, not to promote constructive solutions, but so that the trade unions and their representatives can be prosecuted and the machinery be provided to make it possible; it will not only be the Government who are spending all these extra millions so negatively;

  993
  but it will also be industry and the trade unions who will be setting aside millions of pounds to employ lawyers to deal with industrial relations situations that ought to be dealt with by personnel managers and by well-trained union officials.
  Let me give the House some examples from this Bill. First, on the matter of legal enforceability—
  Mr. R. Carr: Since the right hon. Lady is very keen on the details of the Bill, would she point out under which Clause any trade union official may be prosecuted?
  Mrs. Castle: Yes, I shall be coming, with great pleasure, to the details of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I had just started when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come to them now."] I am delighted. The right hon. Gentleman will have an interesting time. Let me give the House some examples. Legal enforceability of collective agreements used to be the central theme of Conservative policy. The Prime Minister himself from time to time has expressed this theme so movingly on television. The Conservatives have always made it sound simple and straight-forward. People were led to visualise big important industry-wide or plant-wide agreement, if both parties agreed, being made legally enforceable. However, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman too look at Clause 33 of the Bill which gives an absolute indication of the sort of complexity of detail that the law is reaching.
  Clause 33 says that every collective agreement made in writing will be legally enforceable, unless there is an express provision to the contrary written into it. But how does the Clause define "collective agreements"? It defines them as any agreement made by any body "representing workers" which determines
  "any matters for which a procedure agreement can provide".
  Any body! Any matters! It must be remembered that we are supposed to be dealing with the law, and we are told that there must be a framework of law clearly defined in Statute.
  Let us see what this means. It means that any works committee—any one of thousands of works committees throughout the country—when deciding on new
  994
  rules for the tea break, or on when the chaps can go to the smoking booth, had better not jot it down on the back of an envelope, or write it into the minutes, unless they have a lawyer to advise them on how to avoid making it legally enforceable. This is a vast extension of the area of legal enforceability which was never spelt out in the Consultative Document, nor in the speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen. Yet it is in this matter of legal enforceability that we begin to see the complex network of obligations now to be laid on trade unions.
  Mr. David Mitchell rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I do not want to give way because I am trying to give the House details. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to challenge me on a point I will give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Very well, I will give way if the House wishes me to.
  Mr. Mitchell: Could the right hon. Lady enlighten the House as to exactly what would happen if an agreement about two minutes' tea break became a matter of issue? There would be no question of prosecution or of anybody finding themselves in the dock, and there would be no question of fines. What grave disaster would overtake anybody if such a matter were jotted down on the back of an envelope and became a matter of issue afterwards?
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because any collective agreement defined in the terms which I have spelled out, if written down, can be legally enforceable by any of the Clauses of the Bill. I was just coming, had the hon. Gentleman not interrupted me, to the significance of Clause 34 which says that:
  "It shall be an unfair industrial practice … to break … legally enforceable …"
  agreements.
  That is fair enough in the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy, but has the House studied Clause 34(2) which says that where a collective agreement is legally enforceable, the union shall not only be answerable for its own policy and its own behaviour, but must take "… all such steps as are reasonably practicable …"—what a bonanza the

  995
  lawyers would have over that one!—to prevent persons acting "or purporting to act" on its behalf from breaking the agreement; secondly, to prevent members of its organisation from taking such action; and, finally, to secure that the action is not continued and does not recur.
  These impossible responsibilities are to be placed not only on trade unions, but on any organisation of workers. So the unions cannot escape by choosing not to register. Indeed, that is the whole idea.
  What happens if someone "purports to act" on behalf of a party to one of these thousands of agreements which are made in factories and workshops up and down the country? One then has to turn to one of the many sanctions clauses dotted about the Bill, making sure to get the cross-references right, and spending hours on it. One has to turn to Clause 90 as amplified by Clauses 102 and 103, to say nothing of Clause 86, aiding and abetting, or Clauses 57 to 84 which spell out the processes and pitfalls of becoming registered.
  No wonder personnel managers studying the Bill are going mad. As for trade union officials and shop stewards, they will have to drop all those courses of training on how to do their jobs properly and concentrate instead on mastering these legal intricacies.
  But the right hon. Gentleman has not yet finished with them. There are Clauses 35 to 39, the "fictitious agreement" Clauses, which are some of the most iniquitous in the whole Bill. If, appalled and bewildered by the dangers of legal enforceability, negotiators say that they will have nothing to do with written agreements, the right hon. Gentleman himself, as well as other parties, can step in and set in motion the procedure which culminates, in Clause 39, with an order of the industrial court directing that revised provisions for procedure
  "shall have effect as a legally enforceable contract, as if a contract consisting of those provisions had been made between those parties."
  "As if"! But there is no contract here. The essence of the contract is that it is entered into voluntarily. How different
  996
  this Clause is from all the talk we had from the Prime Minister about giving this country "freedom and responsibility". Under this Government the unions alone will be asked to accept responsibility without freedom.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite really had better spend a little time reading the Bill which they are going to endorse so happily. Does the right hon. Gentleman know how the mere presentation of these proposals has already cast its shadow over the negotiations for a new engineering procedure to replace the York Memorandum—negotiations which, before these proposals were promulgated, were coming to a satisfactory conclusion? Heaven knows, it was long overdue. But now the unions have said—who can blame them?—that they will not sign any agreement unless it includes a provision that it is not to be made legally enforceable.
  What is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to do under this Clause which he said is so essential to give us modern and satisfactory procedure agreements where they do not exist? Is the right hon. Gentleman waiting in the wings ready to step in and say that if the unions will not have any agreement without this written proviso, he will impose a procedure agreement unit by unit throughout the whole of the motor car industry? Does he really think that, if he did so, this would improve relations in the motor car industry?
  How very different all this is from not only the terms, but the spirit of Donovan. Has the right hon. Gentleman not read Chapter VIII of the Donovan Report? Of course he has, because he quoted from it in the debate on the Consultative Document. The right hon. Gentleman, with great panache, quoted paragraph 500:
  "It is imperative that the number of unofficial and especially of unconstitutional strikes should be reduced and should be reduced speedily."
  The right hon. Gentleman claimed that this meant that Donovan was in support of the proposals in the Bill.
  It is typical of this Government's whole dishonesty over this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes—that the right hon. Gentleman did not go on to quote

  997
  the very next paragraph in the Donovan Report, so I will remind the House that it said:
  "The first and most important step to be taken in order to get rid of unconstitutional strikes is the reform of our collective bargaining system. This is our central recommendation. We cannot recommend anything that may jeopardise its success."
  That is why the Donovan Commission rejected the very steps which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to take, his policy on legal enforceability and the imposition of procedure agreements, just as it rejected the other items in the right hon. Gentleman's penal package—his attitude to registration, to the closed shop, and to the sympathetic strikes.
  The right hon. Gentleman's answer is astonishing. When we spell out the details of these legal powers, he said, we do not need to worry about them because they will never be used.
  In fact, only last Thursday at Question Time, the Minister of State, when asked how many employers would actually take their own workers to court, said "Very few". But this is exactly why Donovan rejected these powers, pointing out that to make procedure agreements legally enforceable and then not to have them enforced would bring the law into disrepute.
  Worse still, the right hon. Gentleman is admitting that these powers would be intolerable if they were to be used. Yet they are to be held in reserve and can be used. By whom? Not by the good employer, but by the lazy or vicious one—by the sort of chap with the kind of mentality which we saw on the David Frost programme on Saturday night. But these civil actions by employers by no means comprise the whole of the legal sanctions in the Bill. On the contrary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they form a relatively insignificant part of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman likes to make great play of the fact that he does not propose to introduce the criminal law into industrial relations, unlike, as he claims, the Labour Government. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that lie is hiding behind a technicality. Indeed, one of the most significant and disturbing features of the Bill is the panoply of powers which he gives to the National Industrial Relations Court. Time and again, as we look at the sanctions proposals, we find that the
  998
  remedy for a complaint brought to the court is not only compensation; not just civil damages; but an order to refrain or a direction to do something—a cease or desist order, with which the law is so familiar.
  Under Clause 90(3), a complaint that unfair industrial action has taken place, the penalty is compensation and an order to refrain.
  Under Clause 92(3)(c) where someone can complain that a union has breached its rules, it is compensation and again an order to refrain.
  Under Clause 93(2), where the registrar can take the union to court for breach of rules, again there can be an order on the union to take such action as will prevent a continuation or repetition of the breach.
  I could go on with a large number of instances. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that any defiance of these orders is contempt of court. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it is not criminal contempt, but in its practical effects there is no difference: a person can be sent to gaol for it just the same. He says, "You cannot send a union to prison". O.K., but a union could not have been sent to prison under my White Paper, either. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he would enforce his court's orders against a union? Would he impound its property? How would the orders be enforced? We have not had a word from the right hon. Gentleman about these practical effects.
  The right hon. Gentleman goes on to imply that individuals will be protected from actions under his Bill. He says that under Clause 90(5) the court will not make an order or an award for damages against a trade union official, but only if the trade union official acted
  "within the scope of his authority".
  What happens if it is shown that he did not act within the scope of his authority, and the onus of proof is on him? Will an order then lie against that individual, with all the potential liability for contempt? If so, at the end of the road individuals could go to prison under the Bill.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: What the right hon. Lady is saying is that because, at the end of

  999
  the day, prison is the sanction, the law is not in practice enforceable. Exactly the same arguments were advanced against having a Race Relations Act in this country. Nobody has been sent to prison under that Act, yet that legislation has had a real effect on people's behaviour and attitudes, because the vast majority of people in this country will allow their behaviour to be influenced by the law.
  Mrs. Castle: I am interested to see the sudden conversion of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Race Relations Act. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer the question."] They are converted to it now. My reply to the hon. Gentleman is that what I am trying to do is to get his right hon. Friend to be frank with the House and the country. [HON MEMBERS: " Answer the question."] I am answering. This was the tenor of my argument. I am not saying that these powers cannot be used. What I am saying is that if they are used the effects could be exactly the same as under the criminal law. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and he ought to be honest enough to admit it to the House.
  The only difference in the right hon. Gentleman's case is that the order is made by the court, and not by him, but is he seriously arguing that it is desirable that a court, composed as his is, should have the far-reaching discretions in industrial relations matters which the Government are giving to it? This court will not be answerable to the House for the exercise of those powers. It will be presided over by a High Court judge accompanied by nominees of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor; nominees who no longer have to be representatives of employers or employees, as they have to be in the composition of the present industrial court.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Two to one against.
  Mrs. Castle: They merely have to be two people who, in the view of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor, have special knowledge and experience of industrial relations.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is not the converse of the right hon. Lady's argument possibly truer, that there is no effective sanction, no prison at the end of the day, and the real criticism is that
  1000
  there is nothing to make the order effective?
  Mrs. Castle: All I can say is that I wish the Government would decide which argument they are using. When one points out the potential powers under the Bill the Government say that the powers will not be used, yet for the non-use of these powers we are to have the expenditure of this money, this army of new officials and this elaborate legal procedure, but as yet the right hon. Gentleman has not put his choice to the House.
  I believe that these powers can be used. Every hon. Member can make his choice. I believe that it is extremely dangerous for the future of the trade union movement that this lawyer-dominated and Government-dominated court should have the power to decide such matters as whether, for instance, a procedure agreement is unsuitable in any particular undertaking, and therefore a new one should be imposed by law; whether unrest in a particular plant has seriously impeded orderly industrial relations, and therefore a procedure agreement must be imposed; whether the Registrar is right in saying that the rules of a union are seriously defective, and that the registration of a union should be cancelled, with all the legal disabilities that that would bring.
  I cannot say to the House that I believe these powers are unimportant because they are unenforceable. I think that the discretion of this court and of the Registrar are almost unlimited, and this has caused grave anxiety, not only among trade unions, but among those who are experienced in the law. Let us consider one example. If the Registrar, exercising his snooping powers, decides that there has been a "serious" breach of a union's rules, and that the union has not taken the necessary action to stop it, he can then go to the court which can direct the union to take action
  "requisite to prevent a continuance or a repetition of the breaches of the rules".
  That illustration takes us straight back to the Pilkington case, which we discussed last time, in which there was a breach of the rules of the General and Municipal Workers Union because the strike was not called with the authority of the union's National Executive. That union has the sort of rules in that regard which the right hon. Gentleman says he wants to impose through his Bill,

  1001
  but under this Measure, which we are being asked to vote for so lightheartedly tonight, the Registrar—we none of us know who he will be—can go to the court, which can then direct the General and Municipal Workers Union to take action to prevent a continuance of that breach. How? Only by expelling the unofficial strikers who had defied its authority and yet, as I explained last time, no one would have been more alarmed at that disciplinary action being taken than the management of Pilkington's.
  That case proves that in attacking the Bill as a fundamental attack on trade union rights and activities the unions are not seeking a licence for anarchy. They are merely trying to drum into the closed and prejudiced mind of this Government that they know more about the complexities of industrial relations than the Government do, and that by undermining the freedom of unions to exercise their own judgment the Government are merely cutting all our throats.
  Mr. John Page Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—
  Mrs. Castle: No, I am sorry. Anybody who is experienced in industrial relation', and is aware of the needs that have to be met if we are to have industrial peace knows that there is no more irrelevant and dangerous piece of frivolity than the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for an agency shop. Look at what the right hon. Gentleman has told us about Clauses 41 to 45. Under these Clauses, any employee covered by a bargaining unit agreement can complain that a union does not "adequately represent" him. If 20 per cent. of the employees support him, a ballot can be held. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If a majority of those voting say that they want the union to cease representing them, it does so cease, and they can choose somebody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] One shudders to think what disruption that will cause. I cannot imagine a better charter for militants, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer this kind of provision they merely show their total ignorance of what actually happens on the shop floor. They merely show for instance that they do not know how many times trade union leaders, whom they are so quick and happy to pillory in this
  1002
  House, fight a rearguard action against their own militants, and how many times wage demands presented by the unions are far less than they would have been it the militants had had their way. Now, in this Clause, the Government are giving a charter for the break-away unions in which the ballot result will go to the union which promises the chaps the most—and then this Government say that this is a serious contribution to dealing with the inflationary situation which the country faces.
  No, this Bill is the climax of a series of miscalculations and mismanagements by this Government. It is based on the belief that one can cure the problem in 1970 by turning back the clock to the 1870's. Of course progress brings problems—all progress does—but one has to deal with them by the methods of the future, not the past.
  There is no one on this side who does not want to reduce the effect of strikes, though it is folly to suppose, as the right hon. Gentleman has begun to do, that the only important thing is to reduce the number of strikes and that it does not matter if we increase their duration and intensity. Surely the experience of the last few days, when we groped our way through this place by candlelight, should have disposed of that belief once and for all—the belief that industrial action does not matter, so long as strikes are fewer, longer and official, which is what the Bill sets out to achieve.
  If we want to reduce strikes, we do not need more legal restrictions; we need better psychology. What we need to do is remind ourselves that industrial relations are about people — frustrated workers on the one hand and, no doubt, very often frustrated managements on the other. We do not like the growing reliance on the strike weapon any more than the right hon. Gentleman does. In fact, speaking as a woman, a thing I do not think I have ever done before in this House—
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I am sorry; I wanted to draw to a conclusion.
  Mrs. Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally

  1003
  Oppenheim) has been here long enough to know that, if the right hon. Lady does not give way, she must resume her seat.
  Mrs. Castle: I do not think that I can be challenged on being a woman, so the hon. Lady must forgive me if I do not give way.
  But speaking as a woman, I think that the strike weapon is essentially a masculine device. It is crude, it is clumsy and it is often inefficient in achieving its avowed purposes. Let me also add, speaking as a product of this day and age, that it is an instrument which men and women of all sections of society have been driven to use from time to time.
  We on this side want to move away from a situation in which workers, or doctors or consultants come to that, feel that the use of the strike weapon is appropriate to the morality of the society in which we live—and the prime responsibility for creating the moral tone of a society rests with Government.
  What kind of morality have this Government preached? From their first breath, they have preached the morality that the world belongs to the strong, that we must all rely on our own strength, because this Government have nothing but contempt for the lame ducks, including no doubt the old-age pensioners or anyone else who has not been very good at looking after number one. One can only get unions to belong to a compassionate society if there is a compassionate society to belong to, and this Government have destroyed the compassionate society. What sort of example does it set when their first step is to take 6d. off the income tax at the cost of about £330 million, a sum which would have given our desperate old-age pensioners another £1 a week?
  None of us who are opposing the Bill is doing so because he wants to give the all-clear to inflationary wage increases. This Bill will not cure inflation, any more than similar legal curbs on unions have cured inflation in Germany or the United States. In fact, it will make it worse because it throws away any chance of winning the co-operation of the unions in any policy of voluntary restraint.
  As The Guardian put it this morning, the problem of inflation can be cured only by mobilising the more generous
  1004
  instincts of our whole society. It went on:
  "It is because the Industrial Relations Bill, due to be debated today, is a symptom of a divisive, ugly and negative public mood that it is a step in the wrong direction."
  It is indeed. It is because the Bill is a symptom of a divisive, ugly and negative Government policy that we shall vote against it.
  6.6 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Normanton: It is a privilege at long last to make my maiden speech and I crave the patience and indulgence of the House while I do so, as the newly elected Member for Cheadle, a constituency with many characteristics which distinguish it from most, if not all, others represented here. Although close to, and in many ways connected with, the greater cities of Manchester and Stockport, we are determined to retain our separate existence and individual identity and to be masters over our own fate.
  Yet within the division there are four separate and distinctly identifiable communities with long and proud traditions of local independence and character. The village of Marple, with some 20,000 inhabitants, with Mellor and Ludworth, occupies a proud place in the history of the Industrial Revolution, the age of enterprise and inventiveness in technology as well as in social awareness, which was manifested by that great name in history Mr. Samuel Oldknow.
  The urban district of Bramhall and Hazel Grove has 35,000 people, and to be a "Grover" depends on at least a generation, if not two generations, of residence in the community, but where, with Woodford, the most advanced and the deadliest modern technologies have found a ready home, thanks to the enterprise and initiative of such a world famous name as A. V. Roe, and where engineers and scientists have contributed in peace and in war to the economy of this country in so many ways.
  From Bredbury and Romiley, with Compstall, an area with 20,000 people, flow to all quarters of the world the products of steel mill, heavy engineering and machine shops. To the west is the urban district of Cheadle and Gatley, which gives the constituency its name, and which has expanded in the last 25 years from relatively a mere village to its present size

  1005
  of 50,000 inhabitants. The industry has such world famous names as Simon and Oilwell playing a vital part in influencing its economic and social character.
  Yet with all the importance of the major industrial enterprises in the constituency, the character of the whole division is still seen to be predominently residential, with probably the highest incidence of owner-occupation in all the north of England. The population is extremely mobile and it moves more frequently and freely than in any constituency I know. For a house to be sold three times in 12 months is by no means uncommon.
  For any hon. Member, this great constituency sets a major challenge, for its political views are not dominated by parental tradition or local custom, the standard of service demanded from its hon. Member is based on a highly critical judgment of politicians and expectations from them and it has an almost unique ability to express its views in a highly articulate manner.
  It is for these reasons that the seat was won by my predecessor in this House, who established for himself the reputation of being a good local hon. Member, a reputation for which some—perhaps I might say many—hon. Members would justifiably be proud. His involvement at national level with journalism, radio and television, in addition to his participation in the proceedings of this House, made his a household name. His defeat, on the 18th June, leaves him still with many friends.
  For critical Cheadle is, and will continue to be so, critical of its hon. Members and Governments alike, whatever their complexion. But neither hon. Member nor Government need fear such criticism since most of it is analytical and constructive.
  This House is today debating industrial relations. In a constituency with heavy engineering plants, a steel rolling mill and a considerable number of factories in the medium and light industrial classifications, one might be excused for expecting to find among its constituents a large volume of public opinion both deeply concerned with, and probably vehemently opposed to, the kind of legislative proposals which we are debating. Yet I assure this House that this simply is not the case.
  1006
  I entered this House after nearly 30 years of active personal involvement in one of the major industries in this country, and particularly of the North-West. I served it, in my firm, at district employer level, at regional and at national level. I also represent my industry internationally, in industrial relations as well as in commercial negotiations.
  I ask the House to accept this as a personal statement of fact—not by way of a personal testimonial because I am sure that in this House one is expected to earn that by performance rather than by words—with my assurance that I view this Bill through the eyes of one who speaks for my industry and from within it and not through the tinted glasses of a party politician or as an occupant of an ivory tower.
  Industrial relations in this country have traditionally been built up on the concept of a bargain of mutual benefit for the proper regulation of working conditions and reasonable wages, having regard to the merit and need of the worker concerned and the ability of the employer to pay—a bargain made collectively between responsible employers on the one hand and responsible representatives of those whom they employ on the other.
  In the development of industrial relations over the past century, the stress has been on enabling trade unions to be effective and responsibly representative of their members. Legislation was enacted largely to enable them to carry out their proper functions in this field without fear of disruption or victimisation.
  A basic condition of this concept was that a voluntary bargain was struck between responsible people whose word could be relied upon. In other words, they were, to use a hackneyed term, gentlemen's agreements—and it follows that gentlemen's agreements not only imply, but must essentially be based on, the principle that the parties concerned act like gentlemen in keeping to their word and bond.
  It would be wrong, and it would be unfair to assume, that this position has entirely vanished. There are many industries—and in those many industries there are a very large number of instances of companies to which this applies—in which industrial relations can be, and still

  1007
  are, conducted along the lines I have indicated. But a number of things have basically altered this rather simple but long-standing accepted concept.
  The first is the changed structure of industry, which has been effected by the growth of large firms and an often bewildering increase in the technological complications in some of these spheres. This, in itself, has tended to make it essential that detailed variations of wages, working methods and even working conditions should in some instances be resolved increasingly at or near the place of work. This has also led to a weakening of basic trade union authority and responsibility, which has stretched for a long time between those at the top of the union hierarchy and their representatives on the shop floor.
  Secondly, there has developed, in consequence of this change of the balance of authority, a divorce of actual power from actual responsibility, and this has enabled many irresponsible and disruptive individual elements in industry to acquire shop floor power—to shelter under the immunity clauses of trade union legislation passed by Governments under circumstances which no longer prevail—and for the same people to be able to act irresponsibly and disruptively without fear of the consequence of their actions.
  One consequence at least of this sort of situation, particularly if it gets into the hands of unscrupulous people, is that these people can bring about immense disruption. In effect, they are bound by no rules, no laws and no written agreements. Indeed, their aggression feeds on the success which this sort of action can only too frequently achieve under these circumstances. In brief, there is a situation akin to anarchy, and this is not, and never can be, the basis of a rational system of industrial relations to the benefit of employer and employed alike.
  It seems to me, therefore, that one of the essentials now is to restore this balance of power and responsibility, to establish good faith between the parties and to establish rational rules under which the conduct of industrial relations can be properly and effectively conducted. This is essentially what I see this Bill to be aiming to do. It aims, first, to put back responsibility and authority into the hands of the trade unions, with an obli-
  1008
  gation on them to conduct their affairs in a reasonably democratic fashion. That being so, I fail to see why they should fear the Bill.
  The Measure will also enable bargains which have been freely entered into to be properly observed, if not by good faith—and this happens in very many cases already, and I would not want the House to underestimate the extent to which that situation prevails—then, in substitution for it, by legal obligation of the kind we have with a contract of sale of goods between buyer and seller.
  On the other hand, the Bill aims to take away from those who are not prepared to play the game according to long standing and accepted proper rules their right to act irrresponsibly and disruptively without fear of the consequences of their actions. It is only the wrongdoers who ever need fear the law, and that applies in many spheres of the law other than industrial relations. Those who conform to reasonable rules—and I stress that the rules must be reasonable and must be seen to be reasonable—have nothing to fear.
  Employers, I must admit quite freely and frankly, are by no means faultless in respect of their responsibility for ensuring a proper and effective system of industrial relations. Good faith and good will are admittedly not capable of being imposed by law, but the enactment and enforcement of fair and equitable laws must foster the growth or the restoration of good faith and good will where there are not proper rules. In industries or companies where there are either poor procedural agreements or no procedural agreements the position will have to be rectified, and the Bill provides accordingly. The exchange of information, always provided that it is kept to reasonable proportions and will not put employers at an unfair disadvantage in negotiations or prejudice the commercial security of firms, can be beneficial, though there is some danger of exaggerating the importance in practice of this so-called opening up of data.
  The growth of very large firms has thrown great emphasis upon the need for better communications and for better consultation between management and factory floor. I equally stress the need for better communications between and

  1009
  within responsible trade unions and their agents at the shop floor level. This is the part of the need to remedy the divorce of responsible union authority from the shop floor, and to restore effective union authority regulated and exercised under proper rules.
  Remoteness—and it is a term that I have used on many other occasions and in many other contexts—is a dreadful disease which is gnawing away at so much of our national life, social and economic as well as political. This is particularly serious in its implications and effect on industry.
  There is no substitute for good leadership; no substitute for good management. As firms grow larger the personal link of the employer as a human being comes into doubt. How can we have a gentleman's agreement and respect it as such when one gentleman does not even know of the very existence of the other, never mind his identity? How much worse is the situation which exists in some huge corporations I could mention where the worker at all levels is no more real than the ink on the computer tape and the employer is no more human than the heading on the firm's notepaper?
  I see this Bill as a challenge to both management and men; to employers and trade union leaders. It is a challenge to trade unions to accept as a fact that British industry is in the twentieth cencentury—and near the end of the century, too—and that industrial legislation of the last century or the very earliest part of this century is substantially irrelevant in dealing with the situation at this end of the spectrum. Designed to protect, as it were, the hard-pressed minority, that legislation no wserves to let the minority oppress the majority from a position outside the law by which the majority, the nation as a whole, is bound. Rights, privileges, security cannot be divorced from responsibility for one's own actions.
  It is perhaps advisable not to overlook the fact that most of British industry is still conducted by relatively small firms, and that in many of those firms industrial relations are still good, not only between the employers and the work people, and their representatives, but also between employers' organisations and responsible trade unions. It is only in certain sections of British industry, albeit very important
  1010
  sections, where action is at this stage needed.
  I enter here one final but significant caveat. The Bill is not of itself the only means by which industry and commerce can be made more effective in performance and more rewarding to all parties engaged in it and enabled to assist the nation to become more prosperous, but it is undoubtedly an extremely important instrument and one which lies directly and exclusively in the province of Government.
  There are other areas which I regard as of equal importance, each in their own particular way, which when put into operation alongside this Measure will prove to be a comprehensive formula for resolving the many dilemmas which have dogged British industry increasingly and for so long. One dilemma of particular significance is taxation. We need an end to the disastrous disincentive to effort which the present system has to all who are engaged in industry and commerce.
  I ask the House to forgive me for having trespassed on one of the traditions of the maiden speaker by having talked at too great length, but I regard my entry into this honourable House as a challenge to me personally to make a humble but sincere effort to contribute towards solving the problem of industrial relations. One of the ways in which I see this being done is by the Bill being enacted. I am absolutely certain that by this Measure the Government will have made a major contribution to bringing industry and industrial relations right up to date.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Parry: I rise with trepidation to make my maiden speech, but I have pleasure in congratulating the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) on his maiden speech. He will appreciate that I could not agree with what he said, but no doubt hon. Members look forward to his future contributions.
  I understand that on occasions like this a new Member is expected to observe three conventions: first, to make a reference to his predecessor and constituency; secondly, to be brief; and thirdly, to be non-controversial. I shall try to observe the custom and practice

  1011
  of the House, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I stray into the realms of controversy, because it is a very controversial Bill.
  The Liverpool, Exchange constituency is typical of constituencies covering the central area of a large city. It has within its boundaries the main shopping, commercial and cultural centres of Liverpool, including the two cathedrals, the university, the Philharmonic Hall, the Mersey Tunnel and several miles of dockland. It is a paradoxical constituency, because the other side of the coin shows thousands of slums and near-slum properties, pre-war tenements and post-war multi-storey tower blocks of corporation flats. My constituents are mainly people in the lower-income brackets, and most of them are trade unionists.
  My predecessor, Mrs. Bessie Braddock, was respected on both sides of the House. She was loved by the people of Liverpool, and her death a few weeks ago created a great sense of loss for Merseyside in general and the Exchange division in particular. Her service to her constituents gave her the reputation of being probably one of the finest constituency Members the House has seen. She will never be forgotten in Liverpool. I hope that I can follow in her footsteps, particularly in regard to giving service to her constituents.
  The Bill has been hailed by its authors as a break-through in industrial relations but attacked by its opponents as an attempt to shackle and imprison the trade unions. Mr. Scanlon, leader of the A.E.F., has called it probably the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever to be put on the Statute Book. I agree, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends do. The hostile reception to the Bill by the whole trade union movement indicates the opposition to the Bill and the strong feeling it arouses.
  I should like to refer briefly to several of the 150 Clauses in the Bill on which I feel strongly. I am sure that my hon. Friends will adequately cover other points in the Bill.
  Clauses 5, 6 and 7, dealing with the question of trade union membership, the rights of workers and the closed shop, contain provocative and inflammatory conditions which will only lead to bitter strife in industrial affairs. The right of
  1012
  a worker legally not to be a member of a trade union will lead to more industrial recriminations than we have ever seen. Can any hon. Member honestly believe that a man would be employed on the Liverpool docks or at the Ford factory at Halewood if he were not a member of a trade union? Do hon. Members think that if such a man is employed there we shall have no trouble? Anyone who believes that is living in a fool's paradise. If the workers take action in those industries, what will happen? Who will be liable for the fines? Will it be the shop stewards, the local trade union officials, or the leaders of the unions concerned? Surely, recurring incidents of that nature will eventually lead to a complete breakdown in industrial relations.
  The Bill's supporters feel that it will strengthen unions and reduce strife. We as trade unionists know that it will have the reverse effect. It will weaken the unions. It will give them and their members less legal protection and undermine the unions' authority.
  The proposals in the Bill are based on the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States. Every student of industrial law knows that the law does not work in America. Far more days are lost through strikes in the United States, Canada, Australia and other countries with legal restrictions than in the United Kingdom. Legislation against strikes just does not work. These facts must be faced. The deliberate interference and intrusion by a Government into the affairs of the trade unions and their members is a retrograde step, turning the clock back nearly a century.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) have stated the Opposition's intention to oppose the Bill tooth and nail, line by line. I am also pleased to know that if the Bill is passed in its present from the next Labour Government will repeal it. The Bill is full of legal jargon, full of penal and punitive Clauses which will hamstring the unions as well as any straitjacket.
  I understand that Sir Winston Churchill once said that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. In this instance, I should like to see more negotiation and less litigation.
  A T.U.C. pamphlet on the Bill says:
  "The Government's proposals offer the minimal additional legal protection to people

  1013
  in employment while creating a whole jungle of new legal hazards for workers acting through their own organisations to protect themselves.…
  Far from improving industrial relations these proposals could create innumerable new sources of friction within industry and generate the most widespread bitterness and anger.
  Far from strengthening voluntary agreements they would bring confusion into established voluntary procedures and undermine both the will of employers and the power of unions to bargain freely and realistically.
  These plans do not stem from any proper study of industrial relations problems, but from prejudice and political dogma."
  The Secretary of State is adopting a Canute-like attitude towards industrial relations. I feel that his optimism will be as ill-founded as that of that misguided monarch.
  I shall conclude now, as I realise that many hon. Members wish to take part in this important debate, but I should like to make one final point. The Bill is provocative, myopic and ill-conceived. It is not a charter for better industrial relations but a charter for scab employers, for blackleg labour. In short, it is a prescription for industrial chaos. No Government, irrespective of their political colour, can ever hope to achieve industrial peace at the point of a gun or through legal sanctions.
  I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye, and I hope to take part in further debates in the future.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Coombs: It is a great privilege to address this House, though it is rather unnerving on the occasion of a new Member's maiden speech. As the, I think, 111th virgin of this Parliament, I cannot help but be reminded of the old theatrical saw:
  "Nothing is ever as easy as it looks. Everything takes longer than you expect. If anything can go wrong, it will—and at the worst possible moment."
  On that cheerful note I shall get on with what I have to say.
  The trend of political swings during recent General Elections suggests that Yardley, my constituency, is very representative of Britain as a whole. Indeed, it is often said that as Yardley goes, so goes the country, so it is obviously a proud moment for me to represent a constituency that is in its way the barometer of British politics.
  1014
  My predecessor, loan Evans, represented Yardley for six years and served his party well as Government Whip and Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household.
  Now, it may surprise hon. Members to learn that we have an historic heritage lurking within the suburbs of Birmingham, outdating even this Parliament, for in 1972 Yardley celebrates its 1,000th birthday, and to be the Member of the millenium, even if only in the parochial sense, is particularly pleasing to me.
  Our country's industrial relations record is poor by any important standard, especially in regard to unofficial strikes, for it is the unexpected disruption which causes the greatest damage to our economy. Germany and other countries generally show that where management and trade unions work together everybody gains, and where they do not, everybody suffers. "Profits" is not a dirty word; it is the only means, in a free society, of providing and establishing full employment.
  I would like, therefore, to speak about the economic as well as the industrial aspects which are so relevant to this Bill. The prime function of government in the economic field is to help people to create more wealth for the nation as a whole. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House share that common goal. For this is the only way in which we can help the elderly and the poor in our society; the only way in which we can provide equality of opportunity.
  The practical difficulties in achieving this are, of course, enormous, but I often wonder whether they are not as much a result of our inability in the past to follow a coherent policy as the traditional factors that are so often advanced as excuses, such as balance of payments, and the rest. My political philosophy is simply that no policy can be judged unless it is tried out in its entirety. This explains our failure, under successive Government, to achieve a high rate of growth, because such things cannot simply be willed by the Government of the day; they stem from a basic platform of policy. In this I believe that any Government have three real options; first, to go all out for growth and hope that inflation will be absorbed within it, and this seems to me to be an easy, lazy and dangerous course to follow.

  1015
  Secondly, positively not to go for growth, with the certainty that our standard of living will not be comparable with that of other advanced countries by the end of this decade. That will mean, whichever party is in power, more and more selectivity in Government spending, although I believe that selectivity is an essential economic adjunct to creating growth and really helping the poor in our community.
  Thirdly, and to me this is the most attractive proposition, is initially to create the right base from which our economy can grow at a faster and more consistent rate without unduly jeopardising the present parity of the pound. A nice balance to keep, of course, but one that is both possible and right. That is why I am particularly interested in our industrial relations proposals, for over a period of time I believe that, in conjunction with our tax changes—and the two things must be considered together—they will establish the type of platform to which I have referred—a sound structure for sustained expansion.
  Certainly the long-term benefits will be of real value to our country. My only concern in the short term is that they could be prejudiced either by bloody-mindedness or fear from either side of industry. This country has a long history of industrial review bodies and joint councils, but the quality of their effectiveness varies enormously, within private industry and also within public corporations. The worst industries for stoppages are well known, but that is not to suggest that all their conciliation machinery is poor; on the contrary, some industries, like the coal industry, have highly professional and effective procedures; their problem is not the official but the unofficial stoppage.
  On the other hand, the procedure methods in other industries breed frustration, and because of delay encourage irresponsible attitudes. The engineering industry is an example. The Minister has mentioned the C.I.R. and the part it will play. I endorse his remarks. I therefore suggest that we should have C.I.R. regional supervisory boards to cover all major industries within a given area. They could investigate at their own instigation without reference—unlike the Department of Employment the effect-
  1016
  tiveness of existing procedure agreements. Where these were found inadequate they could advise both management and unions how best to put their house in order, ensuring that the right relationship existed at the national, regional and local levels.
  In cases where these recommendations were ignored both sides of industry could be referred by the C.I.R., as in the Bill, to the industrial courts. It should be obligatory on both management and unions that all agreements must contain a clear commitment, effective beyond the term of contract, that before resorting to strike action disputes must be referred to this type of review. In this I include employment contracts. The very fact that an independent opinion, outside the industry, has been passed on any dispute will go a long way towards limiting the rejection of that recommendation.
  If disputes subsequently come before our industrial courts they would find it much easier to reach speedy decisions if these procedures had already been followed and, where industrial courts are not involved, public opinion would be in a much better position to pronounce judgment. I know that many people will say that if management and unions can always take their differences elsewhere, inevitably they will never settle amongst themselves. That is partly but not wholly true. Very much depends upon the responsible attitude that is taken by both sides in using conciliation services.
  The big difficulty in our industrial relations is that so often workers on the shop floor work independently of union leadership. We have too much plant bargaining, and even in those industries where national agreements are reached they are often invalidated at plant level. We need a more effective two-tier system which combines for all industries minimum national wage agreements and allows for local productivity deals. But whatever we do we must re-think parts of the present system—generally over 50 years old. They work reasonably well for official but not unofficial stoppages. Our Bill will help, but it needs to be supported by procedures at plant level and it is important to see that these procedures are used and not ignored.
  Creating the right climate of good will for our industrial relations proposals is

  1017
  essential, and this will be seen very much against the background of incentives, savings and inflation. One move would be to encourage both management and trade unions to relate at least part of wage increases to annual bonuses. There is clear evidence—for example, in the Japanese economy—that this stimulates more savings. But most important, I see our strategy in using the next two years to revolutionise our tax system, as Iain Macleod promised, and to modernise the attitude and responsibility of both management and unions. Then and only then shall we have the right basis for going all out for economic growth. If, in so doing, we have to have a temporary flexible exchange rate for a limited period, so be it, because then and only then shall we be able to build up a trading surplus that will go hand in hand with expansion.
  I made a point recently of talking to three shop stewards and found that, without exception they welcome our proposals. Theirs is a very different attitude from that of the T.U.C. and the party opposite. They think that these reforms are long overdue and will go a long way to shake up management inertia, as well as strengthening trade union control at plant level. When I asked Vic Feather what action trade unions could take against the persistent unofficial striker, he said, "You tell me what we can do to them. We can withdraw union membership, but what penalty would that be?".
  It seems, therefore, that as the trade unions are incapable of controlling their own extremists, the law must do it for them. This way the persistent unofficial strike leader will suffer, and rightly so.
  I believe that simply because this Bill is on the Statute Book, it will have a moderating influence. Just as important, it will encourage trade union unity. I do not accept the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite—trade unions will he more unified and less fragmented as a result of the Bill. This must be right for our prosperity as a nation.
  The success of the Bill in restraining and moderating will not be so much in its use as its presence—like the constable on the beat, it reminds us that our behaviour must have regard to the interests of others. If I were a trade union leader, I would welcome the Bill. It would put me in a much stronger bargaining position with the extremists and
  1018
  I believe many trade unionists secretly share this opinion. They may oppose the Bill publicly as do the Opposition, but with some—not all, of course—it is simply a tactical political move. If ever we needed a reminder of how essential it is not only to have this Bill but also to look again at some of the work-to-rule procedures, we have it now. We must ensure that the armed forces are capable of coping with emergencies where the public interest is at stake.
  The Communists and militants are trying to scuttle this country by encouraging inflationary wage demands and they must not be allowed to get away with it. Wage moderation breeds price moderation and vice versa. Neither should be allowed to get ahead of the other without big productivity gains. As prices are still far behind it is obvious that wage restraint must come first.
  The greatest number of strikes are among the higher-paid workers and, as always, it is the underdog, the lower-paid worker, the pensioner, who suffers most of all. We cannot say, "Good luck to the inflationary wage settlements" on the one hand and, "Good luck to the old-age pensioner" on the other; it does not make economic sense. The threat to our prosperity as a nation and thus to our democracy is almost as great now as at any time in peacetime. The Labour Party and the trade unions are being used as tools and either they are too bigoted to acknowledge it or too frightened and weak to resist it.
  Mr. Orme: Do not chance your arm.
  Mr. Coombs: It is, broadly speaking, fair to say that the United Kingdom is the only advanced industrialised country at present without legislation of the kind envisaged in the Bill and the sooner that is changed, the better. The Opposition should recognise its responsibility in this regard and not substitute instant opposition for instant Government, for in so doing it does a great disservice to the real interests of the British people.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh McCartney: Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs), I rise to make my maiden speech, but I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not one of the virgins to whom he referred during his remarks. Nor am

  1019
  I inexperienced in industrial relations, having been responsible for 25 years for negotiations at all levels, from plant to national level.
  I should first like to make some references to my predecessor. Cyril Bence was known to all Members of the previous Parliament, and those before it, as one of the most active and able debaters in this Chamber. He covered a wide range of subjects with skill and determination, and if I manage to cover some of them during my period here, I shall feel proud. During the 19 years that he represented Dunbartonshire, East he came to be loved and revered by all the community. Throughout the whole of Dunbartonshire, which is the biggest electorate in Scotland, Cyril Bence is held in very high esteem indeed. He became known as a good constituency man, a man prepared to work hard at all times in the interests of his constituents, whether they were his known supporters or otherwise. I am sure that we all wish him a long and happy retirement.
  It is interesting to note that when Cyril made his maiden speech on 7th November, 1951, talking about that strange commodity, money, he said that there were very few pounds around, especially in the pockets of the workers of Clydebank and Clydeside generally. When I reflect on what has been happening recently, I do not think, relatively speaking, that there has been a great deal of change, because the Clydebank and Glasgow area generally have suffered most from the rundown in heavy engineering, shipbuilding and boiler-making. We have recently suffered closures of plants and redundancies in some of our major industries.
  This is not conducive to good industrial relations; it creates suspicion of management, and tensions. I am certain that had this Measure been on the Statute Book now, the relationships between management and workers would be even worse. The efforts of the trade union representatives at area and national levels who have been involved with Government ministers and with employers in trying to resolve the problems would have been made worse if they had had to operate under the system which this Bill seeks to impose upon them.
  1020
  Irrespective of what is said tonight, at the end of the day it will make no difference to the result of the Division. That the debate takes place is good because it emphasises that the Bill is one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation that any Government, Tory or otherwise, have sought to put on the Statute Book dealing with industrial relations. In spite of the blandishments held out in some of its Clauses, it seeks completely to shackle the trade unionists and trade union organisations; it seeks to contain and restrain them from functioning in the traditional way by which they represent their members in the best way possible and achieve the best for them in prevailing conditions.
  Because of the dogmatic and doctrinaire attitude of the Tory Party, evidenced in some speeches, the Bill is flying against the advice of all those who are well informed, who have spent years involved with industrial relations and who have consistently said in discussion, on the issues covered by the Bill, over the last couple of years that this was not the way to do it. They are flying in the face of this advice simply to satisfy the hounds on the Conservative back benches. They are proposing a legal structure substituting litigation for negotiation. It makes law supersede justice. It enables hon. Gentlemen opposite to express their usual law-and-order gambits.
  We have had the catch phrases used time and again in the past. We know that members of the Tory Party will cheer anyone who is prepared to stand up and talk in these terms. It bodes ill when members of a Government are prepared to use these expressions to justify their actions in promoting legislation. I am concerned at the sinister nature of this legislation and of some of the speeches made by Tory Ministers.
  I was especially concerned about the remarks of the Prime Minister to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23rd October. He said:
  "Moreover, we must recognise a new threat to the peace of the nations, indeed to the very fabric of society. We have seen in the last few years the growth of a cult of political violence, preached and practised not so much between States as within them. It is a sombre thought, but it may be that in the 1970s civil war, not war between nations, will be the main danger we will face."

  1021
  Could it be that the Prime Minister, when speaking, was not so much concerned with the context in which part of that speech was made—the troubles in Northern Ireland—as concerned about the results of the social and industrial legislation of the Tory Cabinet, and that he recognised that in this country, except for the odd sporadic occasions through the years, there has been a tradition of peace and quiet and good relationships with each other irrespective of the political differences that may have occurred. I am certain that that was not far from his mind.
  Is it possible also that a job will now be found for those Gurkha troops spoken of in the Chamber by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs some weeks ago? Surely these troops will not be brought here purely and simply to empty the chamber pots in the Palace. Nor is it likely that they will collect dung on Horse Guards' Parade for distribution in Kew Gardens.
  These matters suggest to me that the Government fully realise the implications and the social upheaval that can be caused by the legislation they are pushing through. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), following the Government's statement on the mini-Budget, said that the Government had declared war on the working class. That is also my opinion.
  If that is true, surely no one believes that the industrial worker will rush to join an industrial peace pledge union. Surely the Government must accent that the natural reaction to this attack on workers' conditions and on their organisation will result in at least a measure of fight-back and resistance which has not been required of them in the past. That is something which responsible trade unions do not want to occur. Trade unions prefer to see a continued era of peaceful negotiation in industry, where trade unions are free to bargain for their members, and a truly free society where they can function on behalf of their members.
  But if civil strife occurs, the responsibility lies squarely on the Government's shoulders. It will not be reverting to the 1926 situation. There will be no general strikes. There are much more sophisticated ways of fighting our battles these days than there were then. There are no
  1022
  tram-cars now, except in the Tory back-wood of Blackpool, where a few still operate. Even if there were, I doubt whether there are sufficient reactionary students to operate this service, and others, as they did in 1926. Large numbers of students now come from ordinary working-class homes. The working-class man's children are in the universities and colleges. They are showing already their attitude to the Bill. They have demonstrated in various places their opposition to it and their support for the industrial worker.
  Although ostensibly designed to reduce friction in industry and the number of man-hours lost during industrial disputes, the Bill will have the reverse effect. When the mass of workers in the major industries, with the power in their hands and feet to exercise the right to protect their interests, reject the Act when it goes on the Statute Book, will they all be put in prison?
  A well-known trade union leader has said:
  "Put one trade unionist in prison and we will stop the whole of industry."
  He will not have to call hard to have action taken should the Bill be passed.
  As people who have been involved in negotiations in industry and who know something about the shop floor and the complexities of life, especially in the big industrial plants, we recognise that there is inefficiency in management as well as on the trade union side. We recognise also that many industrial disputes are caused by a complete lack of interest on the part of management to the problems that arise from the changing circumstances in industry. We are prepared to see a system where there is free negotiation. We are opposed entirely to the system proposed in the Bill, which will involve everyone in litigation of one kind or another.
  During the course of my work I have been involved in industrial accident prevention over a long period of years. It surprises me to hear the furore that strikes, including unofficial strikes, evince in the breasts of our Tory friends, when not a word is spoken about the colossal loss of man-hours through industrial accidents and reportable sickness in industry. The figure for 1969 is about 23 million man-hours and when that is posed against

  1023
  the 1970 figure of man-hours lost through industrial disputes of just over seven million, one wonders where our priorities lie.
  The Government should drop the Bill and adopt the Private Member's Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is introducing, even with its very limited measures, to bring into industry compulsory safety committees, because even this small Measure would have a far greater effect in establishing good industrial relations than this or any similar Bill intended by the Government.
  As I know that other hon. Members are anxious to speak, I shall close my remarks. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak and for your tolerance during the course of my address. If I ever catch your eye again, I hope I shall be as non-controversial as I have been today.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. D. G. Stewart-Smith: I should like to say a very special thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me today. My grandfather, Dudley Stewart-Smith, was the Liberal Member of Parliament for South Westmorland, and he spoke in the great historic debate of 1906. If I had been alive at the time I should have supported giving the unions the privileges which they then obtained. But I support the Government today in withdrawing privileges. I had occasion to read the HANSARD report of what was said in that debate, and, bless me, the same arguments are going round and round the Chamber tonight: how, in a free society, to enforce contracts freely entered into.
  I am glad to say that my constituency has happy industrial relations. In Belper town the hosiery unions and managements work together. In the south, in Swadlincote, the miners and the Coal Board have a remarkably restrained and harmonious attitude. We have been led to believe by some hon. Members opposite that miners are endlessly wanting to come out on strike and have been disgusted with certain pay awards. In South Derbyshire the opposite is true. I have been most impressed by the very high standard of mining economics amongst the face-worker miners. They know that what is good for them is coal coming up the
  1024
  shaft, and that anyone who stops it is their enemy.
  It has been the custom recently to attack my predecessor, but I will have nothing to do with it. During the General Election campaign, at all times he was a most fair and charitable opponent. He seemed to have a vitality, a life, a humour and a character which the Palace of Westminster would be a poorer place without. From the very beginning, I have advocated that he should go to the other place—and not just to make way for me—and I am certain that I speak for the majority of my constituents when I say that we wish him well in a very fitting culmination to a distinguished career.
  As a new Conservative Member, I find myself in the slightly unusual position of having 32.000 Labour supporters in my care, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will hear with me if I pursue a point which has been raised by a number of lifelong members of the party opposite. There is a tradition in this House that maiden speeches are non-controversial. However, if I have to choose between justice and controversy, there are limits to my conservative nature.
  Mercifully, the closed shop and its tyranny will be killed off by this Bill. But some of the background to the intimidation in our unions is an unlovely chapter in our history. We had the brutality revealed in the Rookes v. Barnard case, yet one of the earliest laws put on the Statute Book by the party opposite was the Trade Disputes Act. 1965. which reversed that decision.
  We have been invited by my right hon. Friend to criticise the Bill. I want to give tongue to a small group of people who are very concerned about the agency shop agreement. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is quite specific: no one should be compelled to belong to an association. When in Government, the party opposite pledged Her Majesty's Government to uphold that Declaration.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) said that anyone wanting to breach the closed shop was living in a fool's paradise. But it is a free man's tyranny that the denial of this right exists.
  In 1966, the Conservative Trade Unionists National Advisory Committee

  1025
  demanded that the closed shop should go. It described the power of the unions in this connection as "savage beyond feudalism" and said that it should be curbed. In my view, the Government should have some loyalty to their supporters. After all, they number some 3 million.
  When the Conservative Party gave evidence to the Royal Commission on Trades Unions in 1966 it said:
  "We are in favour of 100 per cent. trade unionism, but we feel this must be achieved on a basis of recruitment and example. We are utterly opposed to making trade union membership a condition of employment. … We regard this as an absence of elementary human rights."
  In the debate in this House on 12th August, 1966 the then Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), clearly said that he supported voluntary membership, and that is precisely the sort of fair-minded attitude that the nation has come to expect from him.
  A closed shop is not legally required in social democratic Sweden and West Germany. Neither country finds the closed shop necessary. The brutality of how it works was shown vividly in the case of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association at the British Railway depot in Derby. There, a man who refused to join a union, Mr. Hartington, was thrown out of his job, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) took up his case, since he was told that there would be no appeal, no pension rights and no compensation. The Government's response to this is to legalise the agency shop, which in many ways is a continued form of closed shop, plus or minus a few days.
  Clause 5(3) of the Bill says:
  Where an agency shop agreement is for the time being in force between an employer and a trade union, a worker to whom the agreement applies shall not have the right to refuse to be a member of that trade union unless he agrees to pay appropriate contributions to the trade union in lieu of membership of it and accordingly it shall not be an unfair industrial practice for the employer, or for any person acting on behalf of the employer,—

  (a) to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against any such worker on the grounds that he is not a member of that trade union and has not agreed, or has refused or failed, to pay such contributions to it, or

  1026

  (b) to refuse to engage as an employee a person who, if so engaged, would be an employee to whom the agreement applies, on the grounds that he is not a member of that trade union and has refused to become a member of it and has also refused to pay such contributions to it.

  The agency agreement merely allows a worker to take up employment on condition that eventually he joins the union, or pays the money to the union or to a charity. In my view, that is indefensible. In effect, it is a deliberate denial of the right of a worker not to join a union. Surely it is intolerable. Why should a worker be answerable to some petty trade union for his decision? Why should he have to pay money to a union which he does not support? Why should he have to pay to an alternative charity? Why should Conservatives be expected to connive at this sort of intimidation?
  I have constituents in the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association who, under the existing closed shop agreement with the British Railways Board, have to go before their local trade union representative and a local manager to explain why they do not wish to join a union. I have the relevant documents with me. They are advised that they had better join for the good of their career. If they still refuse, they have to go before an appeals body which in many cases is not much better than a kangaroo court. Often it is made up of trade unionists or ex-trade unionists, and its power is the ultimate sanction of dismissal. Those provisions remain in this Bill.
  Another aspect of the agency shop agreement affects professional men. I have been approached by a large number of professional engineers in Rolls-Royce. They are almost always a minority group, yet they may be compelled against their better wishes to be subordinated as a minority by a large non-professional majority, and this can lead to "blacking".
  I have a letter from the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers. It is dated 4th December, and it may interest hon. Members to consider the subtle pressures which will be put on the agency shop:
  "If the professional man is not protected by clear legislation, pressure can be brought to bear upon him by the process known as 'blacking'. Its existence is impossible to prove to the satisfaction of a tribunal. A number of professional engineers are at this moment under sentence of blacking at a Midland firm

  1027
  because of their refusal to join D.A.T.A., a union that has no representative right over them whatsoever. Their instruction notes are ignored and work stops if they enter any department but their own. D.A.T.A., which is the Technical and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, have obtained the assistance in this blacking' of the other unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress."
  Surely a Conservative Government will not connive at or approve of this sort of conduct. It applies also to doctors, students and local authorities.
  The only answer to prevent this subtle pressure is the total abolition of the agency shop. I do not see why any worker should be answerable to anyone, to me, to any other Member of this House, to the trade unions or to the employers. He is answerable only to his Maker. That is a man's right, not a privilege; otherwise, unless there is such safeguard in the law, there is no realistic safeguard against unfair dismissal from employment on other rather specious grounds. I make a specific request to my right hon. Friend to delete all reference to the agency shop from the Bill. This is not a small matter—the closed shop affects 3¾ million workers.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a great reforming Administration. I want to see the creation of a free society in which the trade unions are held in very high public esteem as being voluntary associations of free men and not dragooned serfs. The only safeguard is the existence of free riders and non-unionists with absolutely clear rights. If they are not given those rights, there is no safeguard.
  When choosing a man whose judgment would uphold the rights of workers and the right of the ordinary working man to work, the people of the constituency of Belper did not choose a lifelong trade unionist; they did not choose the deputy leader of the Labour Party—they chose an uncompromising libertarian.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Following five successive maiden speakers is a responsibility which I do not believe that I or any other Member have ever faced before. It almost reminds me of the virgins in the city square at Leeds. There are 12 of them. But I am not
  1028
  a political maiden. I have been 50 years a member of my trade union and therefore the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) will understand that at least I speak from long experience if I speak with 50 years of prejudice behind me.
  I want to say something about maiden speakers. I congratulate those who have spoken for the first time in the debate. I want to tell them what Peter Thorneycroft, as he then was, told me after my own maiden speech 21 years ago. He said, "That is probably the easiest speech you will ever make in this House. They get tougher as you go on." I want to tell one or two of our maiden speakers tonight—I shall not single them out—that there was an old tradition that an hon. Member either asked for indulgence or did not. F. E. Smith did not ask for indulgence and he spoke for 65 minutes attacking the Liberal Government. Sir Edward Carson said to him, "There is only one thing wrong with that speech." F. E. Smith asked, "What is it?" Carson replied, "There are too many good things in it." Smith was immediately invited to join the Front Bench. Keir Hardie never asked for indulgence.
  Generally speaking, if an hon. Member does not ask for indulgence, he presumes on the House and it is a fact that a maiden speech must never be reflected upon adversely in subsequent debate. This, I ask the hon. Member for Belper to understand, inhibits some of my hon. Friends. Sitting behind me is a distinguished member of D.A.T.A. Had the hon. Gentleman's not been a maiden speech, he would have intervened, and probably have justly done so. An hon. Member making a maiden speech presumes on the House and believes that he will not be interrupted. He has everyone at his mercy and to that extent he must observe the decencies.
  Mr. Iremonger: I hope I am right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman's strictures, which I think were not unjust, were at least spread across both sides of the Chamber.
  Mr. Pannell: I greatly enjoyed the speeches of hon. Members opposite. There were maiden speeches on both sides. I do not particularise, but some of them were more non-controversial than others.
  I look upon this as a symbolic Bill. I am not very much interested to examine

  1029
  the small print. The test of the Bill is whether it meets the mood and the purpose and is right in timing. The Secretary of State is now dealing with one of the great estates of the realm—and the trade union movement is an estate of the realm. It has struggled for 100 years to make itself one of the great movements that can give or withhold supplies, and that is the definition of an estate of the realm.
  It is probably true that, despite its struggles since the early days of the Reform Bill, it never achieved full maturity until the greatest of all Labour Secretaries of State, the great Ernest Bevin, insisted throughout the war that trade unionists should be given equality on every body. Now that has become the rule and, indeed, when the Tories got back in 1951, Winston Churchill was at great pains to appoint Sir Walter Monckton so as to get on the right key with the trade union movement.
  I am rather surprised and, indeed, a trifle upset that the present Government should have started off directly not to meet the trade unions but to antagonise them.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Pannell: It is no use the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head. I am speaking of the mood of the moment, something for which he shares responsibility. The time allowed for consultation on the Bill was far too short. Admittedly the Government had already put it in "Fair Deal at Work", but legislation starts with an election and the fact is that the trade unions consider that they have been sharply dealt with.
  It has to be borne in mind that the trade union movement—[Interruption.]—was of itself born of a voteless peasantry and proletariat—[Interruption.]—and that for over 50 years the trade unionists in this country were inarticulate in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Even a right hon. Gentleman cannot address the House against the background of a second debate.
  Mr. Pannell: The trade union movement was largely politically inarticulate, so what the Government propose to do
  1030
  to the movement must be seen against the background of a movement that had been striving for an increasing purpose and an increasing share of a proper say in industrial arrangements.
  I looked up the debates on the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, the last great trade union Measure brought in by the Conservatives. It is indicative of the climate of that time—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will never be guilty of this—that, in order to bring that Measure in, the long-promised Factories Act was put hack, together with a repeal of the Poor Law which the Conservatives had in mind for that Session in order to take away the vote from the unemployed who were in receipt of Poor Law relief. That had been demanded by the Conservative Party Conference.
  Mr. Heffer: Some of them would like it now.
  Mr. Pannell: I do not know about that, but if the Secretary of State will bear with me he will understand that I took some part in that sort of controversy. When I consider the trade union movement, I combine a sense of justice with a tinge of memory.
  I propose now to refer—and perhaps no one else will do so—to the setting up of the great new bureaucracy proposed by the Government to deal with trade unionists. The Department will need 90 more staff; the N.R.C. will need 40; the Industrial Tribunals will need another 320; the Commission on Industrial Relations will need about 435 additional staff; the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations will need 50 staff. All together about 1,250 extra staff will be recruited and the Bill and all that is enshrined in it will cost £5 million per annum. I am just wondering how much of that will go to the lawyers. There is no question about it—it is a new industrial bureaucracy. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to intervene. I think lie was disagreeing with me.
  Mr. R. Carr: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's giving me this opportunity. I expect he knew that the cost of his right hon. Friend's Bill, which was printed last summer but never debated, would have been a little under £4½ million, which is not very different. As to the great industrial bureaucracy about

  1031
  which he speaks, some 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the extra people will be engaged in conciliation. Unlike the right hon. Lady, I do not believe in boasting about how few of my Department are engaged in conciliation. I shall be glad when a higher proportion of them are.
  Mr. Pannell: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman takes some pleasure in the fact that he is going to copy my right hon. Friend and then add another £500,000 on top.
  Mrs. Castle: It is necessary to correct the distorted picture which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has given, because the cost of my Bill included the cost of a trade union development scheme which the right hon. Gentleman jeers at. I calculate that, taking away the cost of the tribunals for unfair dismissals, on which we are both agreed, the additional cost of this bureaucracy to control the trade union movement under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill will be about £3 million.
  Mr. Pannell: I do not want to get bogged down in that matter entirely of the set-up of the industrial court but it does seem to me to be unnecessary bureaucracy.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry to do this, for I do not wish to keep interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but when he talks about bureaucracy and a large increase in staff, we are talking about conciliation staff.
  Mrs. Castle: Why not use the present staff?
  Mr. Pannell: I think this whole thing will be a lawyers' paradise. I came across this quotation which was used by Philip Snowden on the Trade Disputes Bill in 1927. I only use it because he quotes Winston Churchill in an earlier incarnation. He said:
  "It is a very unseemly thing, and indeed in the House of Commons we must regard it as such, to have the spectacle we have witnessed these last few years of these workmen's guilds, trade union organisations, being enmeshed, harassed, worried and checked at every step and at every turn by all kinds of legal decisions, which came with the utmost surprise to the greatest lawyers in the country. It is not good for trade unions that they should be brought into contact with the Courts
  1032
  and it is not good for the Courts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1927; Vol. 207, c. 2164.]
  Yet these are courts, and one of the prime objections I find to this Bill is that it will lift industrial relationships into the purely legal atmosphere, where precedent will be added to precedent and very few things will be discussed on their merits.
  I want to come to one vexed question, the closed shop, because I do not think there has been enough experience in the right hon. Gentleman's Department to understand what that means. In speaking about the closed shop I am speaking about the pre-entry closed shop. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman one straight question. It is a very short one. Does he think recruitment of staff for industry is purely the prerogative of management?
  Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch that.
  Mr. Pannell: Does he think that recruitment of staff for industry is purely the prerogative of management?
  Mr. Carr: I think management must be responsible, obviously, for the recruitment of staff. I think it is absolutely proper for management and trade unions to have agreements about, for example, qualifications which are needed for staff, but that is a very different thing from having to have a pre-entry closed shop.
  Mr. Pannell: I carry in my pocket my trade union card, which is not only a trade union ticket but a qualification. My trade union ticket will take me to work as a tool maker, a mould maker or a millwright whereas another ticket from my own trade union would not so qualify me. When I was a convenor of shop stewards we discussed the qualifications needed by men for the jobs, with their differentials and rights, and for 15 years before I had come to the House I never believed, nor did my management believe, that the recruiting of staff for the shop in which I worked was a prerogative of the management alone; it had to be shared.
  This leads me to other considerations about this question of the closed shop. The machinery which the right hon. Gentleman proposes would cut across the grain of society. What happens in a club if a man does not observe the code?

  1033
  He is blackballed in the club; he is, so to say, turned out of the regimental mess. What happens if one's wife does not like anybody and says, "I do not want to speak to her"? This goes right throughout society. We have a right to choose to whom we will speak, with whom we will work. Anti-social qualities come into this, for to condone unworthiness is an unworthiness, in itself, as my parents told me. I do not agree that nobody has the right but the management to consider who will be brought in to work in a shop. Some disruptive element might be brought into the shop—some product of the fifth-day generation on which the Lord made all creeping, crawling things, as Jack London called them. We all reserve the right throughout society to choose with whom we will associate, and that is a very real thing in life, and it poses a problem which is not resolved by the Bill.
  The Bill will break down because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said, on the difficulty of the lightning strike. Very often, if there is an act of injustice, by a foreman, or a manager—because it does not happen only at board level, but it happens at the non-commissioned officer level, too—people say, "Take it back, otherwise we stop". That happens. None of the things in this package will get over that difficulty. In fact, such a difficulty can be settled within an hour, because people do learn better, and the threat of the stoppage is the sanction. If a man is victimised people will respond instantly. This is a factor in industrial relationships. I can think of an occasion when one shop steward, who had enjoyed good industrial relationships for many years, was on the telephone to a new manager who said, "I cannot talk to you" and cut him off the telephone. That caused a stoppage over 300 square miles. Of course, within a day we had an apology from the board.
  We have to allow not only for places run by civilised men like the Secretary of State. This would never happen in his shop. It is the scallawags who lead us into trouble in this business. It is for fair-minded shop stewards and fair-minded managers to deal with them.
  I have somewhere here a brief from somebody—
  Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend does not need any brief.
  Mr. Pannell: Yes. Here it is. It says that "We do deny the assertion which is implicit in the Bill that recruitment is solely a question of management prerogative". Perhaps, if the Secretary of State is listening constructively to experience, he will think about it, and put into the Bill certain words to cover that point, because, assuming the Bill works in the way he wants it to, he will not want to be bedevilled by hundreds of thousands of little local difficulties. I am thinking about day-to-day living, which hardly requires this machinery.
  I respect the right of a conscientious objector and I have spoken on behalf of conscientious objectors before a tribunal. In wartime they have to justify themselves before a legal body. But conscientious objection to joining a trade union is a different thing altogether. The standard of life of workers has largely been fought for and paid for by better men than themselves, and I have never yet known a conscientious objector who refused to accept the benefits of a trade union.
  I do not think we can get over the problem by saying that the conscientious objector can pay his subscriptions into a charitable fund. I have no doubt that the Minister and the draftsman of the Bill thought it right to ensure that a man had a right to belong to a trade union and a right not to belong to a trade union, in exactly the came way as employers have protected his right not to belong to a trade union for a hundred years. I remember that back in 1926 the Engineering Employers' Federation circulated my details and photograph as a man not to be employed. That has always been done, and we have a collective memory of this. It is not so hard for a man to say that he will not be a member of a trade union; there are any number of jobs he can go to. But there are, equally, any number of jobs where he will not be acceptable.
  British people are all of a type. The British trade union movement has been built out of the Industrial Revolution. In America the trade unions are completely different. In Communist countries there are Communist trade unions. In Africa trade unions are associated with African independence. I have studied trade

  1035
  unionism in all these countries. The British trade unionist has all the virtues and vices of a British infantryman: the capacity to fighting or losing the battle; standing by himself; not standing the rat; being careful whom he works with. These are the things we think about.
  The narrowing of the legal definition of "trade dispute" would mean that in many strikes trade unions would no longer enjoy legal immunity. My trade union takes the view that if there is to be up-grading in industry it must be of a man who is semi-skilled and who has worked in the job for many years, but that clashes with the idea of up-grading the Government-trained dilutee. This is a difficulty that can be settled only by the men on the job.
  I think that the ballot vote is misconceived. If the ballot vote went against acceptance of the employer's last offer, as it often does, the union leaders' hands might be tied, and the chance of a compromise settlement would be jeopardised. The Bill is shot through with day-to-day problems. The Consultative Document does not safeguard the reinstatement of a worker.
  All these considerations lead me to believe that the effect of the Bill will be largely negative. As the Minister said, unless everyone co-operates, it will not work, and I do not think that they will co-operate. The Bill will go down because of its many contradictions, and it will be found to be largely irrelevant.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I listened with the greatest interest and attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I have always had the greatest admiration for her powers of debate. When I was in the House previously and now that I have the privilege of being back again I have always found her speeches worth listening to but on occasion, unhappily, she lets her rhetoric run away with her. When she described the Bill as a deeply frivolous Bill I feel that she must have lost her sense of proportion. This is a very serious Bill, perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the House in this century.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said that the Bill would remove industrial relations into a purely
  1036
  legal atmosphere. I appreciate that this is one of the criticisms that is made of any attempt to impose a legal framework on industrial relations. In all humility, I simply do not understand this argument. When two individual people agree to enter into a contract, how can it be said that the law removes their relationship into a purely legal atmosphere'?
  Mr. C. Pannell: We are not talking about two people who enter freely into a contract which they both find agreeable. We are talking about people who differ on questions of interpretation. My criticism of the Bill and of the procedures arising from it is that there will be laid down a set of new precedents which will be slavishly followed and, therefore, a legal atmosphere will come into industrial relations.
  Mr. Gardner: The right hon. Member for Leeds, West knows as well as anyone else that there are difficulties of interpretation with a voluntary agreement between two individual people; that cannot be avoided. The advantages that are to be derived from following the principle of having an agreement within the framework of law surely are as valid for a trade union member and his employer as they are for two individuals. There is no compulsion in the Bill. There is a presumption—
  Mr. Rose: The whole point about it is that there is an astonishing departure from the principle of freedom to enter into a contract. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the departure is that two parties who do not consent to an agreement can be brought before the N.I.R.C. and that a non-agreement can be enforced against the wishes of both parties?
  Mr. Gardner: I agree only to the extent that where the parties, the trade union and the employer, have come to an agreement, there is created by the Bill a presumption of an intention between the parties that the contract shall be legally binding and enforceable. If, however, the parties are not willing to be bound by law they are entitled, and are so entitled by the provisions of the Bill, to say that their agreement shall not be legally binding. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West shakes his head, but it is there expressly in the Bill.
  Mr. Hanson: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman not an even more valid reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, that when the Race Relations Bill was before the House criticism was made that it was subjecting a sensitive relationship into a purely legal one, whereas practice has shown that it has had a salutary effect?
  Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that point. The right hon. Member for Blackburn attempted, as have other hon. Members, to lash lawyers. I am not afraid of their strictures, nor am I incapable of answering them if need be, but I make the serious point that I would rather speak on this Bill and upon such virtues, and indeed defects, that it has not as a lawyer, but as a former active member of a trade union. That is the spirit in which I wish to address the House.
  The principle that has been accepted in the Bill is simple. There may be complexities and difficulties in applying it, but the principle itself is well defined and easy for everyone to understand. Relations between trade unions, members of trade unions and employers and employers' associations are best able to develop in an orderly and efficient way if they are allowed to develop within a well-understood framework of law. This is no novel principle. It may be novel to the House, it may be new to the country, but it is a principle that has been accepted by every other major industrial country. It is a principle that is now accepted by the present Government. And it must be added, because it is a fact, that it is a principle that was accepted by the Labour Government. And I suggest that it makes sense.
  I say in all seriousness that I believe advantages will accrue to the trade union movement as a result of the enactment of this Bill. This legislation involves mighty organisations and it would be a sad day for this country if they were to become ill-used and were to reach a low state of repute.
  I believe that the Bill will help trade unions to recover much of the reputation which daily, unhappily, as we know from our experience of industrial affairs, has been diminishing. I believe that the Bill is more likely to restore confidence in the trade unions and to give them back the strength they are rapidly losing than
  1038
  anything else the Government can do. This Bill is a lifebelt to the trade union movement which can save them from sinking into a sea of anarchy in which they are in danger of disappearing.
  Mr. Brian Walden: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not read the correspondence columns of his local newspaper, or the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express or the Daily Mail? Does he think that if the Government received a mandate for this Bill they received it from people who wanted to strengthen the trade unions and to bring them back into repute?
  Mr. Gardner: I take very much more notice of what I hear from the shop stewards and from people working on the shop floor in the factories which I regularly visit in my constituency and elsewhere—
  Mr. Heffer: Who are these mythical shop stewards?
  Mr. Gardner: They are not mythical, and would not like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) so to describe them. They are very real persons with real ideas. Their ideas are worth noting and accepting. Based on those ideas, I am putting forward views to the House which I believe are realistic and which will benefit those persons, the trade unions and the employers.
  Surely we can all agree that the central problem of any legislation which any Government decide to bring in can be summarised by what the Donovan Commission described as a grave and significant question. The question which was set out in paragraph 458 of the Donovan Report was:
  "What can the law do to help to improve our industrial relations?"
  Do the Government have to remain passive, looking on, doing nothing, while things go from bad to worse, or is the Government's duty to act in a way in which they are best fitted to act, through legislation? It is perhaps not a surprising coincidence that on the 18th June, 1969, the Prime Minister of the then Labour Government declared that he would not pursue any legislation to deal with industrial relations. I submit that that declaration was properly celebrated on 18th June this year. That result has

  1039
  made it possible for this Government to introduce the present Bill.
  One figure that has been well rehearsed is that unofficial strikes amount to 95 per cent, of all the strikes which take place in this country. If we could deal effectively with unofficial strikes, perhaps we should not have to be too concerned about the 5 per cent. of official strikes that remain. Unfortunately, unofficial strikes often are a symptom of a deeper disease—what unhappily has been called the English disease. To get rid of this disease of unofficial strikes we must, as the Donovan Report concluded in paragraph 501:
  "The first and most important step … is the reform of our collective bargaining system."
  Mrs. Renée Short: But not by law.
  Mr. Gardner: If it could be done on a voluntary basis I should be one of the first to applaud that solution. I think that it would be the ideal solution. Where people can be got to act without having to impose on them the restraints of the law, then let them get on with it. I am sure that if it were possible to come to a voluntary solution of this almost intractable problem most hon. Members would be very happy to see that solution applied.
  Unhappily, the months and the years pass and things get worse, not better, and somebody has to do something. Somebody has to apply the best of the wisdom which they have. It seems to me, as, I am sure, to many hon. Members in this House and to many people outside, that, whatever might have been the hoped for solution in 1968 or earlier, the solution today cannot be left to voluntary action.
  I believe that it would now be wrong for collective bargaining to be left outside the law. This was the view in 1968 of Mr. Andrew Schonfield in his note of reservation in the Donovan Report. I think that that is right. We all know the complexity of the problem. Although we may not have personal experience of its complexity, we all understand that industry-wide formal agreements are frequently supplemented by work place informal agreements. We all understand that work place informal agreements are often comprised of agreements by word of mouth. They are not always written down. When
  1040
  they are written down they are rarely collected together; and even when they are written, they are usually in conflict with the industry-wide agreement.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he chooses to quote from a minority Report attached to the Donovan Report when he does not accept the majority decisions and findings of the Donovan Commission which sat for three years investigating the trade union movement and came out against all the basic premises of his right hon Friend's Bill?
  Mr. Gardner: I can certainly answer that one. I quote the minority Report because I think that it is correct. Experience has shown it to be correct and the majority of people believe it to be correct. Nothing in the months which have gone before will persuade me that the contrary is true.
  I agree that Donovan said something different by way of remedy to what I am submitting. But Donovan was certainly at pains to point out in paragraph after paragraph that the overriding need was
  "for a reconstruction of the voluntary collective bargaining … to put an end to the conflict between the pretence of industry-wide agreements and the realities of industrial relations."
  The Bill is aimed at doing just that. The central provision is the creation of the presumption, which I believe is a valuable presumption—
  Mr. Rose: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has absolutely failed to understand the significance of Clause 39. Has he read Clause 39?
  Mr. Gardner: Yes.
  Mr. Rose: Clause 39 says that the provisions
  "shall have effect as a legally enforceable contract, as if a contract consisting of those provisions had been made between those parties."
  In other words, where there has been no agreement, where neither side has agreed, an agreement can be forced upon them. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that that is voluntary collective bargaining? This is the corporate state.
  Mr. Gardner: Of course I have read the Clause and I have already pointed out, I think accurately, its effect. It is there for all to see in elementary language

  1041
  —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—well, fairly elementary language. It is quite clear that the effect of the Clause is to create the presumption—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But it does. That presumption can be rebutted by a written provision in the agreement that the agreement is not intended to be binding.
  Mr. Rose: The hon. and learned Gentleman is continually missing the point. If he looks at Clause 32 he will find that the procedural matters can be made enforceable, despite the wishes of both parties. If the hon. and learned Gentleman then looks at Clauses 38 and 39 he will find that this applies to substantive matters. What is happening here is that where neither party wishes to enter into a binding agreement, it can be made binding by an application. The hon. and learned Gentleman, whom 1 respect very highly, seems to have missed the point entirely. This is nothing to do with collective bargaining. This is imposed agreement by an enforcement agency. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Clause?
  Mr. Gardner: I have read it. With respect. Clause 32 to which—
  Mr. Rose: Clause 39.
  Mr. Gardner: The hon. Gentleman said Clause 32.
  Mr. Rose: Clause 39(2)(b).
  Mr. Gardner: I do not want to waste the time of the House. It is there for all to read:
  "Presumptions relating to collective agreements."
  Mr. Rose: No.
  Mr. Gardner: That is what it says. The hon. Gentleman really must look at the print on the page. Clause 32 is headed,
  "Presumptions relating to collective agreements."
  Mr. Rose: Clause 39(2)(b).
  Mr. Gardner: Clause 39 is headed
  "Order of Industrial Court on report under section 38."
  It does not in any way interfere with the proposition which I put to the House.
  Mr. Brian Walden: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Gentle-
  1042
  man yet again—he has been generous in giving way—but if his presumption is correct, which is a matter of some dispute, may I ask him to tell us what earthly use this is supposed to be? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman fondly suppose that if a union can escape from the consequences of the Clause by having written into an agreement that it is not legally binding that it will not do that in every case? If 1 ran a union I am sure that I should do that.
  Mr. Gardner: If the union or the employer—it is for both parties—wishes to write into the agreement the condition that that agreement shall not be legally binding and enforceable, it is entitled to do so.
  Mr. Walden: Then what is the purpose of it?
  Mr. Gardner: The purpose is to give people the choice.
  I now go to the next point—[Interruption.] It is terribly difficult to understand—
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Perhaps the Minister will help us.
  Mr. Gardner: The words in the Bill help. It is hard to understand—one might be accused of being blind and misreading parts of the Bill; I hope those accusations are not true—how a trade union could be harmed by this central feature of the legislation.
  I come back to the point which was raised a moment ago. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) and I differ in our ideas about the reactions of employers and trade unions if I am right in my interpretation of the meaning of the Bill. I submit, in all seriousness, that no trade unionist and no trade union can be harmed by this legislation. They can only be helped. The trade unions have nothing to fear from this legislation, and only those who wish to introduce, and let it be faced now, what we are threatened with having, namely, anarchy, can be real enemies of the Bill.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: I approach the Bill very much from the viewpoint of a trade unionist, but I am the first to insist that I approach it also from the viewpoint of a member of the

  1043
  public as well as a Member of the House, and perhaps it is worth making the point, as it sometimes seems to be forgotten, that trade unionists are very much members of the general public and form an important section of it. Trade unionists and their wives are consumers as well as wage earners.
  I hope to be brief and, if I am not able to throw any light on the problem, I shall do my utmost not to generate any more heat than is necessary, because this is a topic about which we should try, above all, not to exaggerate, but to approach proposals put forward from either side as objectively as we can.
  I acknowledge right away that a Government, particularly a recently elected one, have a right to legislate about this matter if they see the need to do so, and clearly the Government must be the judge of that, as they must be of the best proposals for dealing with the problem, and they have to stand by the consequences.
  I hope that in this matter the Government will not be tempted to put party interests before the public interest. There are temptations for both sides of the House. There is the temptation for our side perhaps to exaggerate some of the implications and effects of the Bill. There is the temptation for the Front Bench opposite perhaps to try to capitalise on public opinion, which I believe the Minister would recognise to be unreasonable in many ways, and uninformed. That is an accusation which I should not level against the right hon. Gentleman. I trust that the Government will resist any temptation to capitalise on what is sometimes regarded as the unpopularity of the trade union movement, and industrial action generally.
  Mr. R. Carr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. I think that he should do us the credit of admitting that when my party first put forward these proposals, which is now five years ago, they were not popular with the majority of the public. We have been committed to them root and branch because we believed that they were necessary, long before there was any question of them being vote winners.
  Mr. Tinn: We are dealing with the proposals in the Bill, which we have not had such a long time to study.
  1044
  I propose, first, to say something about what I see to be the nature of the opposition. We have to recognise that there is a major problem here. Indeed, we would be foolish and ostrich-like if we did not. We have to recognise, and we do, and I think that this is something to which the critics of the movement should pay attention, that this is a complex and human problem, tremendously difficult and absorbing in all its ramifications, and almost impossible to prescribe a solution for. I think it follows from that that there is no easy solution, no panacea, for all the ills.
  Before proceeding further I should like, as it were in parenthesis, to try to put the problem into perspective. 1 have acknowledged that there is a serious problem, and I should like now to make it clear that it is a problem which we in this country often tend to exaggerate when discussing its intensity, and even more in regarding it as an almost uniquely British phenomenon.
  Let us consider how serious these strikes are in terms of national comparisons. I do not intend to weary the House with statistics which I know have been brought out in Questions and Written Answers. but all the figures that I have seen quoted on this subject show that, far from strikes being a purely uniquely British disease, we are in a median position in the league table. We have no great record of which to be proud, but neither need we hang our heads in shame. I do not think that we are bound to listen in all humility to American visitors lecturing us on the virtues of their system when, as is well known, in a typical year, and making allowance for the difference in population sizes, their problem is much worse than ours. They can lose as much as twelve times as many working days per 100,000 workers as we do.
  The problem is not just that of strikes themselves, but that of the cost of buying off strikes, of settling strikes, the cost of rising wages, and our inflationary situation. Here again I should like to make comparisons with other countries, because it is only by so doing that we can keep our feet on the ground and not fall into the error of making alarmist statements or taking extremist measures.
  Recently the O.E.C.D. issued figures showing the percentage increases in hourly

  1045
  wage rates over the past 12 months. These were the figures for the 12 months to May of this year for a selection of member countries. One is conscious of the way in which wage rates have been shooting up in this country in the past 12 months, but perhaps it is a little surprising to find that while wage rates in the United Kingdom went up by 7 per cent. that figure was exceeded in West Germany, France, very much so in Sweden, 13·5 per cent., Japan and Canada. I do not want to labour the point, but I am trying to put the problem into perspective and to show that we are in neither a uniquely serious situation, nor that we are trying to cope with a uniquely British disease.
  There is one thing which must clearly be in the mind of anyone trying to prescribe a solution for our ills. In looking at possible solutions the Minister should ask himself what his objectives are. Are they long-term, or short-term? Are the problems immediate and pressing problems which make the headlines every day? Are those the problems that he is trying to solve, or are the problems longer term, involving, perhaps, a transformation of attitudes and atmosphere in industry and in collective bargaining? This is very important, because the solutions to either sector of the problem can be contradictory.
  I would not condemn the Bill as a massive threat to the trade union movement, but I do believe that its most important provisions are at best irrelevant to the real causes of industrial dispute, and may in some cases make disputes even worse.
  I should like to look at the contentious question of legal enforceability of agreements to illustrate the point about irrelevancy. Very little seems to have been achieved here, so I do not join those of my hon. Friends who seem so alarmed. This seems to be replacing a contracting in system with a contracting out system. Previously, parties had to agree that an agreement should be legally enforceable: now they will have to agree that it should not. That is not a revolutionary change. If the unions take exception to this, they will simply write in a clause, and I doubt whether many employers would resist them.
  Mr. Rose: I am sorry to belabour this point, but both sides seem under a misapprehension. Clause 39(2)(b) provides that there does not need to be an agreement—indeed, that where there is no agreement, the Secretary of State and the N.I.R.C. between them can enforce a nonexistent agreement. Perhaps, my hon. Friend would consider the heading
  "Remedial action where procedure agreement non-existent or defective".
  Mr. Tinn: My hon. Friend rather anticipated a reference I was about to make to the difficulties of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). I intend to suggest that this Bill is replacing a rocky, difficult and sometimes tortuous road of industrial relations with a legal quagmire in which we saw the hon. and learned Member floundering and the Minister himself in difficulties. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) can clarify the position or perhaps dig himself a little deeper into this same quagmire.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: We are making somewhat heavy weather of this Clause, because Clause 32 refers in turn to Clause 35, which refers to the intention of the parties to make an agreement and who fail to make an agreement or who make an agreement which is defective. If either of those two things occurs, it is open to the National Industrial Relations Commission to inquire into the intention of the parties. If they have made an agreement which is defective, the Commission will put it right; if they have made an agreement which is in no way relevant, the Commission will substitute for it an agreement which is the intention of the parties. I am sure that no one's purpose is served by making false and bad points.
  Mr. Tinn: If the House should be misguided enough to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, I am looking forward to the Committee stage with apprehension; we will all enjoy ourselves.
  Legal enforceability is very important. I wonder whether employers to whom we are giving this new facility of legal action to enforce agreements will choose to use it. It is very doubtful that they will, which reinforces my view that the provision itself is largely irrelevant. The

  1047
  point was made earlier that it is almost certain that the electricity workers in the recent dispute broke all the Statutes, yet, rightly, no action was taken against them—and a solution of the dispute would not have been hastened if action had been taken.
  German workers, those paragons of industrial virtue, last year broke their 1963 Federal Court ruling banning unofficial strikes, but in a country with a structure of industrial relations largely dependent upon legal underpinning, no action was taken against them. On a visit a few months ago to West Germany, I found many trade unionists ready to agree that, while the German system had a strong legal content, it worked only because it was acceptable to the unions. In the last analysis it is a voluntary system, because the machinery provided by law is acceptable.
  One part of the Bill which gives me grounds for concern is that which provides for plant elections to decide whether a particular union should represent that group of workers and whether a union should continue to represent a body of workers a fixed proportion of whom might indicate their dissatisfaction, in which case a ballot may be ordered. In the trade union movement, we have had for many years a problem of poaching, of clashes between unions. Almost invariably, over the past 30 years, these have been peacefully resolved—well over 1,000 of them—by means of the formula contained in the T.U.C.'s Bridlington Agreement, an internal trade union agreement honoured by all the parties, which has been silently working over the past 30 years, promoting industrial harmony, avoiding strikes.
  This provision will, at a stroke, destroy that, make it irrelevant and unworkable, and replace it with machinery which I fear could well provide for escalation of militancy between unions. I do not know what Clive Jenkins thinks of the Bill, but I imagine that he is keen on it because it gives his organisation the key to many industries in which his union does not at present play an important part, and I am not certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite want that.
  I have argued, I hope with conviction, that the Bill is not as dramatically bad as is made out by some of its opponents,
  1048
  on this side of the House and in the trade union movement. However, it stands condemned as irrelevant in dealing with both the long-term and short-term problems we face. Even if it more adequately replaced what I admit to be the present rocky road of negotiations, we would finish up in a deeper quagmire of legalism because it is not sufficiently acceptable.
  Even the most perfect system, including the judgment of Solomon, cannot work in a free society such as ours, with its free collective bargaining, if it is not acceptable to all concerned. Acceptability is of the essence. There was a great deal in the Labour Bill on industrial relations. About 90 per cent. of that Measure was unmistakably beneficial to the unions, but it would not have worked because of the 10 per cent. that was unacceptable.
  I beg the Government to put the national interest and long-term considerations first in examining this matter and to reconsider whether these proposals will not, in fact, do more harm than good.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) because I agree with much of what he said. Like him, I foresee a formidable Committee stage to this Bill, and I do not intend to make Committee points tonight.
  Perhaps one point about which I dissent from the hon. Gentleman is that 1 believe the general strategy of this Measure to be right. It is undeniable, however, that much anxiety is felt about the Bill among trade unionists, including trade unionists who voted for the Conservative Party on 18th June in the knowledge that such a Bill would be introduced.
  It would, in my judgment, be just as foolish for my hon. Friends to close our eyes to that anxiety as it would be for hon. Gentlemen opposite to close their eyes to the fact that a large majority of the people, including many trade unionists, want legislation along these lines.
  The causes of anxiety are plain. There has been some misrepresentation, some misunderstanding—of which we have just witnessed an interesting example in the

  1049
  exchanges across the Floor—some failure on the part of the Government and the Conservative Party adequately to put across the public explanation of the Bill and there has been insfficient emphasis on those aspects of the Measure which are beneficial to trade unions and restrictive of employers.
  I regret that the publications which have been put out by the Government, though excellent in themselves, have not been well distributed. I regret, too, that my right hon. Friend, in his speech on the Consultative Document some weeks ago, did not sufficiently bring out those provisions of the Bill which are attractive to organised labour once they are understood. I am glad that he tried to correct this today.
  I will give an example of what I mean. One of the most important innovations in the Bill is the provision for an agency shop in Clauses 11 to 16 which must mean, as a consequence, a numerical expansion of trade unions and an extension of their recognition by employers.
  I call this an important innovation because I have long been convinced—I have said this publicly on many occasions—that any large-scale employer would be wise to encourage a 100 per cent. union shop in his works in the interests of good relations. I say " encourage", of course, and not "compel"; and Clauses 11 to 16 go as far as I think legislation reasonably could go to promote that. It has always seemed to me unjustifiable that a man should benefit from the gains achieved by a trade union without contributing in any way to them.
  I believe that many who share my own experience of employers' organisations would also share that view. Indeed, I think that some of them would wish to see the same kind of provisions extended to employers' organisations. I looked in vain in the Bill for any provision to that effect. There is none, and there can be none in the voluntary system.
  That draws attention to what seems to me to be the crucial problem of any legislation such as this. The crucial problem is that although the intention, which my right hon. Friend has very clearly expressed, is to make the law bear equally on both sides of industry with complete impartiality, this cannot be done simply by laying down verbally indentical rules for both sides. The reason is that trade
  1050
  unions and employers' organisations are constitutionally quite different bodies. The essential difference is that the trade union consists of individuals and the employers' organisation consists of corporate bodies, and an individual is much more vulnerable in this hard world of industrial relations than is any corporate body.
  The first consequence of that difference is that the incentive to belong to a trade union is much greater than the incentive on the employers' side to belong to an employers' organisation. The disincentive to resignation is correspondingly weaker in the case of employers' organisations. Statistics would clearly show this. I do not have any figures, but I am quite sure that the proportion of insured workers who belong to trade unions is very greatly in excess of the proportion of registered companies that belong to employers' organisations, and many even of the companies which belong to employers' organisations would be perfectly happy to resign at the slightest sign of a difference of opinion. So there is a further consequence that in the Bill the trade union will have much stronger powers over its members than the employers' organisation will have over its members because, in the last resort, expulsion from a trade union is a very formidable sanction whereas the notion of expulsion from an employers' organisation is a joke.
  It seems to follow that the Government cannot make the law equal and impartial between the two sides of industry simply by drawing up identical rules and simply by mentioning employers' organisations wherever it mentions trade unions, yet that is what they have sought to do in Schedule 3 and in one or two other places in the Bill.
  In order to be fair to both sides of industry the law must be different for each, and must not simply be identical. There are various possible differences, and I do not want to go into detail into ways in which this might be achieved, but I will mention just one that I believe to be cardinal, and it will be already clear from the distinction I have drawn between the trade union as an organisation of individuals and the employers' organisation as a collection of corporate bodies.
  In order to be fair, the law should make it clear that in no case, whether dealing with the employer's side or with the

  1051
  organised labour side, will any individual, as an individual, be taken to court. Action in court should be available only against the corporate body; that is to say, a trade union, an employers' organisation or a company, or any of their officers in his capacity as an officer of the corporate body. That would get rid of the one feature of the Bill which seems bound to lead to trouble, because if the individual, as an individual, is liable to be taken to court even by way of civil action—and this point has been made before—and if that individual is really obstinate there is, in the last resort, no alternative but to send him to prison. I am talking not about criminal actions but about civil actions.
  Once that last resort is reached, and especially if it is reached in dozens of cases at the same time, public opinion will end up on the side of the dissidents, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case. The dissidents will become martyrs, and the law will be brought into disrepute. That is not only objectionable and unworkable, but entirely unnecessary. I can conceive of no circumstances in practice in which it would not be possible to deal with the obstinate dissident individual either through the enhanced powers of a trade union which will arise from the Bill or through the ordinary right of dismissal in the hands of the employer, or both.
  My right hon. Friend may say that this is all very well in theory but that he must have a reserve power to deal with the extreme case of dissident individuals even if that power is seldom or never used. I beg to differ. But if I am wrong in thinking that the power to proceed against an individual as an individual in the courts is unnecessary, and my right hon. Friend proves right in thinking that it will be needed sooner or later, it would not be difficult to amend the law accordingly when it proved unavoidable. For the Bill will certainly not be the end of the road, and we should not be trying to achieve everything overnight.
  In the meantime, the inclusion of the power to proceed against an individual will do more than anything else to make the Bill unpalatable to organised labour. I beg my right hon. Friend to think again about this, because to dispense with the power, at least as a trial, would
  1052
  probably contribute very substantially to confidence and good will in passing the Measure, and confidence and good will more than anything else are what he will need to make this legislation succeed.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: Since I was ill advised enough to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) on the matter concerning Clauses 32 to 40, I have had the opportunity to talk briefly to a number of my hon. and learned Friends about it. The interesting point that emerges is that a matter which I thought was simple is one on which all five of us have been disagreed. At least that is sufficient to establish the point that my hon. Friend was making at the time, that the Bill will be a lawyers' paradise. I think that it will also be a Committee point of some substance.
  At the beginning of his speech the Secretary of State introduced the Bill by saying that he intended it to establish a framework of law within which improved industrial relations could develop. His final paragraph was a plea to the House to regard the Bill as an instrument for reforming and improving human relations in the factory, on the shop floor and in the office. The middle of the sandwich, however, proved amply the adage that what is one man's meat is another man's poison.
  The extraordinary thing is that the only achievement to date of a Bill designed to be an emollient is to cause such an eruption of bitterness as to make the trade union members of my party, certainly, and probably throughout the trade union movement, feel that if the former Government whipped them with cords, the present Government appear to be determined to whip them with scorpions.
  There can be no argument between us that industrial relations in Britain can do with improvement. There can be no quarrel with statistics that tell us continually about the increase in the number of working hours and even working months that have recently been lost by industrial disputes.
  We can concede immediately that there may be a need for a more disciplined society than that in which we are now living, but the Bill—and, I suspect, other Bills of the same ilk with which we

  1053
  have been plagued from time to time— would have found a readier acceptance, certainly from the trade unions, if the Government had shown equal enthusiasm for actions intended to ensure the continuance of a just and compassionate society. Instead of that, the Bill has been introduced in an atmosphere and with the language of a battlefield—and Britain is increasingly becoming encamped in two hostile battlefields—as though the trade union movement were threatening our democratic institutions and the Government were attempting to restore government by democratic means.
  The bitterness of the trade union movement against the Bill arises directly from the conviction of trade unionists that it is motivated by class considerations and will deprive them of the hard-won rights and safeguards that they will need to protect their workers in what has become a hostile world. If the Government really believes that the trade union movement is launching an attack upon society, then it can only be because the Government are not exercising their responsibilities in the interests of all the people. For a large section of the trade unions equally believe that the actions of the Government are directed specifically against them.
  I personally have no great fear of the Bill; I believe that it will not work, and that the time is not far distant when it will be a little more than a museum piece. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that a large section of our people feel that it greatly wrongs them.
  The Bill arises from the bland acceptance by the Government that the Bill is a just and workable Bill, and is relevant to the problems with which Britain is faced in 1970–71.
  It is none of these things. It is not just, because of the context in which it has been introduced. Since the Government were elected to power they have made a fetish of their belief in a free-for-all economy. The Chancellor's unfair mini-Budget of 27th October has added to the conviction of many poorer people that the Government are deliberately slanting the economy so that the rich may become richer, even at the cost of the poor.
  The Government have made their boast that what they will withdraw the intervention of Government in our economic
  1054
  affairs and give assistance to the strong and the powerful, who deserve the prizes even if that is at the expense of the lame duck. If I may change the metaphor, although it is not mine, what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. If it is the case that the Government will increasingly withdraw from the assistance of the under-privileged and the weak, then the Government must withdraw from intereference in the places in which the weak and underprivileged band together to serve their own interests.
  If the Government believe that it is right that the free-for-all must be strong, then the Government must not complain, and nor must the nation which elected them, if the trade unions say, "In that case we will be strong to join in the free-for-all ".
  This Bill is not workable, and when I say that it is not because I think it will be a lawyers' paradise, although no doubt a lawyers' paradise may mean the litigant's everlasting purgatory. It is not even because I believe that the provisions within the Bill are an invitation to industrial anarchy.
  Take even such Clauses as 48 to 50. They are an invitation to workers to leave trade unions that do not serve their purposes and to join ones that promise so to do. Workers will clearly always be tempted to join the most militant of the unions and these Clauses are in themselves an invitation to militancy.
  When I say that the Bill is not workable I think of it rather in a more exalted context than that of the problems which are contained within its four corners. I mean that any law will work only if it has general acceptance by the majority of those affected by it. This Bill lays down a law that is not only unacceptable to the majority but is unacceptable to all trade unions. Nor can such a Bill be acceptable until it is fitted into a framework of social justice that is recognised by those affected by it to be just. It is not just to create a framework of society which allows a free-for-all to those who earn profits and places restrictions and pressures on those who seek to earn wages.
  The irrelevance of the Bill has to be seen against its current background. The Government are attempting to introduce it at the same time as they withdraw from intervention in the social and

  1055
  domestic affairs of our nation; when they have created a situation in which prices are allowed to rise; when they have ended the Consumer Council; when they have ensured by their activities that the market rate shall apply in every sphere. At the same time they are involving themselves in the contradiction of interfering in the free play of the labour market, and while they are determined to ensure that the trade unions are prevented from exercising their rights, in freedom, without the interference of the Government. by such diverse policies, the nation is being squeezed into a situation of contradiction which is bound to result in the kind of conflict that will follow, and which is already beginning to show its head.
  In the present situation, and in the context in which the Bill has been introduced, the nation is already being divided. Rather than have introduced this Bill, the most helpful contribution which the Government could have made was to restore the language of moderation and the policies of reconciliation. Working people might then have felt what they do not feel now, that they might have a few friends in the Government. Let them repudiate the antitrade unionism which is dividing the nation of which we saw only too-unpleasant an example of anti-trade unionism as recently as last Saturday on a television programme.
  The Government should start repairing the consensus necessary for the successful working of a democracy. The Prime Minister has no reason to be proud of the rejection of the consensus approach. Almost the only result of his rejection is the present situation, in which not only is there conflict between what are called the general public and the trade unions but there is now no generally accepted public standard for judging the claims of one group against those of another.
  There is no merit in introducing a Bill that is rejected by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) called a whole estate of the realm, which, if ever it has to be tried, will do nothing but show that it is a powerless instrument. By attempting to try it once, all that will be revealed is that the law, having no power to enforce its will upon so many who reject its authority, will be brought into disrepute
  1056
  and that will do nothing to solve the real problems which face the nation at present.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I trust that my speech tonight will be a little more helpful to all sides of the House than when I last spoke from this Box. It looks as though it will be, and 1 hope that that continues throughout the next half hour.
  This has been a very wide-ranging debate. It is impossible for me to cover all the various points which have been raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. I am not alone in this because the Secretary of State seemed to know very little about his own Bill. I am sure that we shall hear much more about the details of the Bill from the Solicitor-General, who is the Bill's chief architect. That is only to be expected when we are dealing with a Bill of this kind, containing 150 Clauses and eight Schedules, and bringing a new concept of law into industrial relations.
  No practical individual with even a remote interest or connection with industrial relations would dream of bringing in a Bill of this kind. This week the Under-Secretary of State has had to deal with some industrial relations problems, and he must know that a Bill of this kind is completely irrelevant when we are considering the sort of issues which face us today.
  We have heard five maiden speakers, three from the benches opposite and two from this side of the House. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) said that he was a regional employers' representative. He has represented employers on international committees and undoubtedly he has a great deal of experience of the employers' side. We shall welcome further contributions from the hon. Gentleman, and we look forward to hearing him explain the employers' point of view as he sees it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) began his excellent speech with a reference to Bessie Braddock. I pay tribute to Bessie Braddock and her work on behalf of her constituents and the trade union movement generally. Bessie remained a trade unionist throughout her life. She was the daughter of a trade union organiser. Her death is a great loss to this House

  1057
  and to Liverpool. It is also a tremendous loss to the trade union movement.
  My hon. Friend went on to say that we want more negotiation and not litigation, I agree with him. That sums up the issue as we on this side see it.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) made a passionate and interesting speech, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Helper (Mr. Stewart-Smith). Perhaps at this juncture I might make one observation on speeches of a non-controversial nature. On the last occasion that I appeared at this Box, I said that I welcomed non-controversial speeches. If we are to get away from the tradition that maiden speeches should be non-controversial, it may be that we shall have to go further and make it known that hon. Members making maiden speeches must expect to be interrupted. This could have happened during the speeches of the hon. Members for Yardley and Belper.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) spoke of his wide experience in trade union negotiations and said that he was especially concerned with safety at work. He made an important point about the ratio of industrial accidents to strikes in this country.
  They were all excellent maiden speeches. 1 hope that we shall hear many more from my hon. Friends and from hon. Gentlemen opposite in the future.
  Moving the Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the Government were introducing a set of rules, and he made the point that we had not had rules in industrial relations in the past. There is no question but that the British people are law-abiding. They like rules. They like to have a set of rules to guide their actions. But they dislike it when rules are weighted against fairness, and that is precisely what is happening.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that the essence of the Bill is that it is fair—fair to employers, fair to the trade unions, fair to everybody. Hon. Members opposite agree with him, but let us look at some of the rules contained in the Bill. They are employers' rules. They will make life much more difficult for the trade union movement. I agree that the Bill will not put the trade unions out of existence, and we are not saying that
  1058
  it will. What we are saying is that if the Bill becomes law, it will cripple the trade union movement. It will make life more difficult for the trade unions. It will be more difficult for them to operate. Instead of strengthening the trade union movement, as the right hon. Gentleman says he wants to do, the Bill will have the opposite effect.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that we are moving into uncharted waters, along a route that has not been experienced before. But then we have been told by hon. Members opposite that it has been experienced before. We are told that such legislation operates everywhere in the world except in Britain. Obviously, therefore, the route is not so uncharted. These are not unknown waters. We therefore have to look at what happens in some of these other countries.
  In the United States, where the Taft-Hartley Act operates, there are more strikes than there are in this country and now voices are being raised saying that, because that Act has not solved the problem, they must go further and bring in yet more law to deal with the trade unions and, if necessary, to make strikes illegal for all time.
  Mr. David James: Is it not a fact that in the United States, under the 1935 Act, only within the last three or four days the 60-day cooling-off period has resulted in a nation-wide railways strike being dealt with in 24 hours?
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must get things right. The 1935 Act was the Wagner Act. The 60-day cooling off period was brought in by the Taft-Hartley Act, and now there is a proposal for an extension of that legislation in the United States.
  The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government may not have got the balance right. To me, that sounds very ominous because, if they have not got the balance right now, then, after a period when the Bill has been seen not to work, when we still have strikes and industrial problems, the howling dervishes on the back benches opposite will say, "The balance is not right; we have to go further and bring in more laws." No doubt they will suggest that the 60-day cooling-off period should be extended to six months. After that, why not extend it

  1059
  to one year? And eventually extend it so that there are no strikes at all?
  That is what some hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. That is what is at the back of their minds—not only to cripple the trade unions but to put the free trade union movement out of existence altogether. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman wants that. In fact, he does not. The right hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that his proposals will make some sort of contribution towards industrial peace in this country. But he is wrong. He is absolutely wrong, and he will be proved wrong as the years go by.
  What happened in the United States with the Taft-Hartley Act was this. In 1947, 32 per cent. of workers eligible to belong to trade unions were organised. The percentage has gone down to 26 per cent. as a result of the operation of the Taft-Hartley Act. And yet we are told that it will strengthen trade unions, that it will have the effect of making them larger and so on. Of course, that is not the position, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. Gardner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heffer: In a few moments. We have heard today from the right hon. Gentleman that there are no criminal sanctions in these proposals. Well, in general, that is true. There are one or two minor points which could eventually be considered criminal sanctions, but, in general, the point which is made by the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: there are no criminal sanctions. But is it not quibbling with the actual situation and with the facts? Suppose a trade union or an individual has to pay what is called compensation, which, in reality, means a fine, and refuses to pay the compensation or the fine.
  Mr. Scott: It is not a fine.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman says it is not a fine. Call a spade a spade. It is a fine. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If that man refuses to pay it—or the damages—
  Mr. Scott: That is different.
  Mr. Heffer: Let the hon. Member consider it different, but if the shop steward or trade union official refuses to pay and is in contempt of court and—which is the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), who said he did not agree with it—languishing a prisoner in Walton Prison in Liverpool, then he, the chap languishing behind the prison bars, will not give a damn whether he got there by a civil action or by a criminal action. He will not be interested in the legal niceties of how he got behind the bars. What he will know is that he is there.
  Mr. Hooson rose—
  Mr. David James: He will not give way.
  Mr. Heffer: The position is quite clear. Once that happens there will be a position in which there will be more industrial anarchy, less industrial peace, than we have had in the past.
  Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that non-payment of compensation is not contempt of court, and is it not much more important to get an answer to the question posed by his right hon. Friend earlier, whether, in fact, contempt proceedings will be used either to extract a fine from or inflict imprisonment upon an official?
  Mr. Heffer: The point is that ultimately the worker will find himself in prison. That is the point I am making, and he will not be very happy whether he gets into prison through a criminal action or a civil action.
  Sir Hat-mar Nicholls: It happens today.
  Mr. Heffer: It happens today. That is absolutely true, but we are talking about trade unionists and industrial relations, and if the hon. Gentlemen want that to happen, of course this is a recipe for anarchy, to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  Mr. Scott rose—
  Mr. Heffer: I cannot continually give way. I have a speech to make and I should like to make it in my own way without too many interruptions.
  The question of 100 per cent. trade unionism is one of the most important

  1061
  issues in the Bill. The Bill makes it clear that the closed shop will be void, but that is not supported by all the employers' organisations. Many employers' organisations, including the C.B.I., have made representation to the right hon. Gentleman that they are not in favour of the elimination of the closed shop.
  I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen understand what a trade unionist feels. Hon. Gentleman talk about the liberty of the individual. I passionately believe in the liberty of the individual, and so does the Labour Party, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting away from the point that the majority of trade unionists also have the right to exercise what they consider to be their liberty—
  Mr. Peter Rost: To compel others.
  Mr. Heffer: No, the liberty to say that if a worker on the shop floor or elsewhere refuses to make any contribution towards better wages and conditions—
  Mr. Rost: To sack him.
  Mr. Heffer:—the liberty to say that they will not work with that individual. They do not say that he should be sacked. We believe in 100 per cent. trade union organisation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand this. They have not had to fight on the shop floor for decent wages and conditions. Few of them have known what it is like to work in a shipyard, in a coal mine or on a building site and actually to be faced with the realities of industrial life. If they had had to fight for decent wages and conditions, they would understand the issues involved in the Bill. It is like the deaf talking to the deaf. Hon. Gentlemen have no understanding of the trade union point of view and it is difficult for us to get it across to them.
  One hon. Gentleman said that he did not even want the agency shop, and that if the Government were real Conservatives, they would not stop at abolishing the closed shop, they would not have the agency shop either. Let us see how the proposals about the agency shop could operate in the building industry. With whom in the building industry will an agency shop be made? Will it be with a major employer covering the whole
  1062
  country, with a regional employer or at site level? That is not spelt out in the Bill. It will most likely be at site level and might operate in this way. About 10 to 20 men may go on to a building site and the employer may suggest that they should have a ballot on whether there should be an agency shop. Before that construction site has grown up, there may be a ballot with 49 per cent. in favour of the agency shop, 29 per cent. against and the rest not voting. For two years those building operatives will be denied the right of trade union organisation on that site. Do hon. Members believe that there are not some unscrupulous employers in the building industry who will stoop to those lengths?
  Let us look at the realities of how one deals with the enforceability of contracts. My view is that there will be very few agreements which will not contain clauses saying that they are not enforceable, because the trade unions will not otherwise accept them. That industry should operate without proper agreements is not conducive to good industrial relations in the future. If we have enforceable agreements, how shall we deal with real human experiences? [Interruption.] I know what I am talking about. Let me give one or two examples of what happens on the shop floor. Let me tell you something of my experience on a building site.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will tell the House, not me.
  Mr. Heffer: Let me tell hon. Gentlemen what happened on one building site on a bitterly cold morning—[Interruption.]—you have never worked on a building site.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have.
  Mr. Heffer: I thought, Mr. Speaker, for one moment that I was talking to building trade operatives. They, of course, understand the word "you". On this particular site on a bitterly cold morning—[Laughter.]—this is no laughing matter because this could happen under the Bill—the workers were so cold that they set up a number of fires. The foreman came out in a temper and tipped them all over. The lads immediately stopped work. If there had been an enforceable contract, those men would then have been in immediate trouble

  1063
  because they would have been breaking the agreement.
  Let me give another example. I remember a number of workers in a blacksmith's shop in which the extractor machinery was not working properly. For months those workers said to that employer, "Get that extractor machinery operating to clear the fumes". One elderly worker was so affected by the fumes that he collapsed and the men stopped work. Under the provisions of this Bill with an enforceable agreement, those workers would have been breaking the agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that that is not the position, but it is. That is why this Bill is totally irrelevant to the problems we have to deal with.
  Let me refer to what was said by the Donovan Commission. In paragraph 182 it laid down clearly how we ought to deal with the problems that industry is facing at present. It put forward six proposals.
  "First, to develop, together with trade unions representative of their employees, comprehensive and authoritative collective bargaining machinery to deal at company and/or factory level with the terms and conditions of employment which are settled at these levels;
  second, to develop, together with unions representative of their employees, joint procedures for the rapid and equitable settlement of grievances in a manner consistent with the relevant collective agreements;
  third, to conclude with unions representative of their employees agreements regulating the position of shop stewards in matters such as: facilities for holding elections; numbers and constituencies…;
  fourth, to conclude agreements covering the handling of redundancy;
  fifth, to adopt effective rules and procedures governing disciplinary matters …;
  sixth, to ensure regular joint discussion of measures to promote safety at work."
  If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had really been concerned about industrial relations and the speedy settlement of unofficial or official disputes, they would have adopted the proposals in the Donovan Report.
  Mr. John Page rose—
  Mr. Heffer: But they did not.
  Mr. Page rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.
  Mr. Page rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Heffer: I will give way.
  Mr. Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Clause 18(2)(b) explains the procedure which is available to employees when they have a grievance. It sets out the procedures which would be open to the individuals on the building site when the foreman, quite wrongly, kicks over those fires.
  Mr. Heffer: If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were really concerned about legislation dealing with grievance procedures, they could have adopted the Bill brought in by my right hon. Friend before 18th June. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why did not you?"] Hon. Gentlemen, particularly new Members, must understand that there was a Bill before the House—[An HON. MEMBER: " In Place of Strife?"] Not "In Place of Strife". There was a Bill supported by the entire Labour Party which would have improved industrial relations and was largely based upon the proposals in the Donovan Report.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that their proposals are based on the Donovan Report. If so, why were their proposals published before the Donovan Commission Report was published? Also, why is there a great similarity between the proposals in "Fair Deal at Work", in the Bill, and in the Conservative Lawyers' Association document of 1958, "A Giant Strength", which proves that their whole ideas are based upon political dogma built up since 1958 and not upon a real understanding of industrial relations? It is no accident that "A Giant Strength" was first produced by the Conservative Lawyers' Association. That is why the Bill will be a lawyers' paradise, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said.
  I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House are opposed to the Bill because it is irrelevant and unworkable. We shall repeal it and in its place we shall bring in positive proposals which are acceptable to the trade union movement, to those who understand industrial relations, and to those employers who are now groaning about the Bill. We shall bring in positive proposals to replace the

  1065
  Bill which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are thrusting on the country.
  We regard the Bill as an attack not only on the trade union movement, but basically on our civil rights which have been built up on the basis of a long and difficult struggle against the hard-faced Tories of the past. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to turn back the pages of history. I say to them that they may get away with the Bill on the basis of a majority in the House of Commons, but that shortly we shall be back in office, and when that happens we shall get rid of the Bill.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that he may live to regret saying that he will repeal this legislation. I shall try to pick up some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to deal now with what he said about what happened in the previous Bill. The Donovan Commission recommended registration of trade unions and the right of appeal to an independent body for trade unionists. This was repeated in "In Place of Strife", but it was significantly missing when that Bill was published last year, and the point made by the hon. Gentleman is therefore irrelevant.
  One of the advantages of winding up the interim stage of the debate on a Bill like this is that one is forced to listen to practically every speech. As everyone, on both sides of the House knows, this can be a very mixed pleasure, but I have no reservations whatsoever in congratulating the five maiden speakers today and in saying that those who were present listened to their contributions with great interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) has had a long experience in industry, and he has done particularly valuable work in the industrial training sphere. He referred to the difficulties and various aspects of industrial relations abroad. I think that my hon. Friend is right to stress the need for better communications in industry and for ending the soulless neglect of some of the larger companies so that those who work for them feel that they belong.
  1066
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry) follows a highly popular and well-liked Member, as the hon. Member for Walton said, and if, in his career here, he endears himself to the House as much as his predecessor did, he will do very well indeed. The hon. Gentleman spoke with great sincerity. He would not expect me to agree with one word of the political philosophy that he propounded but, none the less, we listened to his contribution with great interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) described himself as the 111th virgin in this Parliament. I think that he spoke up for his honour with remarkable skill and maturity. He made some telling and useful points. He brought up the question of possible C.I.R. regional supervisory boards, which is an interesting suggestion, and one that we shall look at. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to raise it again in Committee, although I see possible objections to it, in as much as it would proliferate the number of people who would be employed as a result.
  The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. East (Mr. McCartney) also follows a popular Member in Mr. Cyril Bence. Everybody in the House who knew him liked him. The hon. Gentleman spoke from 25 years of negotiating experience, and he did very well. He was slightly controversial, and I am sure that he will not mind my saying that so provoking was his speech that I wanted to interrupt him a number of times, which at least means that I listened to him.
  There was also the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith), It sounds strange in this House to talk about an hon. Member of the Conservative Party being the Member for Belper, but my hon. Friend follows a famous Parliamentarian, whom we sometimes miss in this House. We are glad to have my hon. Friend here, and one thing that can be said about him is that in due course he will probably be as controversial as was the right hon. Gentleman who was the former Member for that constituency for so many years. My hon. Friend made some telling points about the closed shop. He took us to task about the agency shop, and I shall in due course be making one or two comments about that.

  1067
  I should like to deal now with how the Bill looks after two days of rigorous debate, the first day being the one that we had on the Consultative Document, and with one day to go and an arduous Committee stage ahead of us. Despite the protests of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), two things have been established—one, that this legislation for the first time provides a genuine legal framework, and the other that this is what is frightening some people. And I believe that it frightens those who oppose it on other grounds than mere doctrinal, blind belief.
  But one is forced to ask, on this question, why should the rule of law worry anyone, provided that it is fair and just and is seen as a background to what the Government are trying to achieve? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yardley said, in his very good maiden speech, the fact that the law is there will be sufficient for the vast majority of people. The framework will be there and people will respond to it.
  But above everything else—I am glad that several hon. Members, particularly on this side, have stressed this—I am very glad that hon. Members are so keen to see that we are proposing a voluntary basis for the nation's industrial relations. We know that, in the end, this legislation can only work from good will. No Government, even with a mandate as convincing as ours, can govern without consent in a democracy, and I believe that when this Bill is law it will have that consent—just as it has the consent of the public at large at present.
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Walton, he is misleading the House and the country when he talks about fines and hints at imprisonment and implies criminal sanctions. This is a civil Bill with civil law and there will be no one sent to prison—
  Mr. Rose: Is that an undertaking?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Member asks whether that was an undertaking. There are no provisions in this Bill to send anyone to prison—
  Mr. Rose: The hon. Member must know—we have had this out before at the Dispatch Box—that the ultimate way
  1068
  of enforcing these provisions must be by gaol. Whether this is criminal, civil or quasi-criminal—and the authorities differ—the ultimate end for a person caught under these provisions must be prison; otherwise, there is no way of enforcing it.
  Mr. Smith: No more than at the moment. At present, it is possible for a trade unionist to go to prison. It is possible for the hon. Member or for me, for quite trivial offences, if we commit contempt of court, finally to end up in prison. But this is a power which is used less and less in this modern day and age. As my right hon. Friend has said so convincingly before, if a man is intent on going to prison in this country, finally perhaps he will go.
  I am willing to bargain with the hon. Gentleman that the number of cases which will arise under the Bill will be very few and far between, if any at all. As those of us know who have studied the Bill, its framework is civil law and there will not be fines: there will be compensation awarded through the courts in cases where people contravene. It does not do any good for the hon. Gentleman to make out that there are criminal sanctions in this case.
  The purpose of our legislation is certainly not, and never has been—to use that crude phrase—to "bash the unions". But at the same time nor is it a provision to pay lip-service to the unions, as the Labour Party's Bill did. If one examines that Bill, one finds that it would, to a large extent, have given trade unions the chance to have a privileged place in our society, with many advantages and few obligations. This Bill has the objective of treating all sides fairly, treating the unions fairly, treating the employers fairly and, perhaps above all, treating the public fairly.
  In my view, the cornerstones of this legislation are to establish the correct approach at the outset, via the Registrar; the presumed enforceability of collective agreements; the greater all-round protection afforded to the individual trade unionist, with longer periods of notice, the opportunity of taking action against unfair dismissal; the right to join or not to join a union; and the establishment of courts and tribunals where grievances and disputes can be worked out, often

  1069
  with conciliation working before the rule of civil law comes into operation.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister has referred to workpeople having the right to refuse to join or, if they wish, to join a union. Will he write that right into the Bill in a way which will give non-unionists the right to opt out of the advantages brought about by trade unions?
  Mr. Smith: There are no free riders in this Bill. We are not giving carte blanche to a man who does not wish to join a union just to gain all the advantages obtained by that union. We are facing the fact that a certain number of undesirable people may be prepared not to take on their responsibilities but be happy to have all the advantages which the union can win for them.
  I agree that this is wrong and unfair and we are introducing a provision—apart from the genuine conscientious objector, and there will probably be only a very small number of them—whereby the man who genuinely does not wish to join a union will have to pay an equal contribution for the services that the union renders, as his bargaining agent, but he will not be subject to the union's discipline. I am sure that this simple provision will work well.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I, too, am concerned with this question of people who do not wish to belong to a union. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the way in which the laws in this respect work in America? There they are attempting to get away from this principle, particularly in the construction industry. In this industry, even in this country, the Government or any future Government will find it utterly impossible to impose the principles contained in the Bill.
  Mr. Smith: I do not think we will. Indeed, by common consent, these proposals will work rather better than the hon. Gentleman thinks. [Interruption.] I am not aware of the latest moves in America. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to stand by what he says about the situation there, I am prepared to believe him, because he is an honourable Gentleman.
  There has been a crying need in this country for some time for the introduction of some sort of justice for many
  1070
  people who have been exploited by unions and wish to resign from them. I believe that this is a fundamental human right and that a man should be allowed to belong to a union, or not to belong to one if he does not wish to do so. At the same time, a particular individual must not be allowed to gain benefits which he would otherwise sacrifice by not paying his union subscriptions and allowing himself to be in a position from which he is benefiting by being on the backs of other workers.
  This would be entirely wrong and I appreciate why the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and others object to people who are known colloquially as free riders. As I say, there will be no free riders under this Bill. I wish to stress this. More and more we will find that those who opt out will be paying their dues. The Bill as framed, with the agency shop, will probably encourage many people to join unions when they might otherwise have decided to opt out.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On this question of people being able to opt to join or not to join a union, may I ask the hon. Gentleman how the Government propose to deal with the situation of the union which wishes to impose certain minimum conditions? The hon. Gentleman says that union discipline will not apply to the free rider. How can an agency shop work in a situation in which a large number of those seeking work—I am thinking particularly of the acting profession—are engaged for three or four weeks, sometimes less? How will the agency shop, or a union, in this position be able to maintain its standards?
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that this will work in the vast majority of cases, though I know the hon. Gentleman's particular interest in Equity. It may not apply in that one case and we will want to look into that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see that the position of Equity is debated in Committee, because I grant that there are special problems in that case. It is an unusual case. The hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that Equity is a comparatively small union taken in the context of trade unionism as a whole.
  All through the Bill the accent is on conciliation, and in practically every instance there will be a duty to try to

  1071
  get the parties together to resolve their differences before legal proceedings start. My right hon. Friend's Department will expand its conciliation service with extra appointments for a new class of case in which individuals will be concerned for the first time. If one looks at this properly, one can for the first time probably welcome an extension of the Civil Service because of the very fact that the conciliation service is to be expanded.
  But the success of the Measure once it becomes law, and I want to stress this very strongly, will not be judged by the number of appearances which are entered before the N.I.R.C. or tribunals. Rather will it be the reverse. Once the new law comes into operation and has been operating for some years, I can see the court aspect fading more and more into the background as better practices develop and as there is greater harmony throughout industry.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The strength of my hon. Friend's case so far is that he is apparently ready to look at the exceptions which may prove the rule. Is he prepared to look at the exceptional case put up by Equity?
  Mr. Smith: We are prepared to look at any exceptional case, and we have never said anything else. Unfortunately, the T.U.C. refused to talk to my right hon. Friend, but we are still at this stage, and until the Bill goes through Committee, prepared to have consultations with anyone with a valid case to put before us, and we look forward to discussing the Equity case. In this Bill we are trying to be eminently fair to everyone who will be affected by it. We wish to take them into our confidence. We wish them to bring forward their cases, and we shall look at them.
  Although legal questions are not for me I want to make one point on the legal angle. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn accused us of creating a lawyers' paradise, and I noticed that her hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) cheered at that point, although he is a lawyer.
  The allegation is being made that we are making it expensive and difficult for the average working man of modest means to take industrial legal action. That is not true. The essence of these Industrial
  1072
  Courts and Industrial Tribunals will be their informality. Certainly they will be backed by the full status of the law and the N.I.R.C. will have the full status of the High Court, but deliberate efforts will be made to put people at their ease and to exclude anything of the Old Bailey atmosphere. I stress again that this is civil law, not criminal law.
  Mr. John Fraser: In those circumstances, will legal aid be available?
  Mr. Smith: That is a matter which will have to be considered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say quite frankly that I do not know the answer to that question, but I will find out and tell the hon. Member. It will certainly have to be considered.
  As I was saying, deliberate efforts will be made to put people at their ease. Generally in civil cases the panoply of the law, even though there will not be the full criminal court procedure, can put people at a disadvantage, particularly if they are inexperienced and lonely individuals who have never been in court before. That is why the Industrial Courts will have full facilities for people coming before them to conduct their own cases or have it done for them by a trade unionist or a friend. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I was interested in the word "informality" within the new High Court, N.I.R.C. or whatever it is called. Can we have an assurance that the procedure will be as informal as the rest; that, for example, solicitors will be able to appear before it? Or will they be blocked by the barristers' closed shop? And will the barristers' closed shop, or agency shop or whatever it is by that time, itself be subject to destruction by the Bill?
  Mr. Smith: I am not concerned with the barristers' closed shop. The right hon. Gentleman should address that question to the legal luminaries of the House.
  The point I am trying to stress is that an individual can conduct his own case or have a trade unionist or a friend do it for him. The point is that he himself will not have to be well versed in the skills and arts of the barrister or even the solicitor, because he is not trying to wheedle a verdict out of a jury. He is trying to put his case, and he will be

  1073
  assisted by the chairman of the court, who will be a judge and who will become very well versed in assessing individual situations and assisting individual workers to put their cases.
  Mr. Rose rose—
  Mr. Smith: Time is pressing, and I must get on. I have given way a number of times. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would accuse me of not giving way.
  It cannot be stressed too often that the overwhelming advantage of these courts is that they will operate with complete impartiality in the best traditions of British justice. It will not be the Secretary of State of the day who will make the decisions or pull the strings.
  Mrs. Castle: If that is so, can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the terms for the composition of the court in the Bill are different from those of the existing Industrial Court? Why have the words been changed from the requirement that its members shall be representatives of employers and employees to the requirement that they be people with knowledge of and experience in industrial relations, at the choice of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Smith: Because we think that that is a better definition. I know what the right hon. Lady is getting at. She is trying to imply that the Government are rigging the court and putting in their own appointees. Can she tell me how many judges were appointed in the time of her right hon. Friend, and who appointed them? [Interruption.] The judges will be appointed by the court.
  Mrs. Castle: We get rather tired of not having our questions answered by the opening speaker, being told that they will be answered by the Minister winding up, and then having nothing but dodging. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was not talking about the judges but about the two panels, which in the Industrial Court consist of representatives of employers and of employees. Those panels are drawn up by the organisations concerned. Here we have an entirely new formula. There are two people chosen by the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor. Let us have some
  1074
  answers for a change. Why have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen gone away from the representative principle? Why are right hon. and hon. Members opposite rigging these courts?
  Mr. Smith: We are not wriggling on this at all. We think that this definition is the best one, and that the court and the tribunals will be representative. I think that when they are appointed the fairness will be seen. The object, as with the other legislation, is to have properly constituted courts and tribunals which can do the work properly and successfully. If there is an objection to any individual, people who will be more acceptable can undoubtedly be introduced.
  The right hon. Lady referred in her speech to the tragedy of the Bill. The only tragedies we have had in connection with industrial relations were the two non-Acts of the last Government, the one which was brought forward with great posturing by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that it would be the final stand on industrial relations, and then the volte-face of June, 1969, and that minuscule, emasculated Bill which was introduced but never saw the light of day and was not debated because of the General Election.
  The right hon. Lady cannot kid the country, because she has forfeited her right to speak on this subject. She is utterly discredited on industrial relations legislation. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise on either side of the House does not contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Lady knows that better than anybody else. I sympathise with her, because I believe that she was taking the right line when she stood firm when the proposal was first introduced. But anything that hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench say on this matter must always be seen in the light of their proposed legislation, from which they ran away.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is obviously not going to give way.
  Mr. Smith: The test of the Bill lies in three questions—Is it fair? Is it necessary? Is it workable? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I expect that there would

  1075
  be a cry of dissent from the Labour Party opposite—but the answer to all three questions is a resounding "Yes".
  First, is the Bill necessary? I should have thought that, after the recital of all those depressing figures that we have had from my right hon. Friend in the previous debate and on other occasions about the number of strikes in this country, there could be no doubt in anybody's mind that the Bill was vitally necessary. Anyone other than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that in this country industrial relations are in a chaotic mess and must be modernised and improved. They must be given a chance to work properly.
  Is this legislation fair? Yes, it is. It is eminently fair, because it offers an enormous challenge to all those associated with it. It is a fair Bill. It is also a hard and tough Bill, but it is not a hard and tough Bill to the individual trade unionist who responds to his responsibilities. It is a hard and tough Bill to the wildcat strike leader and the Communist agitator. The Bill brings forward nothing but goodwill for the men who populate the trade unions in their thousands, who are responsible trade unionists and who will look to and respond to a lead.
  The third of the most pertinent questions is: is the Bill workable? I believe that it is, because it establishes an interlocking framework of law which, once it begins to work, will be seen by those who are active in industry to be worth using. We do not expect miracles; we do not expect attitudes to change overnight, but we believe, even though the bad strike record will not be cured in a matter of months, that it will gradually begin to make its influence felt and that more and more trade unionists will appreciate it.
  I believe that the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress have sadly misjudged this programme. The Bill will strengthen trade unions; it will not weaken them. It will give unparalled opportunities for increasing their membership—[Laughter.] Yes, it will, and it will provide them with a far greater influence than they have had before. The Bill gives
  1076
  a great deal to trade unionism. All it asks in return is one thing—the one thing that the public asks as well—responsibility.
  We have to get away from the traditional, out-dated war that we have had, where one extreme says, "We must extort everything we can from the boss and what he represents", to the other extreme, which says, "You can't trust the workers because the majority of them are Communists." These extreme views are ruining and poisoning industrial relations. That situation can be overcome only by modern, sophisticated and professional unions, and enlightened and progressive employers.
  The right hon. Lady was right to make great play, a few months ago, with the statement that power has passed to the shop floor. It has, but in many cases responsibility has not passed with it. We believe that our proposals will make it possible for responsibility to return to industry and will prevent this country from becoming increasingly vulnerable to the large number of strikes that take place.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means, on the Air Corporations Bill and on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Prime Minister.]

  AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WEST MIDLANDS)
  Resolved,
  That the West Midlands (Amendment) Order, 1970, dated 19th November, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.—[Mr. Michael Heseltine.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY] (No. 2)
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the making permanent of Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964, being expenses which, under any Act, are to be paid out of moneys so provided.— [Mr. Carlisle.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Lords Amendment considered.
Clause 1

  ENACTMENTS CONTINUED IN FORCE
  Lord Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 11, leave out from "shall" to end of line 12 and insert:
  "become permanent; and accordingly—

  (a) section 131 of that Act; and

  (b) in Schedule 11 to that Act the words ' by the expiry of Part VII of this Act',

  are hereby repealed."
  10.3 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
  This Amendment was moved in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, the previous Lord Chancellor, and was accepted by the Government. The purpose of the Amendment is to make permanent that part of the Licensing Act, 1964 which at the moment has to be continued in force each year by
  1078
  means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  This Bill has been steadily whittled away over the years as more and more of those matters which have to be renewed annually either took permanent legislative form or ceased to be in existence. At present there are only three Acts which have to be re-enacted each year, namely Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, parts of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 and Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has intimated, it is his intention to bring to the House during this present Session comprehensive permanent legislation to replace the existing Immigrants Act and if that new and comprehensive Measure reaches the Statute Book before the end of this year, it will mean that the only Act left to be dealt with by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964. That was the part of the Licensing Act which set up the licensing planning procedure to ensure co-ordination of the functions of licensing justices and local planning authorities over the redistribution of on-licence premises.
  It was forcibly pointed out by the previous Lord Chancellor that it would seem to be somewhat unnecessary to continue the annual renewal of one Act which would require each year an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for the purpose of continuing it in force. The effect of these Amendments is to convert that piece of legislation into permanent legislation. The word "permanent" may to some extent be a misnomer, since the House knows that on 8th December this year my right hon. Friend announced the setting up of a review of the licensing liquor laws in England and Wales under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll. Among the matters which that Committee will look at will obviously be the continuance in force of Part VII of the Licensing Act, 1964.
  Therefore, the effect of this Amendment to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will be that present procedure so far as licensing planning authorities are concerned will remain permanently in force until any comprehensive licensing legislation is brought forward to the House as a result of the review which my right

  1079
  hon. Friend has recently announced. I hope that the House will agree to support the Lords in their Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): I should remind the House that as the House is willing to waive its privileges, I shall see that an entry is made in the Journal to that effect.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman has explained the decline in the parts of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill over the years. Soon there is to be an Immigration Act which will deal with the temporary legislation that affects aliens and also certain parts of the rules concerning Commonwealth citizens. We come only to the Licensing Act, about which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in another place, when discussing this matter, said that the " enemy "—a curious word, but I have no doubt it has a legal meaning attached to it—was the Home Office. The former Lord Chancellor has been more successful in opposition than he seems to have been in Government on this point. His Amendments have been accepted and the licensing laws are to be altered. The argument of the Home Office no longer applies, namely that we await a change in the licensing laws which itself may be more difficult than it might appear to anyone outside this House. However, this is a good idea and we on this side support it.
  Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

  SECONDARY EDUCATION, SADDLEWORTH
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill]
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. David Clark: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the issue of secondary education in the Saddleworth area. I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is here to answer in person.
  I raise the issue for two reasons. The first is that I am especially interested in education, having taught in a primary school, technical college and university. I wish also to represent the feeling of
  1080
  disquiet in the Saddleworth area about secondary education.
  To understand the problem one has to appreciate the geography of the situation in that Saddleworth, although in the West Riding, juts completely into the Greater Manchester area. It is cut off almost entirely from the rest of the West Riding by the Pennine Ridge, which in itself raises difficulties.
  The present structure is that the area is organised under a district subcommittee. It has a number of first-class primary schools, although it is fair to say that probably an increasing number of children also receive education over the boundary in Oldham. In addition, there is a secondary modern school which has grown rapidly over the past few years and today has a six-form entry. It is a very good school which has had great success in terms of young people staying on and then getting further education in the comprehensive school "Over the Top". That is the present situation.
  The present distress is caused by the system of selection and the results that follow. There is a strong demand in the area for comprehensive education. I realise that one cannot have it overnight and that it has to be developed. But what is worrying is that the local district sub-committee is asking for comprehensive education, the local governors of the secondary school have asked for it on two occasions, the local teachers' union asks for it, and all three political parties in the area support the concept of comprehensive education.
  One might ask, what is the difficulty? It is that the West Riding County Council seems vague in the extreme about it. I have written to the County Council on two occasions asking it to state in writing whether it is its policy for the Saddleworth area to go comprehensive. I have not yet had an answer. My last letter of 18th November remains unanswered.
  The situation is causing a great deal of disquiet. Saddleworth is an area which is ideal for comprehensive education in the sense that it is a geographical entity, it is an area where there is a close community spirit and where there is a mixed social group. Perhaps most important, there are also enough students to make the system viable.

  1081
  The figures which I use to support my argument are my own. The right hon. Lady will appreciate that I have experienced some difficulty in getting official figures from the West Riding. I have been obliged to glean them from newspapers and from the answers to questions that I have asked the right hon. Lady.
  According to my information, the secondary modern school has 636 pupils at present. In addition, 135 pupils attend the comprehensive school over in the Colne Valley. It may be worth mentioning that these 135 pupils have been subjected to a form of selection in that they have had to pass the equivalent of the 11-plus, the Thorne scheme, to attend a school which is comprehensive in nature and which all pupils living in the Colne Valley go to as of right. This causes bad feeling in the Saddleworth area.
  Apart from those children of secondary school age in the district, a number are selected and receive selective secondary education outside the district. Most of them go to the Hulme Grammar School in Oldham. A small number go to William Hulme's Grammar School in Manchester, with others attending Manchester Grammar School and a few going to religious grammar schools in the area. My estimate is that the total number would be in the region of 45 or 50 each year.
  It follows, according to my figures, that out of 210 pupils who attend the Saddleworth primary schools each year—and the figure increases all the time—there are an additional 20 to 30 whose parents live in the Saddleworth area but who go to school in the Oldham area. In addition, 40 or 50 of the 210 receive selective education. In fact, this figure of 20 per cent. or thereabouts is probably a little high because the Director of Education has stated that the children who attend primary schools outside the district do better proportionately under the Thorne scheme than those from within the Saddleworth Urban District.
  What worries me and the residents of Saddleworth in particular is the question of whether West Riding Education Committee will inform us if the number 40 or 50 attending selective education is to remain static. Has it remained static? The feeling is that it has, and it is therefore becoming increasingly difficult for the children of the area to get a selective education. I have a case this year of a
  1082
  boy who passed the entrance examination to the William Hulme Grammar School, Hulme Grammar School, and Part One of Manchester Grammer School, yet the West Riding authority does not consider this boy suitable for secondary education. Are these direct-grant grammar schools not up to the required standard or is West Riding cutting down to such an extent that these children, who could benefit from a secondary selective education, are not getting it?
  I have taken up a number of other instances of children who, in the past, have gained entrance to direct-grant grammar schools. They have perhaps come from another district into the Saddleworth area, but West Riding refuses to give them West Riding places. Yet these children in the direct-grant grammar schools are placed above the children in West Riding places. This suggests that the process of selection in West Riding is not as accurate as it might be.
  The problem is becoming more acute because Saddleworth is an expanding area. The right hon. Lady kindly provided me a few days ago with figures which show that, in 1963, there were 1,125 pupils in the primary schools whereas in January, 1970, that figure had increased to 1,667. It is a fair bet that the figure is now above 1,700. In addition, an increasing number of pupils are attending schools in the Oldham area. The trend is evident from the experience of the past seven years and it is likely that the situation will get worse.
  The local authority estimates that there will be another 1,200 new houses on new housing estates in the area, and one can hazard a guess that this will increase still further the number of pupils. Experience suggests that new housing estates tend to have a larger proportion of children of primary school age to start with than other areas. It is, therefore, fair to say that the pressure on the primary schools will increase even further.
  The trouble is that the local people feel that Saddleworth has suffered already from rather inaccurate estimates in education. I feel that even now the estimates being made by West Riding are under-estimates. I think that if we checked the figures for this autumn we should find that the original estimate was too low compared with the actual numbers.

  1083
  At the secondary level, the school now has 630 pupils and by the mid-1970s, by my estimate, will probably have about 1,200. Are we then to be limited to the 40 or 50 places at the direct-grant schools? Colne Valley High School obviously has a restricted number which it can take. It is expanding and with the raising of the school leaving age the problem will become even more acute, and obviously it cannot take an increased number.
  When I asked the right hon. Lady on 19th November about this, her colleague replied that he could not give me certain information about the percentage of children who were successful under the Thorne Scheme for the past few years. I was most surprised at this, because the hon. Gentleman said that he could not give information because he had not collected it. Yet he gave me identical information on 23rd July for the next educational district, which shows a very good result for the West Riding, a very good return and a very happy situation.
  Of course, when the local people see this, and compare the two, and see the Minister is not able to provide the answer, they obviously fear the worst and they start saying, "Ah, the West Riding has a bad record here, because they cannot tell us." I feel very strongly, and the local people feel very strongly, about this. They pay the rates, and they are interested in the future of their children, and that is something which I am sure the right hon. Lady welcomes as much as I do. They feel that they should know.
  Perhaps all along the trouble has been that Wakefield is so far away, 30 or 40 miles away, and there is this problem of geography, and public relations are bad. For example, until I raised the matter with the West Riding, the heads of schools in Oldham which send children to secondary schools in Saddleworth under the Thorne Scheme were not consulted until October this year. It seems to me one example of the lack of public relations, which we are finding with the West Riding.
  I started by saying that one has to understand the geography, and one has to understand the geography because the Maud Report on local government sug-
  1084
  gested that Saddleworth should go with Greater Manchester. A lot of the services in the district come from Greater Manchester, and the local rumour, although unfortunate, is, "The West Riding thinks Saddleworth is going to go to Greater Manchester, so it is not going to lose some of its precious allocation in providing schools from which it will get no benefit". This is the local rumour. It is probably wrong, but things like that have got to be scotched. I am interested in education in that area. So are the parents. I am sure that the West Riding education authority is, but the whole system of communications has broken down. I cannot get replies from anybody. I am not able, except with great difficulty, to see anyone with authority in the West Riding, and I know from the complaints I have had from parents that the problems are there, and for them they are even worse.
  So these are the questions which I should like the right hon. Lady to try to answer tonight. They are simply, are we to get an increase in the direct grant school places? Are we to get a comprehensive school in the Saddleworth area? Thirdly, can she do anything at all to persuade the West Riding to try to do something to get across to the parents in the Saddleworth area that it is doing good work and has got the places?
  10.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) made it clear that he raised this matter because he was dissatisfied with the reply given to his Question on 19th November. At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his obvious concern with secondary education—indeed, with all education—in his constituency. At the same time I must record my view that the best possible advice was offered to the hon. Gentleman, for reasons which I shall explain, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when, on 19th November, in reply to a supplementary question, he suggested that the hon. Member might like to contact or discuss the situation with the West Riding local education authority.
  The hon. Gentleman then wanted to know how many children in Saddleworth

  1085
  were awarded selective places in each of the last five years, and he has raised this matter again tonight. I can quite understand why parents in the area are worried about it. Arrangements for the allocation of pupils to different kinds of school are a matter within the competence of the local education authority. Therefore, detailed questions about these arrangements and the result of them are usually most usefully directed towards the local education authority concerned, subject only to an appeal by an individual parent under Section 68 of the Education Act, 1944, which comes to me. Statistics about particular districts are not collected by my Department, and hon. Members who wish to obtain this kind of information are likely to be best served by direct consultation with the authority concerned. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that he has had considerable correspondence with the local education authority.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had on 23rd July asked a similar Question about another part of his constituency, the Upper Agbrigg division, and my hon. Friend was able to answer it in detail. This was because the local education authority had made the information available, and I can therefore understand that the hon. Gentleman may have been surprised that similar information was not forthcoming about Saddleworth.
  The authority has recently confirmed that it is not its practice to give this kind of information publicly for any area. Its view and experience are that unfair comparisons might be made between local primary schools as well as between different parts of the Riding. Moreover, the groups of children are often very small, and this might give rise to considerable variations between one year and another. If the hon. Gentleman asks me why, in these circumstances, the authority provided information in the case of Upper Agbrigg, I cannot give him a precise answer, especially as the authority's policy, as I have outlined it, has operated for a considerable time. It may be not that it was unusual not to get information about Saddleworth but that it was unusual to get information about Agbrigg, or any other part of the area.
  The point I wish to emphasise, however, is that, although the authority
  1086
  declined to make the information available in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 19th November, the authority told me that it would be pleased to discuss the matter with him either at county or at divisional level. The authority could then explain the nature and limitations of the statistics it keeps and the qualifications it would place upon them, not only in the context of Saddleworth but in relation to the county as a whole. It was for this reason that my hon. Friend suggested that the most profitable course to pursue was for the hon. Member to contact the authority, and I am still convinced that this is true.
  I ask the House to recognise that the statistics of individual Departments, including my own, are already very substantial and very costly. Whenever detailed statistics about local authority provision are required it is reasonable that hon. Members should, as far as possible, refer to the local authorities concerned. I have in mind instances where the Department does not itself possess the information and where the local authority concerned has to be approached in any event.
  The statistics which the hon. Gentleman wanted fall into this group. They are not statistics which the Department collects or, as a matter of normal procedure, would be likely to collect. The hon. Member has been in the education service for a long time and appreciates that I have no power to compel an authority to divulge this kind of information, and whenever a particular authority tells me that it will gladly discuss the question with an hon. Member, I cannot conclude that unreasonable attitudes are being adopted.
  Mr. David Clark: The difficulty is that I have had considerable correspondence on this matter with the West Riding and I have got absolutely nowhere. I sent a letter dated 18th November—the day before I asked the Question in the House—to which I have had no reply. I think that I should have had a reply in the time which has elapsed since then, and if the West Riding had wanted to discuss the matter or to give me information in confidence, the authority could have said so in reply to my letter. This is why I brought the matter to the House. I was getting no satisfaction in the area, nor were the local people.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman if I inquired directly from the authority whether it has made an appointment to see the hon. Gentleman about this matter. Therefore, I hope that we might be able to secure an interview for him fairly soon in the future. I am sure that they will be co-operative and informative on the matters which rightly preoccupy him.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised one or two general points about secondary education provision at Saddleworth. As he knows, the situation is a little unusual in that the only secondary school for the area is a secondary modern school—a very good one, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Therefore, all the pupils who successfully apply for places in a selective school have to go outside the area, either to the Hulme direct-grant grammar schools in Oldham, or to the Colne Valley High School, which he also mentioned, in the neighbouring Upper Agbrigg Division. Further, Roman Catholic pupils from the area will usually pass their entire school life in Lancashire.
  The hon. Gentleman pointed out the geography of the situation, on which at least we can agree. Saddleworth, although in Yorkshire, is on the western side of the Pennines and, as the hon. Gentleman knows far better than I, looks more naturally towards Lancashire than towards Yorkshire.
  The number of secondary school pupils in the Saddleworth area, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is rising, and the local education authority is asking for a major extension of the Saddleworth county secondary school. A reorganisation plan for the area was approved in principle in 1966 and if, in due course, proposals were approved under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944, and the building extensions were to be authorised, a new situation would emerge. This extension to the Saddleworth school failed to secure a place in the design list for the 1972–73
  1088
  starts programme, because a number of other claims had higher priority, but I understand that the authority is likely to re-submit the proposal for the preliminary list for the starts programme in 1973–74, and I shall, of course, consider any proposal very carefully.
  I have been looking to the future, but I recognise that the hon. Member is concerned with the past and the present. I can tell him, because the authority has informed me, that the number of selective places offered to children in Saddleworth during the last five years has remained reasonably constant. His point, however, is that secondary numbers in Saddleworth are rising, as he knows from the Answer which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave to his Question on 2nd December. There has, however, been considerable fluctuation in the last five years in the total numbers.
  Therefore, I must go back to where I began by urging the hon. Member to take up the authority's offer of a discussion with him as the most fruitful way of pursuing the question in detail. I will give the hon. Gentleman all the help in that direction which we can offer.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the satisfaction of knowing that I shall consider very carefully, in the light of all that has been said in this debate, any proposals for Saddleworth which the authority may submit to be. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that all hon. Members are concerned for the education of children in their areas. I know that explanations do not always help, but I hope that both he and the parents will appreciate that we have the interests of their children very much at heart and will do everything we can to assist him in getting the information he wants through discussion with the authority.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WALES
  General Medical Practitioners
  General Medical Practitioners
  Mid-Wales (Development)
  Mid-Wales (Development)
  Additional New Jobs
  Additional New Jobs
  Unadopted Roads
  Unadopted Roads
  Amenities
  Amenities
  Paediatrician Consultants
  Paediatrician Consultants
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Owner-Occupiers (Compensation)
  Owner-Occupiers (Compensation)
  Comprehensive School, Ferndale
  Comprehensive School, Ferndale
  Hospital Reorganisation, Glamorgan
  Hospital Reorganisation, Glamorgan
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  South Caernarvonshire and Lleyn Peninsula (Official Visit)
  South Caernarvonshire and Lleyn Peninsula (Official Visit)
  Hospital Service, Pembrokeshire
  Hospital Service, Pembrokeshire
  R.A.F. Station, Pembrey (Representations)
  R.A.F. Station, Pembrey (Representations)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Glamorgan (Dentists)
  Glamorgan (Dentists)
  Schoolchildren (Dental Examination)
  Schoolchildren (Dental Examination)
  Mid-Wales
  Mid-Wales
  Welsh Language Publications (Grants)
  Welsh Language Publications (Grants)
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  Dee Estuary
  Dee Estuary
  Central Flintshire Water Board (Public Inquiry)
  Central Flintshire Water Board (Public Inquiry)
  Children's Hospital, East Flintshire
  Children's Hospital, East Flintshire
  Paediatricians, Flintshire
  Paediatricians, Flintshire
  Milk, East Flintshire
  Milk, East Flintshire
  Ysgol Cymraeg and St. Winifreds School, Holywell
  Ysgol Cymraeg and St. Winifreds School, Holywell
  Talking Newspaper Experiment
  Talking Newspaper Experiment
  Water Development Authority
  Water Development Authority
  Investment Incentives (Welsh Council's Report)
  Investment Incentives (Welsh Council's Report)
  Local Government Organisation
  Local Government Organisation
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  European Space Research Organisation
  European Space Research Organisation
  Local Radio Facilities, Bradford
  Local Radio Facilities, Bradford
  Telephone Kiosks, Scotland
  Telephone Kiosks, Scotland
  Post Office (Manufacture of Equipment)
  Post Office (Manufacture of Equipment)
  Ipswich (Radio Reception)
  Ipswich (Radio Reception)
  Local Radio Stations
  Local Radio Stations
  Television Transmission, Wales
  Television Transmission, Wales
  Television (Dual-Standard Sets)
  Television (Dual-Standard Sets)
  Postal Buses
  Postal Buses
  Staff Pay
  Staff Pay
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling, Wales
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling, Wales
  Post Office Board (Chairman)
  Post Office Board (Chairman)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Development Areas (Scotland)
  Development Areas (Scotland)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Industrial Mergers and Reconstruction
  Industrial Mergers and Reconstruction
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Shipbuilding and Ship-repair Industries
  Shipbuilding and Ship-repair Industries
  Wedding Photographs
  Wedding Photographs
  European Nuclear Energy Organisations
  European Nuclear Energy Organisations
  North-East (Research and Development Contracts)
  North-East (Research and Development Contracts)
  Electricity Sales
  Electricity Sales
  No. 2 Prototype Fast-breeder Reactor, Dounreay
  No. 2 Prototype Fast-breeder Reactor, Dounreay
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Advertising)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Advertising)
  Smokeless Fuel Plant, Gower
  Smokeless Fuel Plant, Gower
  Mensforth Committee's Report
  Mensforth Committee's Report
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  New Factories (Scotland)
  New Factories (Scotland)
  Industry (Wales)
  Industry (Wales)
  Candles
  Candles
  Licensed Trade (Tied-house System)
  Licensed Trade (Tied-house System)
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Wool Textile Trade
  Wool Textile Trade
  Beagle Aircraft Company Limited
  Beagle Aircraft Company Limited
  Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969
  Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act, 1969
  Glove Manufacturers
  Glove Manufacturers
  Blaydon
  Blaydon
  Jarrow
  Jarrow
  London Airport (Noise Tests)
  London Airport (Noise Tests)
  Holiday Brochures
  Holiday Brochures
  Mail Order Firms
  Mail Order Firms
  Banking in Wales
  Banking in Wales
  Caernarvonshire (Attraction of Industry)
  Caernarvonshire (Attraction of Industry)
  Air Fares (Consumer Representation)
  Air Fares (Consumer Representation)
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Turnhouse Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
  Investment Incentives (Survey)
  Investment Incentives (Survey)
  Central Heating Firms (Consumer Protection)
  Central Heating Firms (Consumer Protection)
  Welsh Development Area (Manufacturing Firms)
  Welsh Development Area (Manufacturing Firms)
  Consumer Credit (Crowther Committee)
  Consumer Credit (Crowther Committee)
  Consumer Consultative Organisations
  Consumer Consultative Organisations
  Weights and Measures Act, 1963 (Sherry and Other Wines)
  Weights and Measures Act, 1963 (Sherry and Other Wines)
  Hotels, Restaurants and Camping Sites (Complaints Procedure)
  Hotels, Restaurants and Camping Sites (Complaints Procedure)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
  Consumer Council
  Consumer Council
  Minister (Constituency Private Secretary)
  Minister (Constituency Private Secretary)
  Winterthur Silks Ltd., Dunfermline (Factory Closure)
  Winterthur Silks Ltd., Dunfermline (Factory Closure)
  Industrial Sites, Wales (Publicity)
  Industrial Sites, Wales (Publicity)
  Power Cuts
  Power Cuts
  Low-cost Automation Centres
  Low-cost Automation Centres
  Ministry of Technology Regional Offices
  Ministry of Technology Regional Offices
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  National Computing Centre
  National Computing Centre
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Ghana (Debts)
  Ghana (Debts)
  South-West Africa (Status)
  South-West Africa (Status)
  Nagaland
  Nagaland
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Contributions)
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Contributions)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Mrs. Gladys Yang
  Mrs. Gladys Yang
  United Nations (Guinea)
  United Nations (Guinea)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EMPLOYMENT
  Regional Employment Premium, Wales
  Regional Employment Premium, Wales
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Factory, Dunfermline (Closure)
  Factory, Dunfermline (Closure)
  Disabled Living Foundation
  Disabled Living Foundation
  Redundancy Payments, Wales
  Redundancy Payments, Wales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industrial Dispute (Repayments of Income Tax)
  Industrial Dispute (Repayments of Income Tax)
  Industry (Output)
  Industry (Output)
  Capital Gains
  Capital Gains
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Gaming Machines
  Gaming Machines
  O.E.C.D. Secretary-General (Request)
  O.E.C.D. Secretary-General (Request)
DEFENCE
  B.A.O.R. (Television Programmes)
  B.A.O.R. (Television Programmes)
  British Battalion Group (Far East)
  British Battalion Group (Far East)
ENVIRONMENT
  Office Employment, Northern Region
  Office Employment, Northern Region
  Regional Policy (Review)
  Regional Policy (Review)
  Birmingham (Overspill)
  Birmingham (Overspill)
  Cleveland (Road Improvements)
  Cleveland (Road Improvements)
  Rate Support Grant, Neath
  Rate Support Grant, Neath
  Disabled Persons (Aid)
  Disabled Persons (Aid)
  Druridge Bay, Northumberland (Removal of Sand)
  Druridge Bay, Northumberland (Removal of Sand)
  Motorways (Roadworks)
  Motorways (Roadworks)
  A1 Bypass, Gosforth
  A1 Bypass, Gosforth
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Heavy Road Vehicles
  Heavy Road Vehicles
  Parliamentary Building (Architectural Competition)
  Parliamentary Building (Architectural Competition)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Co-ordination
  Aid Co-ordination
  AVIATION (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  AVIATION (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS, SURREY DOCKS
  AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS, SURREY DOCKS
  RESEARCH DEPARTMENTS AND NATURE CONSERVANCY
  RESEARCH DEPARTMENTS AND NATURE CONSERVANCY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Annual Price Review (Metric Measurements)
  Annual Price Review (Metric Measurements)
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Beer (Prices)
  Beer (Prices)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Opera (Grant Support)
  Opera (Grant Support)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Primary Schools, Westmorland
  Primary Schools, Westmorland
  School Milk (Doctor's Certificate)
  School Milk (Doctor's Certificate)
  Unqualified Teachers (Terminal Payments)
  Unqualified Teachers (Terminal Payments)
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Medresco Hearing Aids
  Medresco Hearing Aids
  Autistic, Psychotic and Brain-Injured Adolescents
  Autistic, Psychotic and Brain-Injured Adolescents
CIVIL SERVICE
  Northern Ireland (Government Employment)
  Northern Ireland (Government Employment)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Bill
  Immigration Bill
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Live Foetuses (Allegations)
  Live Foetuses (Allegations)
  Hospitals (Policy)
  Hospitals (Policy)
  National Heart Hospital and Brompton Hospital
  National Heart Hospital and Brompton Hospital
  Lip-reading Teachers
  Lip-reading Teachers
  Chester Hospitals (Paediatric Consultants)
  Chester Hospitals (Paediatric Consultants)

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN: STATE OF EMERGENCY
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to deliver to your Lordships a Message, signed with her own hand, respecting the Declaration of a State of Emergency. The Message is as follows:
"The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community or any substantial part of the community of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may by Proclamation declare that a State of Emergency exists.
"The present industrial dispute affecting persons employed in the electricity supply industry having, in Her Majesty's opinion constituted a State of Emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended, Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 12th day of December, 1970, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920 as so amended, to declare that a State of Emergency exists."
My Lords, that concludes the gracious Message. Although perhaps this is not the usual moment, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on the electricity industry supply dispute at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m.

SPACE RESEARCH: BRITAIN AND THE POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME
2.38 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been done since the abortive conference of Ministers in Brussels on November 4 to ensure effective participation by the United Kingdom in the negotiations between European Governments and NASA on collaboration on the post-Apollo space programme.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the United Kingdom took part in the meeting of member States of the European Space Conference held in Brussels on November 20 to consider further points to be examined with the American authorities in relation to possible participation in the post-Apollo programme.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that there is an impression that the earlier conference—the conference of November 4—might have proved more successful if there had been greater preparation given to it? Further, can he give an assurance that discussions on this subject will continue as appropriate at an official level, until the time appears appropriate for a further ministerial gathering?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there may have been reports to the effect that there was inadequate preparation, but of course after the first stage of the ministerial conference in Brussels in July there was the mission led by M. Lefevre, of which my noble friend Lord Bessborough was a member, and a good deal of inter-Governmental discussion before the second stage in Brussels in early November. I can of course give the noble Lord the assurance that discussions between officials are continuing.

SPACE SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENTS
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for direct discussions with the United States authorities on future collaboration on space shuttle developments.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the question does not at present arise as the United Kingdom is considering with its European partners the nature of the further discussions which will be held with the United States authorities.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I should he grateful if the noble Earl could assure us, in this connection, that the amount of money which has already been and is being invested in joint Anglo-American space work will be taken into account, with a view to seeing that there is no lack of Governmental interest in the subject which might tend to render the efforts already made less valuable than they would otherwise be.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords, I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I can also inform him of something of which I am sure he is perfectly well aware: that direct discussions are being held on both sides of the Atlantic between British and American industrial concerns.

AIRCRAFT HIJACKING AND EXTRADITION
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose the inclusion of hijacking offences amongst the crimes for which a person may be extradited.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lord, the draft Convention on the Unlawful
1164
Seizure of Aircraft, which is now being considered by the Diplomatic Conference at The Hague, provides in its present form that contracting States shall treat hijacking as an extraditable offence both in existing and in future extradition treaties, and shall recognise for extradition purposes the jurisdiction of the state of registry of the aircraft and of every State in which the aircraft lands with (he hijacker on board. Her Majesty's Government strongly support the draft Convention and attach great importance to ensuring that, wherever possible, hijackers are brought to justice and punished for their crimes.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the reply which he has given?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider that, while it is most necessary to punish hijackers, it is also necessary that people should not be prevented from leaving States where they may be very seriously punished for purely political purposes, and, therefore, any political penalty which they may suffer from being sent back should also be considered?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a subject on which there is common agreement that there is a need for greater powers to deal with people who have hijacked aircraft, placing the safety of passengers at risk. One would feel that international action should be concerted, and it is for that reason that the Conference at The Hague is taking place at the present moment.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what point the proposed Convention has now reached?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the plenary session of the Conference starts to-day. The working groups have completed their work; they have reported, and the plenary session is now taking place.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would the noble Lord please answer the question I asked him: whether the fact will be taken into consideration that some of these people, if they are sent back, will suffer much heavier penalties for political reasons than they would for the mere hijacking?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that really arises out of what I said. The law is likely to be reviewed and changed when we have signed the Convention. The consequences of that Convention will then be presented to Parliament, and legislative changes will probably be necessary. The sort of question the noble Viscount has put will be relevant at that moment.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, when considering that particular question, will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration the fact that murderers and assassins are using the subterfuge that this is a political move; and will the noble Lord see to it that it will not become a move by which extradition is excluded?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords; comments of that type must certainly be taken into account.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE
2.44 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 it is their intention to institute a public inquiry into the claim for increased wage rates by workpeople in the electricity supply industry.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to await the Statement which, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has already announced, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will not object if I ask him one or two supplementary questions in order to clarify the issue in advance. Has it occurred to the noble Earl that the Goverment might have ordered a public inquiry early last week, and thus saved the public a great deal of inconvenience and hardship? Is he aware that the Government have said frequently in the past, at the General Election and subsequently, that they would not intervene in an industrial dispute, yet in the last 24 or 48 hours they have intervened? Is he further aware
1166
that the terms of reference which have apparently now been agreed, and the fact that the men have agreed to resume normal working, reflect no credit on the Government whatever, and that the workers—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SHINWELL: I am asking a supplementary question. Am I out of order?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD SHINWELL: You had better wait until you hear what I have to say and decide afterwards. I ask my final question: whether the noble Earl is aware, as regards the discussion and controversy about the terms of reference, introducing the matter of the national interest, that the workers of this country, including the electricians, are as much concerned about the national interest as any member of the Tory Cabinet?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has not been very long in your Lordships' House, but it is the normal custom here that when a Question is being answered by a Statement supplementaries are not put until the Statement is made.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl should not object if I have shown some intelligent anticipation. Is that an innovation in this House? If it is, I am glad to have initiated it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think it is an innovation when the questions really become a minor speech.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government are aware that questions such as the noble Lord has been seeking to ask would be out of order in the House of Commons also, where the noble Lord served a very long apprenticeship and might have learnt that lesson?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not seek to defend my noble friend—he certainly does not need defence—but my noble friend put a Question down on the Order Paper and the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, decided to answer it this way. In fact, even though a Statement is anticipated, the Question

1167
could still have been answered factually; but the Government decided not to do it that way. But as I understand it my noble friend was perfectly entitled to put those supplementaries to the Government
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is certainly a new interpretation of what is usually done. I am not saying that on occasions such as this we are bound strictly by rules of order, but this is not what is usually done in this House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that any defects in the procedure of the other place should not be repeated in this more flexible Assembly?

POLLUTION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
2.48 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion introduced on Wednesday last by Lord Molson: That there be laid before the House Papers relating to The Fight against Pollution (Cmnd. 4373).
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Molson on initiating this debate on the prevention of pollution; and I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Sand-ford on the very helpful, comprehensive statement of Government action which he gave us during that debate. We were slightly handicapped by the darkened conditions of the Chamber, but nevertheless the debate had some illuminating and, I would say, enlightening and valuable speeches, especially the maiden speeches from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lords, Lord Burntwood and Lord Selsdon, and I should like to add my congratulations to those that others have expressed to them.
My Lords, Lord Molson's first priority in the campaign against pollution was the campaign to prevent the pollution of rivers, first, because he saw this as an enhancement of amenity and recreation, and secondly because he saw this in connection with water supply. We need to double our water supply by the end of the century, and he saw this as the best way of doing it. He saw the more extensive purification of our rivers, which
1168
would make the re-use of the water possible by successive water undertakings, as a way to provide the extra supply needed to meet the extra demand.
My noble friend then referred to the hostile feelings about building new reservoirs, as expressed by three Private Bills being rejected either here or in the other place during the past year, as evidence of the general unpopularity of building reservoirs; and therefore the reuse of water would be a better alternative. Let me say immediately that with his characteristic perspicacity my noble friend has hit upon a very good point. The re-use of water can make a most valuable contribution, not only to amenities but also to the extra water supplies that we need; but it is not the whole story and in the few remarks that I want to make, I should like to carry that argument a little further.
Several rivers in this country already conform to the sort of standards to which my noble friend referred; notably, the Thames, the Lea, the Essex rivers, the Great Ouse and the River Severn. All of these have a high enough standard of quality due to the treatment of effluent so that the water undertakers can abstract water from the rivers successively and continue to use it for human consumption. The Thames, to which my noble friend particularly referred, is the prototype, because it has been developed for over 100 years for this purpose and manages to absorb some 240 million gallons a day of effluent, either from the local authorities or from industry. Nevertheless the Metropolitan Water Board intake is still in a good condition so that the Metropolitan Water Board can finally purify the water and make it fit for Londoners to drink. Two-thirds of Londoners' water comes from the Thames. I am glad to say in passing that the damage that the rivers suffered due to the recent strike of industrial workers in the sewage works has now been completely cleared up. The heavy rains of last month have flushed out the rivers and the quality of the water is back to normal standard. I am sorry to say that the fish stocks in the upper part of the river will take some years to recover.
Over the rest of the country, a number of other rivers could be brought up to these standards. We have talked a great deal about the River Trent where there

1169
is a great scheme for this purpose; that is to say, by improved purification processes in the sewage works the effluent could be brought up to a high standard so that the water could be used by the water undertakers and then re-used lower down. This can make, and will make, a substantial contribution to water supplies. At the same time, on the theme of my noble friend's Motion, it will enhance amenity, which is something we all want, and will bring the fisheries back to a high standard. In passing, I may say, as we tend rather to concentrate our attention on to the black sheep of the rivers, that in what is a very imperfect world nevertheless this country leads the world in the prevention of pollution in our rivers. That is some modest consolation to us as we focus our minds on the difficult points.
But more than prevention of pollution will be needed. Even to maintain the existing water quality in our rivers over the next thirty years will involve a very formidable programme of new sewage works construction. It is obvious that as water consumption doubles, so will effluent discharge double; and this means that the existing plant of sewage works will have to be doubled over the next thirty years. That alone would be a formidable undertaking; but when you have doubled the volume of effluent you have halved the rate of dilution. Then the Royal Commission standard (which requires a 20/30 standard and an 8:1 dilution) immediately becomes deficient. In some way we must either raise the standard of the effluent substantially or increase the volume of fresh water coming down if we are to maintain even the same standard. Our programme, the wish of us all, is not just to maintain our present position but to improve on it, to raise the quality of our rivers further—and this gives some idea of how far we have to go.
In theory it might be possible to achieve the whole of the improvement by greatly improved sewage treatment works, by what is called tertiary treatment; but the cost would be astronomical. Each additional process that is put on sewage treatment is proportionately more expensive in geometrical progression, but in addition pumping back would have to be taken into account in order to carry the effluent back in order to swell the volume of the river higher up.
1170
Let us take London as the most immediate example. In theory, it would be possible to purify the whole of the effluent from the Greater London Council to a high enough standard by tertiary treatment and to pump it back to somewhere on the River Thames, at about Windsor, or above the Metropolitan Water Board intakes in order to increase the volume of the river and to increase the supply for Londoners and continue to give them supplies of good fresh water. But the size of the tertiary treatment works required, the machinery of pumping back over this enormous distance of mains, would be likely to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. And a similar financial problem would exist in many other important rivers in this country if we tried to maintain the quality of the water in the rivers and on the other hand to give the extra supply required by the process of simply improving effluent treatment.
Therefore the conclusion must be that to improve the quality of our rivers and to increase our potable supplies we must have an increased supply of fresh, clean water as well as improved sewage treatment processes. This will mean inevitably, in most river basins, more large river regulating reservoirs to conserve some of the surplus water at present running down the river and out in flood in the winter period and out to sea. This must be stored in reservoirs so that it can then be released during the summer period when the rivers are very dry in order to maintain the natural flow of the river so that there is enough for the various water undertakings to abstract and use for their various purposes and, at the same time, so that there is enough clean water in the river to dilute the heavy effluents which keep on increasing in volume and come into the river. Thus do water supply and improved quality in our rivers go hand in hand.
In a few river basins it will be possible—and the notable examples are the Thames and the Great Ouse—because of the geological strata to use not reservoirs but a different system. This is the controlled ground water system where a number of wells are sunk into the water-bearing geological strata and the water is then pumped out during a dry year direct into the head of the nearest tributary in order to boost the natural flow of the river. The underground aquefer is then

1171
recharged by the natural percolation of rainfall in the following winter. To that extent, the winter floods are reduced. This is a most attractive scheme; and in fact we are using the underground aquefer as a reservoir in reverse; but without using any agricultural land.
May I add, in parenthesis, that the Thames scheme which has already started is the first scheme of its kind in the world and perhaps underlines the fact that it is not all that simple: the hydrological and geological problems involved are very complex. I repeat the point that in most river basins geology will dictate that reservoirs are really the only practical way of getting increased supplies of water to meet the needs of quality and quantity in a dry year. We can bring in the estuarial barrage like that on the Morecambe and the Wash; but they will take some time to develop and probably will not come in until the 1980s. I hope that we shall see them both.
A dry year, my Lords—I must say a word on that in my concluding remarks—will mean a shortage of water in this country. It seems hard to say that at a time when we are so conscious of being short of something else that matters very much. The fact is that our meteorological records show that about every twenty years we get a really dry year. Rainfall varies considerable in this country; sometimes it is as much as 10 inches below average. The records show that in 192–22 we had a very dry year; in 1943–44 we had a very dry year—in other words, about every twenty years we get a very dry year. But it is 26 or 27 years since we had the last one, so that it must be odds-on that we are going to have another dry year pretty soon. When that happens, my Lords, we are going to be short of water in many parts of the country. The water undertakings will not be able to draw enough water from the rivers or from the wells to meet the current demand.
London would be short by something like 50 million to 60 million gallons of water a day, if we had a drought similar to that in 1943–44 and with present-day demands. In fact, we could meet London's needs by cutting down the flow over Teddington Weir which discharges fresh water from the upper river down into the estuary. That would help the Londoners.
1172
We could perhaps cut by a third to keep them going, but that would substantially reduce the flow of fresh clean water which flushes out the rather dirty estuary—and one would not like to say just what the smell would be like outside the Palace of Westminster in the middle of a hot dry summer.
These things can be done, my Lords, but at the expense of amenity, even here; and in other places there would have to be straight rationing of water. I think that if that happened the British people would be very critical and would say, "Why could not someone have acted in advance? Why did not the Government do something about it?" The answer is that it takes about ten years from the conception to birth to produce water from a major water conservation scheme. Both this and also the previous Government have been striving over the last ten years to solve the problem. They have supported by every possible means measures which would produce the extra water which is required. But it is the fact that a number of these schemes which have been put forward have been so heavily and, I regret to say, so effectively opposed by many influential conservationists that it has involved years of delay; and undoubtedly this will be a significantly contributing factor in the creation of a drought, if we experience a dry year.
My Lords, I have dealt with this argument in some detail, and I hope that in so doing I have put over the point that the quality of water in the rivers, which every conservationist wants, is dependent on quantity, and that we shall be able to maintain and improve good quality water in our rivers only if we have increased quantity as well. I hope that from this very important debate, which my noble friend Lord Molson so valuably introduced, the message may go out that increased quantities of water would be one of the most valuable factors in improving the quality of the rivers, which is what we all want.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, sits down at the end of his extremely interesting speech, would he tell us, in considering distances and heights of pumping back, whether pumping back has been considered in the Paddington level of the Grand Union Canal which at one end runs direct into

1173
London and at the other into the upper reaches of the Thames? Would not that involve very little pumping up and no distance of additional waterway at all?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, the logistics of what I mentioned in theory, tertiary treatment for the G.L.C. effluent plus the pumping back, have not been examined in detail. I think that it would give the G.L.C. a fit if they were asked to look at the figures; but it is perhaps a point that they might look at in future.
3.5 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, although the White Paper before your Lordships covers the whole range of pollution, and last Wednesday we learned that everything from local government to birth control is relevant to it, I propose to limit myself to Part VI, "Pollution of the Sea and Beaches". In doing so, I should declare an interest, in that I am a director of a shipping company and of Britain's largest independent tanker company. May I add my congratulations to those of the noble Lords who have spoken before me to the three noble Lords who chose this subject for their maiden speeches? All three made valuable contributions to this debate.
Shipping is an industry which has been engaged for many years in the fight against pollution, not only because oil is a valuable cargo but also because the shipowner is no different from anyone else in his abhorrence of dirty beaches and his desire for clean seas. Your Lordships are aware that pollution of the sea pays no heed to national boundaries and cannot be cured by Her Majesty's Government alone. This is a world-wide issue and must be tackled on a world-wide basis. Your Lordships will therefore excuse me if my remarks are addressed not solely to any local, or even national, difficulties, but to the broader canvas of the world at large.
It is, of course, true that pollution at sea takes many forms, and most of it originates ashore. The seas appear so vast that far too many people look on them as the world's dustbin. Unfortunately, unlike most dustbins ashore, the sea is never cleared except by the action of the elements; the elements do gradually break down nearly all pollutants, with the possible exception of plastic
1174
which is as notorious at sea as it is ashore. Shipping has a clear duty to reduce to a minimum its own contribution to the damage caused by industrial civilisation. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I try to take stock briefly of all that has been done in recent years, and identify the problems that are still outstanding.
Until recently the major source of oil pollution at sea was the operational discharge of tank washings to which there appeared to be no satisfactory alternative. Now, thanks to the initiative of leading tanker owners, there is the load-on-top system which means that this particular form of pollution need no longer occur around the United Kingdom coasts. May I here thank the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for his generous reference to the work done in this respect by the British shipping and oil industries? They led the world in this matter. The Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, which will soon come before your Lordships' House, gives legal sanction to a scheme whose voluntary adoption by the shipping industry, it is estimated, has avoided the discharge of 2 million tons of pollutant oil per annum. In addition steps have been taken against accidental pollution; in the last few years there have been introduced more than forty internationally recommended traffic separation schemes which have reduced the likelihood of pollution in congested waters.
Much work has been done, and continues to be done, to reduce the damage in those cases where, despite all precautions, an accident does occur to a loaded tanker. The salvage operations in connection with the "Pacific Glory" are a recent example of what can be done when salvor, shipowner and cargo-owner are all determined to avoid pollution and are fortunate enough not to be hampered by forces outside their control. In the rare instances where an accident leads to a serious spill, there is available the fruits of the oil industry's finest research into the best means of containing and minimising actual damage. Finally, progress has been made with the legal problem of liability for the cost of pollution damage and the cost of minimising pollution damage. In the three short years since the "Torrey Canyon" incident one international Convention on the subject has been adopted, and another one to

1175
supplement it is already in draft form. These schemes have received the backing of the shipping and oil industries, which have also tried to bridge the gap until the Conventions come into effect by the use of voluntary funds. In short, my Lords, vast improvements have been made in the last three years on all fronts as a result of voluntary action by industry and by a recognition by nations that the problem is essentially an international one which can only be resolved internationally.
Here I should like to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government. Both the last Administration and this have resisted the temptation to "go it alone" and have demonstrated that the international approach is the one which works. The member Governments of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—IMCO—are eager to adopt any new measures that will reduce polluton. In co-operation with shipowners' organisations they can test the practical soundness of any proposals, and those which receive their endorsement will normally be readily accepted by both Governments and shipowners. As a result, what IMCO agrees is often widely introduced, even before the appropriate convention has come into force.
I do not want to suggest that all the problems of pollution at sea have been solved. They have not. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know some of the problems that seem to us still to exist and what is being done about them. Some of them are technical, some of them are legal and some of them are human. It is unlikely that pollution will ever be totally eliminated, but most will be achieved if the overall problem is broken down into its separate elements and these are then tackled, one by one, with all that can be mastered in the way of painstaking research, imagination and drive.
First, let me put before your Lordships some of the problems emphasised by the collision between the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro", neither of which, incidentally, was a British ship, and one of which was not even destined for this country. The results of the Liberian inquiry are not yet available. However, the collision seems to have occurred in conditions of clear visibility between two ships well equipped with navigational
1176
aids. It therefore looks probable that human failing was involved. There may be lessons to be learned here about standards of training and qualifications. I believe that British seafarers are second to none, but the people of this country, understandably, expect equally high standards of all the ships that pass our coasts. There are, I know, considerable difficulties in setting realistic international standards for qualifications when internationally there is such a wide variation in basic education and training. However, it seems to me that this is one of the problems that responsible bodies will probably wish to examine again in the light of this incident.
In addition, we in individual shipping companies shall be considering whether there is anything more we can do to help those on our ships maintain the high standards of vigilance which are so essential. In the "Pacific Glory" case, one of the ships was en route for Holland and had to come to this country to pick up a pilot. Shipowners are considering whether anything can usefully be done to see that the pilot goes to the ship rather than the ship to the pilot. The ship did in fact cross two recommended traffic zones by her voyage into Brixham and out again to get her pilot.
The problem of oil pollution is, of course, world-wide. For example, the risk of it in the Malacca Straits would be lessened if a traffic separation scheme could be introduced there. Understandably, much of the initiative in these Eastern waters lies with the Japanese Government, but we trust that Her Majesty's Government will support them at every stage and continue to stress the urgency of action in these particularly critical waters.
A further problem relates to salvage. The traditional salvage contract, with its time-hallowed principle of "No cure, no pay", encourages the salvor to give absolute priority to saving the ship and cargo. In the case of an incident involving a loaded tanker, it can be even more important that the salvor should use every effort to minimise pollution. The value of oil may be only about £10 a ton, but the potential damage which it could do on the coast could cost several times that figure. It is greatly to the credit of all concerned with the salvage of the "Pacific Glory" that legal niceties did not prevent a

1177
splendid joint effort at avoiding pollution. Further thought is being given to see whether anything more can be done to ensure that in every instance salvors give due weight to this vital part of their difficult task.
I have spoken chiefly of problems connected with the risk of oil pollution. While other forms of pollution originating from ships are of relatively minor importance, it is good to know that they are likely to be discussed in 1973 at an IMCO conference on marine pollution. The use of the sea as a dumping ground for chemical and other industrial waste and unwanted war material may make economic sense, but, if not properly controlled, can cause difficulties and even dangers. British shipowners would willingly comply with any international convention on this subject which applied equally to their competitors.
Sewage is another problem. At a time when cities of hundreds of thousands of people are discharging their sewage into the sea, sewage from ships may not seem to be of major significance. However, if Governments think some form of legislation desirable, then it is obviously right and proper that the subject should be studied internationally. In an international forum, proper account can be taken of the economic and practical consequences of various measures for existing and future ships, and the solution finally adopted is more likely to be one which is internationally acceptable.
I hope that I have shown your Lordships that while much has been achieved by Governments and industry, we are not complacent. There are problems still to be tackled but they are being tackled with thoroughness and determination, and I am confident that when next your Lordships discuss this subject there will have been further progress towards our ideal of clean seas.
3.17 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in a debate of this scope, with so many taking part—rthirty-four speakers, which shows the responsibility to which your Lordships view this subject—and with the unfair advantage of having the Report of Hansard before us, I will resist the strong temptation to follow previous speakers, except in so far as I want to
1178
underscore points I want to make on the theme of my intervention, which is no less than wealth from waste.
On previous occasions I have described pollution as a crime compounded of avarice and ignorance: avarice, because of the reckless use of resources and the destruction of amenities and environment for the sake of quick profits; and ignorance, because people do not bother to find out and anticipate what the effect of their shortsighted industrial activities is likely to be. Ignorance is no longer any excuse, because we have all been alerted—and I think this debate has shown how much we appreciate it—to the hazards not only to our local amenities and to our own personal convenience but also to the entire biosphere, on which the survival of mankind and of all our fellow lodgers as well depends.
To-day I want to stress another aspect—what pollution represents in sheer incompetence and the squandering of wealth. "Where there's muck, there's brass": that was the cynical slogan of 19th century laissez-faire in industry, which justified the grime, the slag heaps and the tips as signs of prosperity. What we now properly call the quality of life was ignored; and so were the social costs, the tabs of which we are now picking up, as my noble friend Lord Kennet pointed out last week. Those were disregarded in the interest of competitive prices—to keep our place in the world market, if you like to put it at its highest value—or of dividends. "Where there's muck, there's brass", was as cynical as the boast in Wyoming, "We cut out the steak and throw away the steer." Our country was disfigured by the wealth that we were supposed to be creating.
I once made a documentary film which featured eight miners, each of whom had spent 50 years in the pits howking coal: 400 years among them at the coal face, and of that 360 years had gone up the chimneys in smoke. When coal was cheap (except in terms of human lives and human suffering) we could afford the inefficiency of combustion, or the inefficient combustion, which blackened our cities and industrial centres with soot. I have always thought that it was ironical that only the threat of atomic energy—which so many people regard as much more dangerous than anything else that we are confronting—made our conventional fuel

1179
systems efficient; so much so that the cross-over point at which nuclear energy would become cheaper than conventional fuels has not yet, so far as I know, been achieved.
Aneurin Bevan once described Britain as "A lump of coal entirely surrounded by fish." Coal was indeed our greatest national resource, and because we regarded it as cheap and expendable as a fuel we threw away our greatest source of wealth: coal, with ail its abundant riches of chemicals, with which this country is geologically endowed. We allowed the discovery of Perkins of the aniline dyes, the aromatics and the pharmaceuticals of our native coal, to become the foundations of the vast German dyestuffs and drug industries.
Waste is discarded wealth, whichever way we look at it. It is simply failure to recognise what it is and how valuable is what we are throwing away. For example, one of the rare and useful metals, eminently useful to-day—indeed, it is the basis of the modern transistor industry—is germanium. We have been pushing that up the chimney stacks for a century as flue dust; and it is now recoverable at, I think, about £250 to £280 a kilo from flue dust. Let us consider another example, much more spectacular. The atom bomb, which was first exploded in Alamogordo Desert and which ultimately destroyed Hiroshima, was produced from the waste tips of Katanga, in the Congo. There, when radium was the produce they were after, the uranium was thrown away as the tailings; but when the bomb became a possibility that waste was shipped secretly to the United States and was the basis of the programme.
Take another example of the wealth that we throw away in waste. Fleming, Florey and Chain discovered penicillin. For this the penicillium mould had to be grown and had to be fed. In the early days at Oxford they grew this mould in milk bottles and bedpans, fed on nutrient shipped through the blitz from a brewery in the East End of London, when they could get it. Florey and his colleague Heatley, from Oxford, went to the United States to try to persuade the big corporations there to undertake the mass production, which, with our rather greater preoccupation in this country in 1940–41, we could not do.
1180
At the Fermentation Laboratories of the United States Department of Agriculture, at Peiora, Illinois, they discussed how that mould, or the moulds, could be grown in bulk. Coghill, the head of the laboratory, asked whether cornsteep liquor could serve as a nutrient on which to grow the moulds to produce the drug which we all know is so important. Well, it could. Cornsteep liquor was the waste product from converting maize, or Indian corn, into starch in the distilling industry. It was a very rich substance and of great embarrassment to the manufacturers and the distillers, because even in those unregenerate days it was so rich in nutrient that they could not even put it into the sewers and had to treat it expensively as an effluent. It became the basis of the deep-culture penicillin, which, incidentally, gave the United States a very big technological advantage.
We are all deeply concerned about thermal pollution—as, indeed, has been clear from all the international discussions on the subject in which I have taken part; about the hot water which goes in from the cooling plants of nuclear or conventional power stations on the coast. If we sited our generation stations properly, if we looked at the potential of the seas, or indeed, coming from my part of the world, of the lochs, we could, in my sober opinion, develop a substantial fish farming industry along the coast of this country, using what we are now treating as pollution. This would be desirable both from the financial aspect and also from the point of view of feeding.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said in his admirable maiden speech, we have the example of Dounreay, which, as he pointed out, has had built into it all the safeguards which we have recognised in terms of nuclear or potential nuclear pollution—which does not happen in these cases, at least from the peaceful usage. As the noble Viscount pointed out, there has been a failure of planning, not in terms of the nuclear station, but in the way in which we just failed to think before we acted. In fact, as he pointed out, there was the development of the station with all these safeguards, with all the treatment of nuclear effluent; and all we get is a superabundance of human effluent through non-foresight in terms of the people who were brought into Thurso.

1181
My noble friend Lord Kennet stressed the need for recycling. I do not want to be cynical, but recycling by afterthought seems to me to be almost sinful. I have been approached by interests in the United States as an adviser on their antipollution. I do not want to sound terribly ungrateful or unduly cynical, but in point of fact all they are asking is that they should be paid to take out the pollution that they put in. Therefore all you are doing is diversifying your interests, as they say nowadays in industry, so that the industry which in this case creates the pollution will further down the river make money out of taking it out.
I agree with what was said at the beginning of this debate, that not only must the producers be made responsible for the disposal of the pollutants—the chimney dust, the sewage and the effluent—but they should be made responsible for their obsolete products. This is a radical suggestion—I do not know whether it has been made in your Lordships' House so far—but I would certainly recommend for your Lordships' consideration the fact that if the manufacturers of products, whether they be tyres, motor cars or non-returnable plastic containers, were made responsible for disposing of what they create, they would very soon begin to think in anticipation of ways in which they could deal with these products without burdening themselves with them.
What we are lacking in the whole of this matter, I insist, is the imagination. or indeed, if you like, the scruples which would compel—and I mean compel not in the statutory way—great industries in this country, or in any other country, to anticipate what are going to be the natures of their products, before they create them, grab the advantages, and then try to find ways of disposing of the effluent which they should have foreseen.
I would point out to your Lordships that in these arguments, which are rather frustrating arguments, so far as I am concerned, one finds that when one reproaches industries, or approaches them to deal with effluents, whether in terms of chimney or sewage, they always say: "But you cannot impose these obligations on us, because if you do you are putting us at a disadvantage compared to our foreign competitors". I have looked, and no doubt some of your Lordships
1182
have looked, at some of these processes, Many are licensed by industries in this country to competitors abroad. Take the example of the nuclear industry, where international standards have been imposed from the start. If international standards could be imposed as part of the cost which the consumer himself would have to accept as the limitation of getting what he never knew he wanted, then we could have, on an international basis, a situation in which products would not retrospectively have to be regarded as pollutants.
3.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I speak to you as a member of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Planning Committee, which last May passed a resolution asking that the Farndale Reservoir scheme should be deferred until various possible alternatives had been thoroughly investigated. Within two hours of passing our resolution we heard that the scheme had been totally rejected by a Select Committee of the other place. I mention this to-day because I understand that as soon as the Water Resources Bill, which your Lordships passed last week, becomes law it is the intention of the River Authority to apply to the Minister for an order to confirm the Farndale Reservoir scheme. One of the alternative sources of water which we asked should be thoroughly investigated first was the underground reserves of water in that area. One of the great advantages of underground reserves of water is that they are very much cheaper to develop than a conventional reservoir. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, telling us about the fine work that has been carried out by the Thames Conservancy, on their pilot scheme in the Lambourn Valley. I will quote the last sentence of an article in Water and Water Engineering of August, 1970, describing this scheme:
"A preliminary estimate of cost indicates that this substantial increase in stream flow can be achieved at about one-third to one-quarter of the cost of conventional surface reservoirs and without the loss of any significant acreage of farmland."
That is something which appeals to all our hearts. In our area, the North Yorkshire Moors area, there is estimated to be a very considerable quantity of underground water. The Institute of Geological Sciences, at the request of the

1183
River Authority, produced a report, Hydrogeological Report No. 4, and gave the theoretical figures for the underground reserves in that area. For the Rye catchment area the figure was 97·7 million gallons per day, and for the Derwent area, North of Kirkham, it was 60·1 million. In addition to that there is the possible reserve in the Ouse Basin.
No doubt it will be said that to explore these underground reserves would take a great deal of time. On this point I would ask your Lordships to note that the report I have mentioned was completed in March, 1965—nearly six years ago. Not a single borehole has yet been sunk to find out whether these reserves exist. A little preliminary work has been carried out by the River Authority during the six years, but there is still time for these reserves to be investigated, because part of the Farndale Scheme—and an excellent part of it—was to construct sluice gates at the mouth of the River Derwent where it flows into the Ouse.
The idea was that in a time of extreme drought, such as happens only once in every fifty years, the whole of the flow of the River Derwent could be abstracted at this point. I am quoting from a River Authority report, dated August 29, 1970. If this work were undertaken it could provide an additional 34 million gallons of water per day, and according to the Minister in another place (and I am quoting from Hansard, Volume 797 (No. 76), column 1237) the needs of the whole region in 1980 will be 45 million gallons per day. So the 34 million gallons per day which could be made available from these sluice gates would go a long way towards meeting the needs of the area in 1980. This surely would give sufficient time for the underground reserves to be tested.
A further alternative source is the projected Otterstone Reservoir, in Northumberland. It is not part of my job to advocate one reservoir site at the expense of another. If this scheme comes off (your Lordships may know that it is a very big scheme, for a river-regulating reservoir on the Tyne) it will produce about 225 million gallons per day. In the Northumbrian region they would have more water than they would need from 1980 until the turn of the century. I understand that they have offered York-
1184
shire 20 million gallons per day from this source. Is it not fair to ask that all these alternative sources should be fully investigated before a decision is taken to flood a valley, bearing in mind also that if the underground reserves are successful some £5 million of your and my money will be saved?
3.37 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, it is not my purpose in the course of my speech to follow the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, although I am in entire agreement with him on his views on water resources. It is, however, my first task—and a very pleasant one—to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for giving me this opportunity of taking part in this debate. May I further congratulate him on making it a two-day debate, thus exploiting the inconvenience of last week. We have had a very pleasant chance to look at the first day's debate in Hansard, to re-examine the arguments set out in those first speeches and especially to enjoy for the second time three distinguished maiden speeches which the whole House enjoyed to a great extent.
Noise pollution comes in many forms, but the primary need is to identify the source, and secondly, to discern the degree of nuisance and discomfort caused. That was the main problem which be-devilled the attempt made in 1960 to provide some new legislation in the Noise Abatement Act of that year. That Statute merely enacted that noise or vibration should be a statutory nuisance, and it was declared thus under the terms of Part III of the Public Health Act of 1936 which, in the course of its administration, has proved to be a notoriously difficult area due to the fact that there are no precise definitions.
Formerly it was the fact that noise could be measured only by skilled technicians, under laboratory or semi-laboratory conditions, using rather bulky equipment. Happily, in 1970 the scene has changed entirely. A pocket-sized personal noise meter is on the market for the relatively small sum of £10. This instrument represents a little bit of the "white heat" of technology which has been produced by private enterprise. It can be used to measure noise levels in a factory, a street, on a runway, in a hospital or, for that matter, in a dance hall. The amount of instruction needed

1185
to make an operator effective is a matter of minutes. This means that at long, long last it is now possible in Statute law to lay down specific levels of noise for traffic or aircraft or factories or, for that matter, dance bands, and expect that they can be enforced by law through the police and the public health inspectors.
Recent legislation enacted in the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969 has given powers to local authorities to serve notice prohibiting the recurrence of a nuisance, but the law on noise still has enormous gaps in it. For instance, there is no noise level limit for aircraft. The whole area of noise in Statute law has a flimsy structure and the Statutes have been drawn together into one volume by the Noise Abatement Society. It is extraordinarily interesting to note that relatively little Statute law has been possible to enact because of this central fact: the difficulty of discerning the level of noise, which has now been overcome. Therefore, paragraph 46 of the White Paper, which specifically refers to the noise problem, and sets out in bold type the broad intentions of the Government, is very welcome. I would add that of course the White Paper itself has been appropriated in general terms by the present Administration.
To turn from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on aircraft noise, which was very happily answered by my noble friend Lord Sandford in the first day of this debate, I wish to refer to a further subject now which is a concern of all of us. That is the noise caused by vehicles and road transport generally. The Civic Trust was recently consulted by the Minister of Transport about the motor manufacturers' request for a further increase in maximum permitted weights and dimensions of road goods vehicles. It is, of course, the suggestion of the manufacturers to increase the maximum permitted size to 44 tons. The Civic Trust, in consultation with over 230 amenity societies, has drawn together an excellent memorandum containing classified extracts from amenity societies' evidence, and this has been presented to the Minister for his examination. Unless an immediate remedy is found, all efforts to preserve many historic buildings will be entirely lost because an environment will
1186
become virtually uninhabitable due to these enormous new vehicles which are proposed.
The Trust recommended that no decision should be taken on the proposal to allow an increase in size or weight of lorries until a thorough investigation has been made of the likely effect of such changes upon the environment; and it is suggested that urgent measures should be taken to exclude heavy lorries from towns and conservation areas as well as from shopping centres. The Minister is urged to take steps, therefore, to establish the necessary interchange points where the very large vehicles on motorways can offload their goods into vans for more convenient delivery in towns. The whole question of road vehicles and their size has been reviewed twice in the last ten years, and I feel certain that, as a result of this debate, the Minister will take note of the particular needs to review the situation before a decision is taken.
I do not wish to add anything further to the Civic Trust's observations on that particular aspect of road transport so far as pollution is concerned. But, in closing, I should like to make two special recommendations to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. First, would he seek from the Ministry's files a copy of the Report on the British Transport System, prepared by the Director-General of Ordnance Survey in 1956, and, having blown the dust from its cover, compare that Report with the Beeching Report of some years later?—because in the Director-General's original survey, which was in a sense much wider in its scope and application, there are a number of points, which I will not go into to-day, which have not been covered. The second matter to which I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention is the question of aircraft noise. First, I would thank him for his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on the question of Concorde; and secondly, may I ask him whether he can make any further statement to-day?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE
3.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement which has just been made, or is being

1187
made, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I have just been informed that the trade unions representing industrial staff in the electricity supply industry have decided to end their work-to-rule and overtime ban forthwith. I am sure the whole House will welcome this decision.
"The House will realise, however, that the dispute still remains to be settled. Both the unions and the Electricity Council have become convinced that there is no hope of further progress towards a solution by negotiation. After many long hours of discussion with them, I have been forced to conclude that this is indeed the case. The matters in dispute can now only be resolved if they are submitted to independent judgment which can consider all the issues involved. The unions are not prepared to make use of arbitration but, like the Electricity Council, have asked me to refer the problem to a Court of Inquiry.
"In these circumstances, I have decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry and in doing so I have been able to accept suggestions from both parties about possible terms of reference, including the suggestion from the unions that reference to the industry's productivity should be included. At the same time, I must make clear that the terms of reference must also expressly ensure that the Court of Inquiry takes into account the public and national economic interest.
"The membership and terms of reference of the Court will be announced as soon as possible and I should like to add that I have agreed to lend my support to the wish of the parties that its hearings should be in public.
"In these changed circumstances, the Emergency which, as the House knows, was proclaimed on Saturday will not, we hope, need to be maintained for very long. The Government will keep the position under close review; and meanwhile the Emergency Regulations and the Order prohibiting the consumption of electricity for
1188
advertising, shop window displays and flood-lighting will remain in force."
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure that again your Lordships will welcome this indication of a measure of progress towards a settlement of this dispute. Perhaps your Lordships will particularly welcome the fact that the proceedings, as I understand it, are to be in public. The members who compose the Court of Inquiry will not have an easy task. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in fact this break in the situation and this line of development does not in fact derive from the initiative taken in the course of last week, and referred to on the last occasion the noble Lord made a Statement to us on the subject—the initiative taken by Mr. Victor Feather.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we, too, are delighted that the work-to-rule should be ended. Can we assume from the Minister's Statement that the Court of Inquiry will consider the possible inflationary consequences of any settlement that may be arrived at? May I ask the Government also whether they would not agree that the trouble we have been having in the last few weeks only shows how essential it is to arrive at some new system for settling disputes in what might be called monopoly industries, and that if such a system is not forthcoming, perhaps in some new legislation which may be put forward in the near future, we shall be heading for real trouble in the future?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for the points they have made and for their approach to this matter. With regard to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, it is not within the power of my right honourable friend to determine whether the proceedings shall be in public or not; that is for the Court to decide. My right honourable friend said that he would bring this point to the attention of the Court and lend his weight to the suggestion put forward. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, as to whether the outcome derives from the initiative of Mr. Victor Feather, I do not think it would be practical or helpful to go back and say what contribution any particular person made to the course of these negotiations up to the present stage.

1189
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked whether the Court will consider the possible inflationary consequences of any settlement. The terms included are "the national economic interest", and I think it can be safely deducted from that that they will do so. As to the need to devise some new system of settling disputes, the noble Lord will be aware that the Industrial Relations Bill is being discussed in another place on Second Reading to-day.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, may I say how pleased we are that the unions have withdrawn their work-to-rule? This intimates once more the good sense of the trade union movement. Looking back on their record, on many occasions when there has been difficulty they have shown a remarkably statesmanlike approach. Would the noble Lord please explain why it is essential that the words, "in the public and national interest" should preface the Inquiry's investigation? Is he also going to say that it is necessary in the public and national interest that a Field Marshal, who on April 1, 1970, is in receipt of a salary of £10,494, should have an increase of £3,500 on January 1, 1971, to £14,000? This reflects itself also in the various scales for Generals, whose salaries go up by from £1,250 to £3,000 between April, 1970, and January, 1971. Would not the noble Lord feel that in the national interest it would be essential that another look be taken at these figures? It is no use saying that they are forgoing 50 per cent., because the 50 per cent. is £1,500 in the case of a Field Marshal and corresponding figures for others according to Command Paper 4351. I am sure that it would have a great influence on the electricity workers if they knew that the Government were going to take that action, too.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that the present proposals are limited to the setting up of a Court of Inquiry with particular terms of reference. I am sure that the Court of Inquiry will take all relevant considerations into account.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be great relief in hospitals all over this country at his Statement? And would it he appropriate at this moment to pay a sincere tribute to everyone who has been
1190
looking after the sick and disabled during these very difficult and dangerous times?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he says, and I am sure that the Government would wish to join in the tribute he has paid.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government realise that our experience of Courts of Inquiry recently has been extremely unfortunate? In the case of such Inquiries as those presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and by Sir Jack Scamp what has happened is that there has been very much less than an objective inquiry into the facts, and a compromise has been reached in order to buy off a strike. Do the Government realise that it would be extremely unfortunate if this Court of Inquiry resulted in the same kind of surrender to excessive demands as has taken place on two previous occasions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will bear in mind the difference between arbitration and a Court of Inquiry; and I would at once again draw to his attention the fact that the present Court of Inquiry will have in its terms of reference the need to have regard to the national economic interest.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the decision which the Government have taken, to accept the advice of the trade union side to appoint a public inquiry, is the most sensible and most intelligent action they have taken since the beginning of this dispute? May I repeat now the question that I asked earlier? Why did not the Government decide at a very early stage in this dispute to order a public inquiry, and so avoid all the inconvenience and hardship that the public have suffered in the last few days?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not believe that the present stage could have been hastened. The noble Lord will, I am sure bear in mind that the first objective was that the work-to-rule should be ended. And the indications were that had my right honourable friend set up a Court of Inquiry earlier, with the sort of terms of reference he has indicated in his Statement to-day,

1191
normal working would not necessarily have been resumed.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if the views expressed from the Liberal Benches by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, are accepted the hands of those who have to go into this matter and examine it from all angles are going to be tied?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment made up his own mind on this and set up the Court of Inquiry at the first opportunity at which it could be set up in appropriate circumstances.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government are to be congratulated on setting up this Court of Inquiry, and that the terms of reference suggested will accurately reflect the general feelings of people in this country? Is he further aware that, in striking the right balance between the degree of hardship the public have suffered, their concern with inflation and the balance of the industrial disputes, the Government will be regarded as acting very successfully?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for pointing out, as I said in the Statement, that points that were suggested by both the unions and the Council will be incorporated in the terms of reference, as well as the points the Government had in mind.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the terms of reference now indicate that the Government have abandoned their free-for-all policy and are beginning to pursue some sort of incomes policy?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a dispute which needs to be settled, and I think we should concentrate on that.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since the terms of reference provide for productivity being considered, will they include an inquiry into the amount of money that has been poured into the industry from public sources in order to increase productivity, so that that expenditure
1192
is taken into consideration when the contribution of labour is being assessed?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend will, I think, be aware that figures are prepared to show the amount of labour productivity, and it was of course on this basis that the previous settlement was made.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, while I appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, in response to my question about the contribution of Mr. Victor Feather, not to go into the past in this matter, or to seek to identify the opinions of individuals, may we have his assurance that while this Court of Inquiry is being set up, and while it is doing its work, nothing will be said by Government spokesmen that will make a difficult task more difficult? Further, will he repudiate the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, of some of the previous Courts of Inquiry, which have rendered valuable services in the national interest? Will he further give us an assurance that when this Court of Inquiry has completed its work it will not be subjected to retrospective criticism by Government spokesmen for having done the task for which it was set up?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows that it would be difficult to give all those assurances. But I would just say this: that we trust our arbitrators and our Courts of Inquiry to act fairly in the light of their terms of reference and the facts before them.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the Minister really think it is in the national interest for the Government to take such an intransigent line with essential public employees like the electricity workers, or even nurses?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I rather think that the noble Baroness is already asking me to make one of the statements that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, deprecated.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is absolutely essential that these Inquiry proceedings should be publicly reported—because the electricity workers' case has not yet been understood by the vast majority of the

1193
British public who are unable to form a considered opinion? My other point with regard to the terms of reference is that they should not be so loaded, in either one direction or the other, as to produce a result which could fairly be regarded as unacceptable by either side.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as to the first question, on the assumption that the Court of Inquiry will accept the recommendation of my right honourable friend and that the evidence is heard in public, I should think that the organs of the Press, radio and television, and so on, can be relied upon to report fully. I have rather forgotten the noble Lord's second point. I am sorry.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the second point is that the terms of reference should not be loaded in any direction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I am sure that they will not be loaded in any direction; but they will contain the points that my right honourable friend has broadly indicated in his Statement.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, in view of Lord Delacourt-Smith's remarks about retrospective criticism, would not my noble friend agree that the last Labour Government indulged in retrospective legislation, which is a far more serious matter?

POLLUTION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
4.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if we may now return to Pollution and the Protection of the Environment, I propose to deal solely with Chapter IV of the White Paper, that dealing with pollution of the land, and to concentrate rather more on the protection of the environment than the fight against pollution. First of all, I should like to make a point which I think is well known—I shall make it only briefly—with regard to the actual pollution of the land by modern agricultural methods. I do not think there is any need to reiterate to your Lordships the unwillingness of farmers to do any such thing. Most farmers that I know, if not all of them,
1194
would far prefer, if it were possible for them, to farm in the old-fashioned manner, using farmyard manure, hand labour to hoe out the weeds and horses to plough the land.
Instead of that, economic circumstances have forced them into a variety of methods which tend in one way or another to pollute the land. We, as farmers, can now no longer afford to use a horse;, we have to use a tractor, which emits certain fumes into the atmosphere. We can no longer afford to rely solely upon dung to fertilise the land; we have to use artificial fertilisers which disturb the balance of nature. We no longer are able to employ large numbers of men and women to pull out the weeds; we have to use chemical sprays to do so. All these things have been forced upon us by economic circumstances, and to a considerable extent we have been encouraged to use them by actual Government action in subsidies. I am not complaining of that at all; I mention it only to put the matter in perspective. If the public do not want us to use such things—and I do not believe that many of them go so far as that; they want the exercise of sense in their use—or even if they wish us to have restraint in their use, they must realise that the costs of production are liable to go up, and therefore, sooner or later, in one way or another, they will have to pay more for their food.
Similarly, if they wish, as I hope they do and as I, as a member of the public as well as a farmer, wish, to see the countryside kept in good order, with hedges trimmed and not uprooted, hedgerow timber growing, more trees being planted in out-of-the-way corners, and things of that kind, the cost of it must be taken into account. It must be realised that somebody must pay for it. As farmers are, no less than are others, businessmen, and therefore one of their incentives is the profit motive, it is likely that there will not be a great deal of this work done unless there is some price incentive or price recompense to enable it to be done. That does not mean to say that I am against any of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Molson has asked for. I am entirely on his side in this matter, but I think we must be realistic about it and recognise the economic implications.

1195
I should like to move on to a rather wider subject, the countryside itself. I am encouraged to do so particularly by the admirable maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who also touched on this matter. We must not fall into the error of looking on the fight for the protection of the environment as being a purely negative, defensive action. It is not merely a matter of protecting what we have already. We must realise that what we value so much in the countryside has not just happened: it has come there because of the deliberate, thought-out, skilful action of our forbears. If we are to have an equally beautiful countryside in the years to come it will not be achieved solely by preserving what is here to-day—as it were, putting it into deep freeze and holding it there as a form of museum. It can be achieved only by having it as dynamic at the end of the 20th century and throughout the 21st century as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is that we must aim at in all our fights to preserve our environment.
It must be realised that this means creating continuously a fresh environment which meets the needs of the times. One of the needs of the times is not only the future requirements of a growing population but the insistence by the existing population on more living space. No longer are people prepared to be herded together in the slums of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. They wish for space in the countryside, either to live there, commuting to their places of work, or to visit there for their holidays, for weekends or for picnics. When we are talking of preserving the environment we must realise this and must lay our plans accordingly, so that these people, who have just as much right to the enjoyment of the countryside as those of us who are fortunate enough to live in it most of our lives, are able to come into it without destroying those very beauties that they are coming to look at and to appreciate.
The second aspect of the problem concerns the actual people who live in the countryside. We know that to-day agriculture is employing an ever smaller number of people, and yet an increasing number of people are anxious to live in the rural areas and in the villages. Their children are insistent upon finding
1196
work of an interesting kind, and of a type which offers scope for their various talents. If we restrict unduly the advent of new industries into the countryside, although we may think we are preserving the countryside in its pristine beauty, by that very action we shall in fact be condemning it to death, because it can flourish only if it has young and vital people living there, who see their livelihood in that rural area. That can happen only if there are opportunities for employment for them within a radius of 10 or 15 miles, so that they do not have to emigrate to Manchester, Liverpool or a London conurbation in order to find that work.
Therefore, my Lords, when we are discussing the protection of our environment we must realise that this undoubtedly means that there must in certain areas be an increase not only in the people who come to live there but of work opportunities for them. That is the major challenge facing us at the present time. More important even than dealing with the noise, the smoke, the spoliation by quarries and matters of that sort, is the planning of how we can offer these opportunities of employment in the rural areas without destroying the beauties of those areas.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him if he knows whether any Government has ever, at any time, given a subsidy to farmers for creating compost in modern ways, mechanically, and for dealing in proper ways with farmyard manure and liquid manure? This compost, properly graded, would make an enormous improvement in our land and cut down the quantity of nitrogen that we are using at the moment.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is that I believe the Government of India in the days of Sir Albert Howard did just that; but, so far as I know, no Government in this country has ever done so.
4.14 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, in the first place I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Molson, for introducing this debate, and perhaps taking just a little pride in the fact that so many noble Lords who have spoken have

1197
referred to reclamation as well as to pollution. I have always thought that the two things should go together, and in that respect this debate is a slight reflection of the debate that we had on that subject in March of this year. After all, we never speak of sin without redemption; I think that pollution is a sin and reclamation is redemption; and, like the other two things, they should always go together.
I should like to say a few words about local authority reorganisation, something which we are facing, and would probably have faced if the late Government had remained. We are facing it now, with the new Government, in a modified form; and from what I have seen and heard and read among local authorities it seems to me that we should bear in mind that the collection and disposal of refuse should not be separated. I know that this is already so in London—and perhaps London is an exceptional part of the country in this respect—but if we are to expect the local authorities really to be interested in the reclamation of their refuse and the avoidance of pollution, they must be allowed to have the benefit from what they do. Obviously, small authorities will have to co-operate, because disposal plant is expensive. In any case, I imagine that in the reorganisation the very small ones would disappear. But the essential thing is that if, through careful planning and new scientific methods, they can obtain an advantage to the rates from the clisposal and treatment of their refuse then we should not deny them the opportunity of doing so. If we do, the incentive to collect and reclaim will be removed. In my view, a great deal more mechanisation is necessary in the collection of refuse. Our dustbins and our vehicles for collecting them should all be looked at carefully. Some countries are far ahead of us in this respect.
Then I believe that there could be far greater co-operation between local authorities and the housewife. We saw this during the war. I cannot see why the housewife should not be a willing party to stacking her refuse in different ways—with paper and bottles and wet refuse stacked separately—if she felt that her energy in doing this was recompensed by the action of the local authorities in disposing of these materials in the proper
1198
way, instead of throwing them all together in the vehicle when it comes round. I believe that in America the authorities now have some home incinerators which might well dispose of a good deal of wet refuse. In this country we have a thing called a "wastemaster". I have one in my house, but it is not entirely satisfactory. There is a great deal of exploration to be done on this side, and if the amount of refuse collecting could be diminished by further mechanisation in the home I feel that this is a matter that should be explored.
Then we need far more education in our schools in regard to litter and untidiness. We all know that by nature children are untidy, and when I was chairman of a children's court I used to try to make the punishment fit the crime to a certain extent. In that connection, it has occurred to me to wonder whether possibly young delinquents might not be commandeered to help clear up public open spaces after such events as race meetings. They could do this, under the surveillance of the police, as a therapeutic measure. They would soon learn what a burdensome business this work is. In my view, we should do a great deal more to bring this home to our children. There should be heavier fines, and greater supervision by the police of people who leave litter around. I have sat on the bench for a great many years, and I do not suppose I have had before me more than half a dozen cases concerning the leaving of litter. In my view, the enforcement of the anti-litter law should be tightened up.
I was struck by something said by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. He said that industrialists should be made to consume some of their own waste products; and here I entirely agree with him. I have never been able to understand why soft drinks bottles, instead of having caps that were sometimes difficult to remove, now have screw caps which are much easier to remove, but, whereas the previous bottles were returnable, the present ones are not. Nobody has been able to explain to me this extraordinary mystery. I should have thought it ought to be made obligatory on the glass bottle manufacturers to take their bottles back, just as is done with milk bottles. Then one night I had a dream. Probably the

1199
idea is quite unrealisable but surely there must be quicksands round our shores. As we do not know what to do with old tyres, why should we not feed them to our quicksands until they are absolutely filled with tyres and have been redeemed in that way? Then, of course, there is the shame of buying bulk paper from abroad, when, if we set our minds to it, we could really be self-supplying.
Finally—a small point, but one that I feel strongly about; and noble Lords will know I have asked at least three Questions on this subject while I have been in your Lordships' House: why cannot we prevent some pollution on the roads by insisting on flaps being put on the mudguards of big lorries and big industrial vehicles? I am told that we have sold some of these vehicles to Sweden but they are not allowed to go to Sweden unless they have had these flaps fitted. If that can be done for Sweden, why cannot it be done for us here? The last Government were always sympathetic when I asked my Question, but nothing happened. I hope that this Government will be rather more active in this respect, because it would prevent a good deal of pollution and also, I think, danger on the roads.
In conclusion, I want to turn to a more sombre side of pollution, which has not so far been dealt with but which I feel is just as important as the material side of pollution, if not more important. We have heard a lot about the deep sea and clean rivers. I think that the clean rivers of childhood innocence are now polluted by our permissive society. I do not know whether any of your Lordships happened to hear the one o'clock News, in which the activities of schoolgirls' soliciting on their way home from school were described. I know that there are kind people who call themselves "humanists", and who take the view that by being a humanist one can do without any religious conviction. Unfortunately, having undermined religion or faith, they have left absolutely nothing in its place, and no defence for the younger generation to grow up with. If we simply concentrate on material pollution, and forget what is happening in our permissive society, in the way of drugs, prostitution, abortion, violence, and so on, history will judge our generation
1200
as having really betrayed our children and the youngsters who are growing up.
We have to end this sort of pollution, which is so insidious and very much more difficult to combat than dealing with local authorities and refuse, and so on. I would ask your Lordships, when you consider this subject, not just to remember the material side, but to think whether at the present moment we are not leaving our children without defence, with a void, and with very little help; for which at a later stage they may blame us.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that although she connects humanism with lack of morals I, as a humanist, seek to defend them. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she knows that the Portuguese nunneries of the eighteenth century were so notorious that it is believed they caused the earthquake in Lisbon in 1757?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: No, my Lords; I would not accuse the humanists of lack of morals at all. What I say is that their morals are individual and have no general foundation. They are like grain sown in sterile soil: they have no firm roots. Every man has a moral standard of his own. This is no help to children who need a general staff to lean on, a general understanding, and a general standard to grow up by.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, for brevity's sake, in a list of thirty speakers, I propose to make no intelligent reference to the speeches of the fifteen noble Lords to whom I have listened. That includes, of course, not only the noble Baroness who has just sat down, but also three eloquent maidens, and the rugged river god, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who rises in this House from time to time to defend the cause of what St. Francis of Assisi used to call "Our sister water".
I want to confine myself to one part of the White Paper, Part III, noise, and to traffic noise only. I have tried to find something different from that which other noble Lords have mentioned, and from what is available in the White Paper for all of us to study. I produce as a sample

1201
what I hope will be recognised as something that occurs on tens of thousands of miles of our roads, and which I made by working within a furlong of a busy road and studying which were the traffic noises that were the most offensive. I am sure, to my ears at any rate, it is what I call "clatter". I went out to examine what caused the clatter, which is different from the whine and squeal, and everything else that we know on our roads. I counted in a stretch of 300 yards twelve manhole covers and connecting links with the side of the road, most of which were not flush with the road, and some of which had been repaired by obvious amateurs. That is the cause of the most offensive noise on this particular section of road, which I have had an opportunity of listening to for about a year. I am riot pleading a special cause; I put it up as a sample.
If you go along a little further on this very busy road, matters are even worse. There is a very long section whore the road has been taken up and put down by even greater amateurs than the previous lot, and it is worse than any old French pavé. What happens is that the loose loads on the lorries rise into the air, twenty-four heavy barrels and the like, and down they come, "crump". I think that is the worst of the traffic noise that we have. I wonder whether the Government would be prepared to institute a departmental inquiry as to how this could be avoided? We all know what happens. The road is perfectly surfaced by professionals, the highway authority and their contractors; then along come a body of gas men. When they have finished water men arrive, and when they have finished the telephone men arrive, and there are others as well. None of them is co-ordinated. Perhaps it is impossible, but I am asking that the road should be invisibly mended and repaired, so that there are not a ghastly series of jolts and ramps running along the whole road, causing more noise than the size of vehicles or anything else connected with them. That is all I wish to say about road traffic.
I want now to say something about air noise. In my intervention in the first half of this debate, I said all that I want to say about the horrifying scream of low-flying service aircraft, and where it occurs. I want to take the other noise,
1202
the noise of the big commercial aircraft revving up and rising from its airfield. That is a kind of noise which is quite different. It does not terrify or horrify, but it fills the sky for several miles around. It is something like thunder, only it does not exactly resemble it. It seems to be heavier; it resounds throughout all one's presence. We know that these noises are unavoidable, but in this connection I want to quote the White Paper, Section 53:
"Planning authorities should increasingly be aware of the reed to separate noisy industry from places where other people live and work, and the Government will foster the development of good practice in this matter."
There is nothing quite so widespread and horrifyingly noisy as an airport.
I should like to ask one question of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who has been committed by one of his colleagues to answering all our questions at the end of this debate. At the present time, a public inquiry is being held regarding the extension of the runway at Gatwick, which is on the fringe of the New Town of Crawley, where there is a great conurbation. Some 10,000 or more small people have contributed £12,000 of their money to brief counsel at that inquiry, in order that they may expound their views. Such an inquiry is one of the ventilating devices that we have, and very desirable it is.
That inquiry, which unhappily closed last week owing to the death of the inpector, re-opens again to-morrow and witnesses have been briefed to the effect that they muss limit all their comments to one narrow aspect of what is happening. They have been told that the only matter which they may talk about is the extension of the runway by a thousand-odd feet. We all know that there is another site coming before us, where some four runways—not one, as in the case of Gatwick—and many other things can be built at the expense of offending the ears of only some 12,000 people, whereas one runway alone at Gatwick offends the ears of 72,000 people. Furthermore, that other place, which we all know about, is going to do something unique and will take from England's valuable soil not one square inch. The site is all to come from the sea.
The question to which I hope an answer will be given is this. I want to ask that the new inspector, who will start his

1203
functions to-morrow morning at Horley, will be instructed not to muzzle the witnesses. Let them say what they like. Let them compare that extended runway with the second runway which they know is going to be before them later, and with the third airport which is at present outside their discussion. Let these people say what they please. They have contributed their money and have briefed their counsel for four or five weeks, but as the inquiry is expected to last eight weeks those small people will have to produce more money.
I should like to point out that I have not been lobbied in this case; it is I who lobbied the people concerned. In other words, I said that I intended to say what I am saying in this House to-day and I inquired whether it would be of interest to them. Nobody has asked me to pay anything, nobody has asked me for my support, and I merely put the matter up from my own judgment as an example of what should be done. I feel that something is going to be forced on the inhabitants of Gatwick and its neighbourhood, and that when the time comes so much capital will have been invested that everybody will say it is too late to do anything about it.
That is all I have to say with regard to the White Paper, but I want to end up with a small tribute, although I do not know to whom it is due. I, like many others, am a person who is fond of birds. I am told that the first word I uttered in life was to point to a screen and say, "bird". The only artistic sale I ever made was of an illustrated page of birds to the Christmas number of Field in 1926. After that I retired from painting. During a period of convalescence last year I numbered the birds at a spot within 27 miles of London, and was unable to see any sign of what is called the "silent spring". Something must have happened to make the place more habitable for the birds because, with certain exceptions, they are much the same as those I knew in the same area in my youth 60 years ago when I was 10.
More experienced people have numbered the birds in London during almost the same period. I understand that this year 88 species have been counted in two Royal Parks in London, and that by the
1204
end of the year the number may exceed 100. We should introduce a sense of proportion when we talk about pesticides and the "silent spring". In those areas where pesticides and weed killers are used, there was no sign of the "silent spring" and we do ourselves harm by exaggerating some of the dangers. We should pay tribute to those who have done something to make the pesticides less pestiferous.
4.36 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in the earlier part of his speech the noble Earl who has just sat down very effectively made a most important point: that many of these problems can be solved only by efficient attention to detail, which they often fail to get. There would be much less pollution in the world if more attention were paid to small details by officials in rather low cadres of the local authority machine. That is a point which was well worth making and rubbing in.
If the noble Earl will permit me, I shall now turn to the more general aspects of the debate, which has to me been most encouraging. I speak as one who has spent a great deal of his life working in the amenities movement, but without a great deal of success. Indeed, the number of false dawns that I have seen over the last thirty or forty years has made me wonder whether the rosy tint which I now see in the sky is partly a result of recent events in the House of Commons and partly a result of this debate in your Lordships' House. The three decisions on Water Bills in the House of Commons, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, particularly drew attention, encouraged me very much.
Since the day when the noble Lord, Lord Molson, drew our attention to this subject in your Lordships' House, we have made the Government look again at a decision in connection with the Water Resources Bill, a point which was referred to this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. It was quite clear that a large majority of your Lordships in all Parties desired to see that the areas of outstanding natural beauty should be kept as free as the National Parks from the destructive effects of erecting large reservoirs in them. While I have much sympathy with the desire of the noble

1205
Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to give us a plentiful supply of fresh water, I noticed that he did not refer to all the alternative ways of saving and getting water which are now open to us, and of which we certainly ought to be availing ourselves.
Incidentally, I was filled with considerable indignation at what the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, told us about the situation in Yorkshire, where those who were defeated in the House of Commons are proposing to return, immediately they have this new Water Resources Bill on the Statute Book, to effect in a different way exactly the measure which the House of Commons threw out. It seems to me that that is getting somewhere near to contempt of Parliament. I should like to see the matter raised in the House about this "long nose" which has been made at the Vote on that occasion, because I am sure that a hundred or two hundred years ago the Serjeant at Arms would have been put on to people who talked in that sort of way. I hope that the promoters of this scheme will observe that only last Thursday, by a very large majority indeed, your Lordships rejected conduct of that sort, without any question at all.
My Lords, the atmosphere is certainly very much better than it was; and I felt that the Minister's reply, which was very encouraging on almost all aspects of this subject, showing that the Government are well aware of the situation and are in many ways taking steps to deal with it, was a most effective and comprehensive speech. One of the things I particularly liked about it was the handsome way in which he congratulated the late Administration on what they had done on these lines and announced the Government's intention to follow out their programme. Indeed, if one comes to look at it one sees that the very White Paper which we are discussing was produced by the late Administration and that almost all the Committees whose work has been referred to during the course of this debate were set up by them.
Some of these important committees have been at work such a short time that even their first Reports have not yet been received. In a way, this debate has lacked that material which would have enabled us to have had an even better debate to-night. Good though it has been, it could have been better if we had had the
1206
Reports of the three or four important Committees which have been mentioned and which were set up by the late Administration. I am sure that this problem can be solved only by co-operation between the political Parties, and it is a very encouraging sign that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, should have adopted that outlook towards the work which has been done before and should have announced the Government's intention to carry it through. If we were to reduce it to a matter of Party politics, then I am quite sure it would go the way of many other things and that the rosy tinge would fade out of the sky.
While on this theme, I should like to add my own tribute to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, about the Prime Minister's speech to the Countryside Conference at the Guildhall. I agree with the noble Lord: it has not received the attention which it deserved. It made a tremendous effect on that great audience, and it was obviously very sincere, coming from the heart. I have spoken about it on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, but I hope something will be done to get it broadcast more widely among the people. I agree with what one noble Lord said in the debate last week, that there is a wide strata of the population which is not yet fully awake to what is going on and to the essential need to grapple with this difficult problem.
I think we must congratulate Lord Molson, not only on his very fine, masterly opening to this debate but also on the great work which he has been doing over the years in the amenities movement, in which he has certainly become an outstanding leader. I should like to take this opportunity to express appreciation on behalf of my colleagues in the amenities movement for what he has done for us. I accept, broadly speaking, the priorities which he laid down in his speech. The noble Lord who replied for the Government did not quite do so: he put clean air before clean rivers. I think it is a very close thing, but on the whole I agree with Lord Molson, because we can get back the ground we have lost in relation to clean air more quickly and more easily than we can get our rivers clean. Getting our rivers clean is a very long process. It has taken the best part of a century to get the Thames clean. There are

1207
other great rivers in the industrial North and in the Midlands which it will take a very long time to clean; and the sooner we start on it the better.
Clean air is a comparatively recent introduction and, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, it has been one of the great successes. As to the Clean Air Act, I do not wish in any way to undervalue the work which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, did with the Bill; but, of course, what led up to that Act was an interesting scheme that Manchester carried through several years before the Bill came before Parliament. I remember, at the very end of the last war, a large section of Central Manchester being subjected, under Manchester's own legislative powers, to Clean Air Orders; and I remember how very quickly the effect of those precautions became evident in that city, which had the reputation of being one of the dirtiest cities in the North of England. It was a revelation to see how quickly the reduction of the smoke in the air affected the situation in that great city.
I was a little distressed when we were told that it would be 1972 (I think it was) before the arrangements for getting smokeless fuel would provide all the smokeless fuel required. Surely, with the coal industry in its present position it ought to be possible, by putting some money and a good deal of effort into the task, to get smokeless fuel very much more quickly than we have been getting it in recent months. I hope that the Government will look at this again and will step up the efforts which they are making in this connection.
What I have just said about this experimental scheme in Manchester underlines the importance of what local authorities can do on many aspects of the pollution problem. Very often, large local authorities can initiate new methods of dealing with things which eventually the Government of the country as a whole take up and appply nationally. Manchester's scheme is an example of that. But there are other aspects of pollution, dealing particularly, perhaps, with derelict areas (a subject that has been touched upon from time to time during this debate), in which local authorities are particularly well situated.
What we have heard about mostly in the debate so far has been the cleaning
1208
up of the countryside. But, of course, in almost all the big cities, and indeed in many smaller towns, there are areas that are derelict and are nothing less than a scandal so far as the corporations of those towns are concerned. In many cases there are slummy sections which have more or less fallen down; and even, in some places, areas which were bombed during the war and which have not yet been properly dealt with. There are obviously building sites there, but when one inquires one is told that it is a very small site and that it is much cheaper to go out into the country and find a nice large new piece of countryside on which building acitivities can be developed, unfettered by the need to contend with the cramped conditions that exist inside the town. My Lords, that seems to me to be a totally wrong outlook, and it is an outlook that is to a large extent responsible for much of the pollution which we already have. It is the same sort of outlook which says, "We will not move the waste in the coal tips 50 miles to make a foundation for a new road because it will cost more than opening up a new pit, a new eyesore, within a couple of hundred yards of the place where we actually want the material". It may cost a little more in the immediate future, but in the long term it is much less expensive, and to adopt the other outlook is a thoroughly mistaken policy.
I thought that for this reason—that the local authorities should be brought more into this problem—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, was particularly relevant. He was criticised a little at running his own hobby-horse, but in many ways a more effective local authority set-up would enable the local authorities to take a better line in handling this problem of pollution than they are able to take at present. This is also true of what the noble Lord said about planning. Many of the authorities which have planning committees are altogether too small either to employ first-class planning officers or for the councillors to have the necessary understanding and imagination to deal with the situation. From time to time I have come across decisions in these cases which were obviously given from the point of view of helping the rates rather

1209
than in the interests of true planning. It seems to me that until we have larger authorities—not necessarily on the lines of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission proposals; but more effective authorities—we shall be dogged with inefficiency in this way.
In the country districts which have been referred to a good deal the War Department has been one of the worst offenders. It is really astonishing that 25 years after the end of the war large War Office encampments should remain overgrown and in a disgracefully unkempt condition. I was glad that one of the things that the Prime Minister said in his Guildhall speech, to which I referred, was that the Government would take a strong line about getting this sort of thing cleared away. Up and down the country there is an enormous demand for camp sites and caravan pitches. Very often there are demands by people in beautiful areas of the countryside to be allowed to turn their farms into caravan pitches. Surely it would be better to have caravans and campers on some of these War Department sites which have been left derelict for so long.
The last speaker referred to pesticides. On the whole, I thought that the action taken to deal with pesticides was one of the successes. It all boiled up so quickly. No doubt up and down the country thousands of birds were killed as a result of the poisons in the pesticides, but rather more quickly than usual we got on to this and the complaints to a large extent died away. I would not say that it has been 100 per cent. successful, but certainly it has been substantially successful. Incidentally, talking about successes, there was one great one which has not been mentioned in this debate; control over advertising. Less than forty years ago the countryside was scandalously over-advertised; it was difficult to find a country road on which there were not enormous hoardings. Yet the Society for the Control of Advertisements, after strenuous efforts, got its Bill through Parliament and in a short time we had no real reason for worry and grievance. When I go abroad and visit countries where there is no control over advertisements in the countryside, I take off my hat to my friends in that movement who succeeded so well. Everybody has now
1210
forgotten that there was ever a struggle about it.
I mention pesticides because recently in The Times there was an article which said that in many of the plastics which are used a great deal for containers and in other ways in connection both with agriculture and domestic life, there are poisons of almost the same virulence as D.D.T. and which are equally long lasting. There are already quite a number of cases of disease and illnesses which have been traced to these plastics. Nothing has been said about this so far in this debate, and very little has been said about it in public. But this is obviously the kind of thing to which the Government ought to turn their attention. It raises the whole question of whether new manufactures of this kind ought not to some extent to be vetted before being put on the market, because it is difficult to get rid of them once they have got going. To test them beforehand in a proper scientific way to discover how—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that for a long time now the Ministry of Agriculture have been operating a voluntary system to do this very thing. Much of the credit that the noble Lord has given to those who reduce the menace which results from the use of these poisons is due to the Ministry of Agriculture scheme, working very quietly but none the less efficiently.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was saying that I thought that dealing with pesticides had in fact been one of our successes, even if it were not a 100 per cent. success; and of course the Ministry of Agriculture deserves a great deal of praise. But I also think that the manufacturers fell in quickly with public opinion about this. It is one example of the way in which manufacturers, like the oil companies, have appreciated public opinion and have taken steps to put things right.
The last point that I wish to raise (and it has been discussed a good deal) is how far pollution goes. Lord Redcliffe-Maud said that it was wider than the terms of this Motion and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, tried to get us on

1211
to the pollution of morals. That is a real point, although I think it a little foreign to this debate. We have heard a great deal about pollution by noise—particularly noise from motor cars. I was glad when the noble Lord said that the Government were going to take this matter very seriously, and that he hoped that after a couple of years—particularly in the case of motor cycles, one of the worst offenders—there would be a considerable improvement. He said that one of the real difficulties was enforcing the regulations. That is undoubtedly so. There was a time when there were quite a number of mobile policemen on the roads. They were very effective for a period: both motor drivers and motor cyclists would be stopped and their defective silencers pointed out to them. They would be given a warning that if they were caught again they would be in for trouble. I have often wondered whether, particularly for motor cyclists, a good penalty for the third offence would not be to confiscate the motor cycle or at any rate deprive the young enthusiast of the use of it for a few months. It seems to me that something of the kind might also be used against shipowners who do not keep their ships in a proper state to prevent pollution of the sea waters. We are too ready to try to cope with this situation by means of comparatively small fines.
My Lords, I was asking how far pollution goes. This question of motor cars and motor cyclists comes from the use of the roads; but the road itself can be a pollution. To build a new road through a National Park is a form of pollution; yet in the Lake District at the moment we are threatened with a disastrous new road which is to be carried over the Greta river. It seems to be impossible to get any details of it because the Ministry have shut their mouths firmly, and so far as I know refuse to give any information at all to anybody. An enormous new dual carriage road is to go a few miles to the East of Keswick over the beautiful Greta Valley along the side of Bassenthwaite Water where there is a pleasant country road at present which is delightful for motorists. It is said locally that this is due to a secret compact between the Leyland Motor Company and the Administration; that Leyland will
1212
put new works in West Cumberland, where employment conditions are bad, provided that they get a grand new road through the heart of the Lake District—absolutely oblivious to the effect that it would have on the scenery and the countryside. If that is true, I think it is an absolute scandal. I hope it will be possible for somebody to deny that such a compact has ever been made.
The solution of the problem of getting to the West Coast of Cumberland is easy now. The new M.6 has been extended to Carlisle and is used by heavy traffic. A new spur road, using existing roads to a large extent, and North altogether of the Lake District, North of Skidaw, across to the West Coast of Cumberland could be constructed; possibly at a rather heavier cost than the proposal at Bassenthwaite. But think of it, my Lords! Here again, it is a question of being, "penny wise—pound foolish". It is a matter not only of importance locally to the people in those parts, who I know feel very aggrieved about it, but also to the country as a whole; and I am quite sure that there will be a first-class row when the details of the scheme are eventually published, as they will have to be.
One of the great difficulties is the secrecy which is maintained until the very last moment. It is understandable that the Ministry do not want people to be conducting underhand financial deals with the idea of getting heavy compensation and that sort of thing. But that is a very small matter compared with the importance of ensuring that those who are really concerned about these things should have at any rate the general line on this sort of proposal so that they may discuss and decide about it and not have to work in the dark. This is a kind of pollution which is perhaps a little peripheral to the general line of this debate, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is a matter of first-class importance. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some reassurance on this important point.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, we are drawing near to the end of Conservation Year 1970 and to the end of a long, though interesting, debate; so it may well be that your Lordships may think that there is nothing much more to be said. Last week I was approached in the

1213
Lobbies and asked by a noble Lord why I was proposing to speak on pollution. The noble Lord said, "Surely you have no pollution troubles in the North of Scotland". This is the sort of misconception from which remoter areas suffer. If one were to say that the local authorities and our nationalised industries are among the worst polluters in the country I think that probably it would be a fair remark. Certainly it would be applicable to the North of Scotland.
Taking this into consideration, I am pleased to give the Opposition credit for having set up river boards in England and purification boards in parts of Scotland. But, my Lords, I fear that they were so orientated to the South—like the noble Lord I met in the Lobby—that they did not realise that there was any need for a board North of Nairn. They set up a Highland Development Board which has been trying to encourage the siting of aluminium works, oil refineries and other industries on our best agricultural ground. If, as is suggested by Mrs. Holmes—of "Jack Holmes Report" fame—the Moray Firth area is to be a development area, then there will be industrial effluent. In a brilliant speech some months ago, my noble friend Lord Glasgow dealt with the development of the Clyde area. His speech could well have applied also to the Moray Firth area. The local authorities, dazzled by industrial development, are in many cases blind to other problems and are prepared to allow filth to pour into our firths; and as our purification boards stop at Nairn, there is no one to check them. As the chairman of one county health committee said to me, "It will cost my burgh far too much to put its drainage right if we have a purification board".
Earlier in the debate in the excellent maiden speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, we heard about the sewage problems created by the Dounreay de. velopment. A year or two ago, and nearer Inverness, a large firm wished to set up maltings. The county council, as the health authority, told them that they would have to put in proper drainage facilities, so what did they do? The firm went to the burgh council which allowed them to put their effluent into the burgh sewer, the contents of which now pour untreated into the Firth six miles further upstream.
1214
I do not want to attack the burgh, for I appreciate the burden which would fall upon their rates, but they are shortly to be permitted to instal a new sewer pipe which will cost nearly half a million pounds and which will merely help to increase the amount of muck, produced by over 32,000 people, to be poured crude into the Firth. It really is essential that there should be some body other than local authorities to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
Still further up the Firth a new sewer was to be installed to take the drainage of the expanding village of Muir-of-Ord. At the village there is a distillery and other minor industries. Fortunately, there was a "wicked Tory landlord" through whose ground the sewer had to pass. He happened to be me. I said, "No purification works, no sewer! You are not going through here without a purification works." I am pleased to say that the sewer and its purification works are now working satisfactorily; but I am convinced that it should not have been left to a landlord to take this action. There should have been a public body who could clamp down on the local authority.
Another small example is provided by what happened in a small village in the West. A new school was built in Glenelg and a septic tank was required. But for many years the village drainage had been bad and was getting worse, so here again I intervened and said that the septic tank should be big enough to take the village drainage as well as the school drainage. But I was told, "Oh dear, this would involve two different funds: one is education and other is health, and the Glenelg village scheme is well down the list of priorities". However, here again I am pleased to say that common sense prevailed, although it should have been a purification board and not a landlord who had to take a firm line.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that all the country, including the North of Scotland, must be controlled by purification boards. I hope that the Minister may be able to assure us about that, regardless of opposition from local authorities—and they will possibly object—or even from his own officials in St. Andrew's House. I hope we may be assured that the whole country will be dealt with by proper pollution-control

1215
authorities. It is far easier to keep matters right than to put right conditions that have gone wrong.
My Lords, we have a small but significant problem right at the doorstep of this ancient building; it relates to horse manure. Apparently the Parks Departments find it cheaper to use fertiliser from a bag and therefore many of the stables in the city are unable to use straw for bedding and have to use shavings. They then have to pay to have this valuable commodity taken away by the scavenging departments. If we were not so departmentally minded, and if the cost of scavenging and soil destruction were balanced against the extra cost to the parks I wonder whether artificial fertiliser would prove more economic than the use of horse manure?
May I refer to another excellent maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Selsdon whom I should like to congratulate? He spoke of the need to use D.D.T. in Sweden and America against weevils and caterpillars. Surely, by poisoning these creatures with D.D.T. the predators of the weevils and caterpillars also were poisoned and therefore a potential menace may have been created. Some time ago, in about 1958—it was the last dry summer that we had in the North—we had a plague of diamond-back moths which were destroying our brassicas. All our kale, turnips and swedes were being attacked. The farm manager said to me, "We must spray the kale." I told him that we must not be in too much of a hurry to do that as we might well destroy the predators. So we put out 500 pheasant poults. The baby pheasants had the whale of a time and thrived abundantly. The pest was reduced to insignificant proportions and I had one of the best crops of kale I have ever had. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. I am connected with game farming, but I am not trying to advertise pheasant poults.
As several noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, have said, education is the key. A tip which I gave to our own education authority was to go and look at our school playgrounds either at midday or at closing time. The amount of rubbish lying around soon shows which schools are teaching the children to look after the
1216
country. Though we require pollution boards as watch dogs, we should also as far as possible use Nature to look after Nature.
5.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, trying to find something new to say about pollution, I looked in the dictionary to sec the meaning of the word, and was rather disappointed to see that it meant only to "defile". What the dictionary does not say is that pollution can also kill. It seems to me rather unrealistic to have a debate about pollution without also having a debate about over-population because, especially as regards these tiny islands, the two matters are inter-related. The only speaker who has mentioned the question of population in this debate is the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who I thought made a very pertinent speech.
Over-population is a subject which has always interested me, but I do not intend to go into it now. But one thing we must remember: the higher the standard of living the more pollution is caused, not necessarily through drainage but through ravaging the earth. A hundred thousand people in Asia living in primitive conditions (though not all of them do) do not pollute the earth's surface so much as 10,000 people in England, and probably 5,000 people in America: because the manner in which the West ravages the earth is phenomenal.
The time may come when people will be limited to one car—and a small car at that. I am not going to dwell on this subject, because I wish to speak on two pollutions which I abhor—pollution to the eyes and pollution to the ears. I agree that pollution to the nose is offensive, but while one can at least hold a handkerchief to one's nose, one cannot go around perpetually blindfolded or wearing ear plugs. Fortunately, on this island, with our windy climate, though we do get nasty smells from traffic and other contrivances, pollution to our noses is not so serious as we might suppose from the smells.
As we all know it is road traffic that is the worst offender in regard to noise—though those who live near an airport probably do not agree with me. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said that

1217
road traffic causes not only the pollution of noise but also the desecration of our countryside. I think he also made the point that, though we want everybody to share the beauty of the countryside, the difficulty is that their very numbers destroy what they go to see. This is a problem that will have to be solved somehow, but how it can be solved I will leave to better organisers than myself.
I was extremely pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford say that industry, presumably with the support of the Government, were making strides in the development of an electric engine for cars and buses. I really think that soon in our major cities the Government must give a lead to public transport in changing over to electric engines. At the present time, this would be inconvenient to some extent, because a bus would have to charge its batteries at the end of every run, probably every hour; but I am sure that in a comparatively short time a battery will be invented which does not need this.
I have long thought that we shall probably have to debar private cars from the centre of our cities, apart from the cars of doctors and other people who must have them. But I think that the electric engine offers a great opportunity to help the transport problem. I remember my father telling me a long time ago that he had a steam car, the Stanley Steamer. He was very impressed by it, because it went extremely fast. He told me that it could do over 100 m.p.h. If we can develop steam cars especially for long journeys, it will be a great help in combating the problems of noise and pollution by fumes. We also have the gas turbine engine, which could be developed.
Before I leave the subject of noise, it is extraordinary that, while we have legislation to protect us from noise, it does not appear to be enforced. If we take pneumatic drills, they are infringing the law the whole time. If a pneumatic drill is started up under your window, the noise exceeds the number of decibels allowed, so far as I can gather from the legislation; but nothing has ever been done about that. I should have thought it not impossible to have an electric drill which would be less of a nuisance than the pneumatic drill.
1218
I should also like to say a word about supersonic aircraft. I spend my autumns in the West of Scotland. This autumn the Concorde flew over my house two or three times, and I heard the supersonic boom. On the first occasion I was out on the hill, and the boom was no worse than a mild clap of thunder. As for the wild animals, the deer only raised then heads for a second: the sheep took no notice; nor did the birds. It has surprised me to read in the Press that when the Concorde was doing its tests down the West Coast a great point was made of dogs getting hysteria and people being nervous. Quite honestly, that is a lot of nonsense. I cannot help thinking that some of our competitors, who are no doubt hoping that we shall not have the Concorde, are putting this propaganda around. As I say, I have heard the boom and it is very mild: and, in any case, the Concorde will be supersonic over the sea a hundred miles from the land.
I should like to refer now to the question of the pollution of water and land. Great strides have been made in water purification, and I think water resources authorities, local authorities, industry and all others connected with this are to be congratulated. But there is one point about which I am not at all happy, and that is in regard to the surface run-off in intensively farmed areas near rivers. This does not apply in wild country. For instance, in Scotland we always pour our used sheep dip into the ground, but this would be a terrible thing to do in a highly farmed area. In Scotland it does not matter, because there may not be another house for twelve miles, and there is such a volume of water that it makes no difference.
I have in mind the matter of silage effluent in heavily farmed areas. I should like to see farmers in heavily farmed arable areas compelled to drain their silage effluent into tanks. The local authority would either collect the silage effluent to deposit it into the drainage system—they do this with private septic tanks—or the farmer (and he would probably require a small grant) should be made to take the drain-off from his silage tank to the nearest sewage farm. Quite apart from silage effluent, buildings anywhere near a river in a highly farmed area should not be allowed to drain off

1219
any poisonous substance into the surface drainage. It should all be made to go into the nearest drainage system.
Several noble Lords have spoken about the surplus of manure—and this applies very much to factory farming. This is a great problem, but in these days, when we have flights to the moon, it should not be beyond the bounds of organisation to arrange to have this surplus manure transported to the many areas in England where natural manure would be a great boon. If some system could be devised—I suppose by grant again, although I do not like grants—for cheap transport to the areas where it is needed, it would be a good thing for the soil generally. In the Midlands of England now there are large areas where the fibre in the soil is completely broken down and they cannot continue to grow arable crops at an economic yield. We can only get the soil back to a proper condition either by a long period of grass and grazing or by the introduction of natural manure.
There is one point in the White Paper that I am pleased to see, and it is that industry is conducting research into the manufacture of artificial fertiliser which will be used totally by the crop. Up to date, any artificial fertiliser has been soluble, and when it rains—and there must be rain and moisture in the soil to make the fertiliser work on the crop—much of the fertiliser, particularly in a high rainfall area, drains off into underground water, or into a stream, and eventually into the nation's water. That, of course, is undesirable. If we can get a fertiliser that will not dissolve in water and can be completely absorbed into the crop, it will be a great stride forward in the fertiliser manufacture.
May I say a word or two on pesticides? I was surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, say that he thought that damage done by pesticides is highly exaggerated. I agree that the position is better now, owing to the banning of aldrin, dealdrin and some injurious seed dressings; but I have farmed all my life, and I can remember that in the County of Kent some twenty years ago the morning bird song would wake me up. It certainly does not wake me up now; in fact, I have to use an entirely different means. At my place in East Kent we
1220
used to have what was called a toad walk. It was once recorded on the B.B.C. We had thousands of toads that came to the lake to breed, and you could hear them all night. Well, I have not seen a toad for years. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that this is due entirely to pesticides.
Dragon flies have gone, as have kingfishers, and we have hardly any butterflies. The trouble is that the fruit-growing farmers spray the fruit trees and kill the insects that eat the fruit; then the song birds and other birds have no food because there are no insects; and then the farmers want to kill the song birds. Pesticides, as your Lordships know, completely upset the balance of nature. The plague of wood pigeons that we have had in the last few years has been due chiefly, I think, to injurious seed dressings which cause the birds of prey to kill birds which were infected by this dressing, and by eating the contaminated flesh they would then be killed themselves.
I am not yet happy regarding pesticides, and I should like to see—although I think there would be an uproar from farmers—all pesticides subject to statutory control. I understand from the White Paper that pesticides not used for agriculture are to be subject to such controls. That is excellent. I should like to see pesticides for agriculture also subject to this control, because I am not at all happy with the position. Pesticide salesmen are persuasive; and you cannot blame the farmer for using pesticides, because he has high labour costs and he cannot afford to employ the labour that he used to employ. In some cases he has high rents. He has to produce cheap food and is subject the whole time to exhortations to produce more and more. Therefore, you cannot blame the farmer.
I should like to say a few words about sea pollution because I used to have something to do with shipping when I was a member of a shipping company. I also have some knowledge of navigation on the sea. I should like to see all tankers over a certain size, on entering the confined waters of the British Isles, the English Channel—and I would go so far as to say even the Irish Sea—compelled by maritime law to reduce speed to, say, 10 knots, and perhaps less. A tanker of 150,000 tons, travelling at 18 or 20 knots, takes about five miles to

1221
stop. It is a tremendous hazard in these enclosed waters. I think the noble Lard, Lord Geddes, referred to pilots. I should like to see pilots go out to tankers which are far off our shores, well before they enter the English Channel, because it is absolutely iniquitous that we should have the seas round our Islands polluted just by carelessness. And it is only by carelessness, because modern ships have every navigational aid to-day. I am of the opinion that the seamen of some nations have become very careless owing to navigational aids. I remember the case of a ship belonging to the company I was in, lying at anchor outside Lisbon. The visability was not bad; it was during the daytime and there was a slight fog, but an American ship came slap into her. It is fantastic how that can happen with radar; it is complete carelessness.
Before I end I should like to go back to the beginning of my speech and say that if we cannot control our overpopulation, I doubt whether we shall be able in the end to control our pollution. Over-population is rather like the wages and prices spiral. Over-population and pollution tend to rise together. One point in the White Paper worried me: I think it said that in thirty years the effluent in this country will be doubled. How are we going to increase the volume of water in rivers? Presumably we cannot double it. I think my noble friend Lord Ingleby made a good point with regard to the pumping up of underground water; that is a very pertinent point. But the question will arise one day, "Will there be enough underground water?" I only hope that by that period desalination will have made such long strides that we may be able to pump desalinated water from the sea to increase the flow of our rivers. But it will be a very expensive process.
I am sure that if the population grows as it is growing now—although there is a slight slackening off in the birth rate—it will be beyond even our ingeniuty in thirty years' time to cope with pollution. If that happens Nature will redress the balance, but she will take a terrible toll in human misery. I hope that will not happen, but I fear that it might. I should like to congratulate the Government although perhaps I ought to congratulate the last Government—on the White Paper. I believe this White Paper was
1222
produced under the auspices of the last Government, so I should like to congratulate both Governments. They are obviously alive to the dangers of pollution, and the White Paper has my full support.
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I have to begin with an apology, which is more than a formality, on two counts. First, I am in somewhat of a state of shock because I have just arrived at your Lordships' House in a taxi, to be told that I was the next speaker. Secondly, up to about half an hour ago I was giving a lecture on the Irish Revolution when the electric lights went out. I was engaged in part of my normal working day, and the adjournment of your Lordships' debate until this afternoon made it difficult for me to hear the speakers on the list, from my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I apologise most sincerely to the House for not being able to attend until this late hour. I hope your Lordships will make the low, tidal, murmuring, policing noises of dissent if I say anything which other noble Lords have said before me, and said rather better; and in that event I will sit down.
I want to say a few words about motor cars in connection with this White Paper. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, (and it is nice to see him entering the Chamber at this moment) in addition to making an excellent speech, wrote the first White Paper I have ever read which can be congratulated for its prose. Nevertheless, it seems to me that he took a rather despairing, if eloquently expressed, line about motor cars. All through the White Paper there seemed the clear implication that we were no longer free men in respect of these products; that motor cars must necessarily increase in volume with the increase in population, and there was nothing much that could be done about it. He said, as he said earlier in a speech last year, there was no evidence that carbon monoxide in our streets has any adverse effects on health or environment. But surely, my Lords, we cannot separate carbon monoxide from general pollution connected with motor cars. The whole to-do of motor cars—their servicing, manufacture and so forth—is a very important industry and a

1223
major polluter. In the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, an archetypal event in pollution history, the vessel was carrying gasolene at the time.
The second problem is the creation of costs. We learn that, as car, motor-cycle and lorry engines become more powerful, other things being equal more power means more noise. It is good to hear that the Ministry of Transport are discussing with the motor manufacturing industry a phased and precise programme of noise reduction. But it seems inescapable that, as cars increase, even if they have quieter engines, their noise also will increase. There are certain advantages in having larger engines in private motor cars so far as noise is concerned. I notice that in America, of the many evil by-products of a totally "automoted" civilisation, noise, curiously enough, was not one of the worst, because of the large engines and automatic gears. If there were incentives to make even more cars, and lorries especially, automatic as to gearing, there might be a possibility of noise reduction there.
As many noble Lords said on Wednesday, more eloquently than I can, we cannot have an attack or fight on pollution which is separate from a fight for civilised life or a life with quality in it. Our life, whether we live in the country or in town, is essentially urban; it depends on urban services and urban communications. It cannot be denied that motor cars have caused more disruption, more breakdown, in urban unity than anything else this century, not excluding aerial attack. The environmental breakdown of cities must be closely linked to the rise in the idea of unlimited, unrestricted personal mobility which goes with a car.
I hope that my noble friends are keeping an eye on America and that we have spies, as it were, in Los Angeles and other places where efforts are being made to tackle an already disastrous situation. We may be able to learn from some of their methods, and may yet avoid falling into some of their mistakes. If we do, it seems to me that we desperately need other cult objects than motor cars. The Arts are beginning to wake up to this. Noble Lords may have seen Godard's film, Weekend, which contained in the
1224
early places some good satire about a motor-car civilisation; and I understand that Jacques Tati, of Monsieur Hulot fame, is now making a film about a man who buys a car costing £15,000 and takes three weeks to get from Holland to Paris in it.
One of the main concerns of all people interested in environment is what can be done about planning for the future. In this respect motor cars are especially problematical, because they require very expensive and permanent plant. It seems to me that one can tolerate our present congestion, even our present traffic jams and noise, smog, fumes and what-have-you, because it is possible to feel that sooner or later we shall all wake up to our madness. But what is hard to tolerate is the idea of many millions of pounds being spent on very expensive plant which is suitable to no other means of transport.
I believe that people in Government serious underestimate the degree to which, while motor cars are popular cult objects, their "fall-out"—the implications of unlimited personal mobility—is beginning to get through to the public at large. Anyone who lives in London knows from talking to others, including strangers—people in taxis, people in buses—that most people are pretty fed up in this connection and would welcome a degree of limitation over their personal mobility in the interests of a better urban environment. Whenever we allocate funds to build another motorway we ought to ask ourselves what we shall be doing with this in the year 2000, when we hope to be able to provide other forms of transport.
The fifth disadvantage of motor cars is that they lock up a great deal of capital. It is very instructive to take a notebook and pencil, walk down any London street during the heavy parking times and work out how much money is being locked up in parking meters and not being made to work. I feel that, while we owe much to the motor-car industry for the wealth it has generated for us up to now, and the mobility and freedom it has given us, in fact this static capital is beginning now to become more expensive than it is worth. The idea of unlimited personal mobility, uncontrolled personal mobility, also makes it impossible for public transport services to compete in any serious

1225
way with private transport. My only suggestion in this respect is that the Government should see that British Rail run one small section of their services—say, the London to Birmingham route, or the London to Edinburgh route—in the most prestigious and glamorous way imaginable, so that people could see that it is possible to travel in great comfort and style and enjoyment. It would be worth subsidising one line as a possibility for the future in this respect.
Finally, it cannot be denied that motor cars kill and maim. We have to congratulate the last Government upon their policies on speed limits in this country, and I hope there are no indications that my noble friends will think about "upping" those limits. The tendency of people—I am sure we are all guilty in this respect is to travel about 10 miles an hour faster than the speed limit permits. If, therefore, there is a limit of 70 m.p.h., a great number of people will drive at 80 m.p.h.; if there is a speed limit of 80 m.p.h., many people will drive at 90 m.p.h. There is cause for congratulation in that, with a large increase in the motor-car owning population, the deaths have recently held steady. Nevertheless, in my view just under 7,000 deaths a year—many of them of young people—is an unacceptable level. This cannot be denied. The last figures available (and we shall be getting some new statistics soon, I understand) show that 88,500 people were seriously injured, hospitalised, in 1968. In that light the cost of the motor car on the public services is absolutely staggering.
What to do about this problem, my Lords? It seems to me that in a debate of this kind it would not be useful for me to speak at length about various modes of research being undertaken into alternative forms of auto-transport. Also, I do not want your Lordships to think I am living in Cloud Cuckoo-land. I accept entirely that for a very long time some form of auto-transport will be a necessary condition of our culture: our culture will demand it. But I want simply to bring to your Lordships' attention, and especially the attention of my noble friends, a quotation from an article in the current issue of Crossbow by David Braine. He says:
"Our motor car population has doubled in the last 10 years to 10 million vehicles, and is
1226
likely to double again by 1980. No effective national policy, either short- or long-term, has been developed for the motor vehicle."
My Lords, could not put it better than that, and I should like to leave my noble friends with that thought.
5.50 p.m.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, in the course of an extremely informative and eloquent speech on Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that the Government proposed to keep to the target which had been set by the last Government for the clearance of derelict land, and hoped that the greater part of this land will be cleared within ten years. I should like, if I may, to comment briefly on the implications of that most important statement.
As your Lordships may know, I come from the county of Lancashire which is perhaps notorious—or infamous, I am not sure which—for the fact that it has inside it about one-sixth of all the derelict land in England. That is more than any other county. Furthermore, the Government define derelict land as "land which is so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment." This is a restrictive definition, and I think that by applying it the amount of derelict land in Lancashire has in fact been considerably underestimated. The proportion is in fact very high indeed, and it is unevenly distributed. There are areas in Lancashire where as much as 25 per cent. of the total area is classified by the Government as derelict, and on any reasonable definition of the word "dereliction" one could easily raise the percentage to something as high as 33 or even 40 per cent. This means that not only is the area blighted by the evident squalor of the land itself, but it nearly always means that the district in question is poverty stricken because it has lost the industries whose departure has in fact resulted in the dereliction.
There were 400 active collieries in Lancashire in 1911; there are less than a dozen to-day. In the last decade more than 1,100 textile mills have been closed. Their departure leads to dereliction and to poverty; to the decline of all the facilities in a district—the schools, the houses, the roads and, most particularly in the case of collieries, it has a most dreadful effect on the sewers and the drains, which tend

1227
to get broken because of the subsidence consequent upon the end of the collieries themselves.
The problem which confronts a district such as those between Manchester and Wigan, is disheartening to an almost unbelievable degree. If one takes the particular case, let us say, of Tyldesley, one finds that the probable cost of reclaiming the land is of the order of £400,000 or £500,000; and this is an area in which a penny rate produces something less than £2,000. Furthermore, it is in an area which, if it had any resources at all, would undoubtedly want to spend them on improving the houses, the roads, the sewers and all the other amenities which the whole district totally lacks.
For this reason I want to press the point on the Government that I do not believe that the present policy which is adopted for financing clearance will in fact succeed in the end in doing what is so evidently necessary. Most of these areas have lost the land because it has been abandoned after it had been used for hundreds of years. It is no longer possible to say, as noble Lords have said once or twice during the debate, that the people who produce pollution should clear it up—that the consumer should clear it up. There are no such people as either polluters or consumers of the mills and collieries which produced the dereliction fifty or a hundred years ago. It is quite inconceivable that funds can be provided on an adequate scale by the communities themselves, and therefore I think it is absolutely essential that some other and quite special financial arrangement should be made if this ambition, which we all tremendously welcome, on the part of the Government is in fact to be achieved.
My Lords, since Lancashire started its very ambitious programme of land clearance about 14 years ago, 700 acres of derelict land have been reclaimed, and in a single year—1969—more than 1.000 acres of land were added to the total of dereliction. So that in one year considerably more than the whole achievement of 14 years was undone. This is the problem with which Lancashire is confronted; this is the problem which can be solved only by very active Government help on a scale which so far cannot even be imagined.
1228
My Lords, the remarkable thing is that when the Government give funds for a community to spend on the clearance of derelict land they give it as part of their ordinary block grant out of which the community itself has to pay for, let us say, building projects for education, for health and welfare, for the police and all improvements under Parts I and II of the Housing Act. Anything which is left over has to be spent on locally determined schemes, which include all such other local government services as, for example, furniture for the schools, the fire service, the library service, industrial development and all reclamation work.
A community which is in any event deprived of all its amenities, which is deprived of almost all its industry, which has no resources at all, cannot, out of a grant provided to cover all these things, earmark a reasonable amount for the reclamation of the land which has been destroyed over the centuries. I believe it will be essential that the same kind of financial provision is made for the clearance of land as is made for housing provision, for example; that is a separate item for which the Government make a specific contribution and which the Government take on board as a major responsibility which they have to discharge themselves.
The position of a great deal of Lancashire is really extraordinarily depressing, and one might almost go so far as to say that it is desperate. I have said that at this very moment in time land is becoming derelict much faster than it is being cleared, and I do not see how any increase which the Government or anyone is contemplating at this time will do anything significant to redress the balance. I would ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who is to reply to the debate, whether it is possible that in the circumstances special steps can be taken to make certain that Lancashire ceases to lose more ground than it can reclaim.
Many observations have been made about the problems of clearance of colliery tips. As one noble Lord said, a great deal of the material from tips has been taken away to be used for foundations of roads. This is an admirable enterprise, but it has sometimes resulted in the creation of even more squalor

1229
than there was before, because the contractor who was obliged to remove the spoil was given no incentives at all to do so in a tidy and reasonably æsthetic way and he has left a scar in a tip which had begun gradually to mould itself into the landscape and made it look even worse than it was before.
In a dreadful way almost all the dice are loaded against these people. Not only do they have these tips which sometimes have to be moved, but when they do so they discover that they are on fire, and the problem of taking out the burning spoil creates an enormous cloud of stenchy smoke, leaves a scar on all the property around and is almost unendurable to people for miles around. Even when this has been done problems of drainage remain and all the civil engineering of a district has to be done over again.
I should like to refer to one or two of the difficulties with which we are confronted. Your Lordships know how the textile trade has collapsed and how a great deal of rationalisation has been done in the last few years. One finds that textile firms, after closing down a mill in Lancashire, find themselves under tremendous pressure to move to Cumberland in order to get a grant from the Central Investment Funds.
The system of providing industrial incentives for people to move into the black areas has created an ever-growing amount of dereliction in the central part of Lancashire, where more and more mills are derelict because the firms that own them cannot afford to re-equip them owing to the Government's desire for them to move out of Lancashire. Many old mills are lying derelict or are about to become derelict. One large industrial firm (I will not mention its name) owned a mill in the centre of a large Lancashire town, and when they decided to rebuild it they did so in such a way as to provide a little market square, with trees and so on, as an amenity for the town. This cost the shareholders about a quarter of a million pounds, for which they got no conceivable return on their capital; it was a gesture which the firm wanted to make, but I do not suppose it was tremedously popular with many of the shareholders.
Other large factories not very far from New Mills, which is near Manchester,
1230
have had to be abandoned because of the rationalisation of the dyeing and finishing trde. I think four big factories have been abandoned and inevitably they will collapse into a state of ruin before long. The firm itself cannot afford to do anything, and the only people who can extract any grant at all in aid of reclamation are, of course, the local authorities.
I would ask the Government to imagine the possibility—probably the noble Lord cannot give a firm answer to-night, but I would ask the Government to consider it—that firms who own large, old factories which have been rundown and have to be abandoned could be paid some sort of reclamation grant comparable to that which the local authority might get, on the understanding that if and when the land is subsequently sold and redeveloped the money advanced to the firm will be treated as a loan and repaid. If this were done, it would do something to bring private industry on the side of reclamation instead of leaving it where it is, unable to help, and helplessly watching devastation where once were flourishing factories providing the lifeblood of almost the whole of the northern part of England.
I should like to talk briefly about a subject not mentioned previously this afternoon, the enormous devastation—for it is little less than that—caused over many years by the great Corporations of Liverpool and Manchester and their waterworks. It is not too much to say that the devastation of the West part of the Pennines, in East Lancashire, spreading from the Peak to the National Park part in the Lake District, an area of a quarter of a million acres, some 350 square miles, has been almost totally devastated and destroyed by the deliberate policy of these organisations, which have taken away any form of human life, destroyed farms and allowed walls to collapse so that the water which is collected can be supplied to their customers without any form of purification or filtration whatsoever.
I repeat that the total area involved is almost as large as the Lake District. It is almost unknown, almost uninhabited. It is at the moment used solely as a catchment area for water, and it is at the moment submerged under the smoke

1231
which comes up from the chimneys of Lancashire, if ever Lancashire does become clear again, this area is potentially one of the most beautiful and one of the most important areas for recreation to be found anywhere in England. Recreation, we are told, is one of the growing industries of the community. Recreation is a subject to which many of your Lordships have referred, and it is important to realise that we have a potential in some of these areas which has been forgotten. I am quite sure that for a relatively modest expenditure we could create an environment as attractive as the Lakes and at least as accessible to the conurbations of Lancashire and Yorkshire.
It is quite dreadful that over a period of so many years we should have allowed this potentially exciting and useful area to remain derelict in order to avoid the cost of filtering water to be supplied to Lancashire and Yorkshire. It will cost perhaps £50 million or £100 million to cope with the whole problem of re-afforesting it and making it accessible, but once done it would provide an amenity of enormous value.
So I should like briefly to say once again that much as I welcome the promise of the Government that they hope to see the end of the worst of the dereliction within ten years, I doubt very much whether the financial policies so far enunciated will achieve this. I do not believe that it is reasonable that districts which have lost their industry and lost all that makes life worth living should themselves be asked to make any significant contribution to the clearing up of the land from which the wealth of England has come for many long years. It will have to be a responsibility shouldered entirely by the Government. I feel that more could be done to involve the ordinary shareholders of great companies in the clearing up of Lancashire than is done, and much more could be done to overcome the damage, which was caused by the building and abandoning of factories and coal mines and the pocking of Lancashire with disused tin shafts. We should furthermore reclaim a huge area of some of the most beautiful parts of the Pennines, devastated to provide the North-West with water.
1232
These are some of the problems to which I wanted to draw your Lordships' attention. The area is so depressing. I would beg any of your Lordships who could spare the time to wander slowly through the part of Lancashire between Manchester, Oldham and Wigan and look at it. Try to imagine how anybody living there can face the problem of renewing it and making it fit for habitation.
6.10 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was greatly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, said about East Lancashire and the Western slopes of the Pennines, and I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford was not here to listen, because in his speech I thought he was prepared to add to areas of this sort and tell us that we would have to do so in the interests of ensuring that the water supply matched demand in the future. I hope that what he said will prove not to be true.
As it is late on the second day of this debate, and coming towards the end of a long list of speakers, I shall be brief and not croak on like the plague of toads about which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, spoke. I hope that my noble friend Lord Molson is gratified at the interest shown in this debate, and I am sure I am right in saying that the interest in this House, which is very widespread, reflects the interest outside in the country. It is a very important subject. I was glad to hear the noble Lord put great emphasis on our water policy, for commercial and industrial uses, and for recreation, too. It is worth remembering that this House has played a notable part over recent years in pressing for a comprehensive water policy, and it is only too sad that progress has been so slow and that we still act, as it were, from hand to mouth.
I was particularly delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford's poetic opening paragraphs, and his references to fresh air and clean water, to field and to forests, the war against din and clatter and the choir of the Benedicite. They were well-chosen words and appropriate to the subject; and I thought, how welcome this civilising influence will be in some sections of his Department where

1233
it is badly needed! His speech, too, reflected the spirit of the recent Guildhall Conference and the Council of Europe's Declaration of Management of the Natural Environment, whereby, among other things, Governments are urged to safeguard immediately unspoiled lakeshore and coastline and to ensure free access to them. That is something which is most important to this country. It is important to Scotland, and even more important to England where pressures on unspoiled and unpolluted country are so much greater.
I went home last weekend a happy man, thinking that the Department of the Environment would surely try to practise what they preached, and that in future we should see fewer acts of vandalism than we have known over recent years. But no. On reaching home, I was given a message through official channels that the noble Lord's Department intend, on December 18, the day after Parliament rises, to publish draft Orders for major roadworks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has already referred, through a part of the Lake District National Park. I was given this message because it is known that I am interested in the area in several ways. It is true that they are planning for this road to run along the shores of an unspoiled lake, Bassenthwaite, where one of the carriageways for several miles will be so close to the water that there is no chance of having a continuous footpath. Hence the public will be denied the access which, with the recent pulling up of the railway line, has become possible for the first time in 100 years. That does not accord with the poetic opening of my noble friend's speech.
My interest here is as President of the local tourist board, and with many I deplore the introduction of din and clatter against which the noble Lord said that he was making war. Instead of din and clatter, here there should be peace and quiet; and whatever economic arguments there may be for this road (and surely they can be few) I would say that the tourist industry, which is the largest industry in the country and the quickest growing one, has never been consulted.
No one is against an improved East/West road through the Northern parts of
1234
the Lake District, linking West Cumberland with the M.6. There are no insurmountable difficulties in widening the present road, and thereby effecting great improvement. When the population of West Cumberland is not large, and never will be so very large in the foreseeable future, why is it necessary to have a road on the scale of the Great North Road where it runs through Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire (and I measured this the other day), and with an alignment to allow speeds of up to 60 m.p.h. along the lake side? That is much worse pollution of the lake than merely tipping garbage and Elsan effluent into the water.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, there is a story circulating locally that there was a bargain struck between the former Prime Minister and Leyland Motors, and that the company insisted that a road should be built on a scale to take the biggest ever vehicles. I do not put this forward as a Party point, because if it is true, and if the present Government have accepted it, they must share the responsibility. But if you ask any Minister or any senior county councillors or their officials about this, none will admit or deny. They look embarrassed and avoid giving a straight answer. I submit that we must get to the bottom of this story, whether it is true or not true.
All too few quiet places are left in this country, and this particular place which the Government propose to pollute is the quiet place where Tennyson was staying when he wrote in Morte d'Arthur:
"And on a sudden, lo! the level lake …".
What would he see if he came there and the noble Lord's plans are carried through?
My few final sentences are going to refer to the Department of the Environment's methods. First, there is strong local criticism that preparations for a scheme of this sort should be conducted in near secrecy, and that the same secrecy should be imposed on a county council which would like to play fair but has not been allowed to. Secondly, the publishing of draft Orders for works like this which are not just of local or county importance but of national interest, should not happen on the day after Parliament rises and only a week before Christmas, which is nothing less than a trick in order to avoid attention

1235
being attracted to them. Thirdly, rather than to publish one Section 7 Order for the whole length of the lake where the road runs along it, so that it can be considered as a whole, which many people in the country would think right, it is not right, as they propose, to break up their Orders into small pieces, presumably to fragment the opposition. Lastly, where it can be deemed that this is to be only a road widening and not a new construction, even though there is a second carriageway involved, it must be noted that they are proceeding not by the usual Section 7 Orders, but by some other way, so that the only form of formal objection will be that of the owner concerned taking exception to a compulsory purchase order.
Here I must declare a second interest, because I think I am the sole owner of this narrow strip about three times as wide as this Chamber, where the hills come closest to the water and where the plan requires only a compulsory purchase order. In trade union jargon, it appears that I have been what is called "victimised".
No doubt I shall be pilloried as time goes on as a "titled reactionary". Whatever else people may say about me, I am not a political funk; and if I do what I think right, and maybe attract a deal of ill-informed criticism, I hope that it will not reflect too badly on your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I have spoken in sadness and in anger. I am going to say nothing more to-night, except that the country expects better of a Government which has set up a Department of the Environment than to do things like this.
6.19 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I should like first of all to join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who has initiated this most interesting debate. I would also especially congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on the speech he has just made to this House. I hope that it will be fully reported in the newspapers. I apologise for introducing at the present time yet another subject into this somewhat diffuse debate, but I promise your Lordships that I shall be quite brief, and that there are good reasons for my brevity which will emerge in my concluding sentences.
1236
I am absolutely amazed that in a two-day debate on pollution and its effects on the environment, hardly a word has been said on the smoking of cigarettes. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is, so far as I know, the only one who briefly alluded to it; and so far as I can see there is no mention of it in the Command Paper. In relation to the mighty ocean and the global atmosphere, a little cigarette smoke can have only a trifling influence, but in relation to the intimate climate—indeed, the internal climate of the lungs and the bronchial tubes themselves—the inhalation of cigarette smoke is, I suggest to your Lordships, the most concentrated pollution to which an ordinary person is ever exposed. We all deplore the foul exhausts of ill-adjusted diesel engines, but as a doctor I am unable to tell you of any disease which is notably due to the exhaust fumes of diesel engines, or of any thousands of deaths which take place as a result of these fumes getting into our atmosphere. But the most conservative estimates tell us now that at least 50,000 premature deaths per year, in this country of ours alone, are due to the effect of the smoking of cigarettes.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the tobacco manufacturers last year spent, I think, £18 million on promoting their wares—or pushing their drugs, if you prefer a more direct statement. This Government have expressed their intention, which I commend, of working closely with captains of industry. I would therefore call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the present President of the C.B.I. is also the Chairman of the Imperial Tobacco Company. Therefore this Government should have ample opportunity to obtain every possible help in trying to get the tobacco manufacturers to end what I can only call their evil propaganda. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred to pollution as a compound of avarice and ignorance. I am afraid that I cannot accuse the cigarette manufacturers of ignorance.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer, except to say that I was President of the Royal College of Physicians when we issued our Report, Smoking and Health, in 1962. The College is about to issue its second Report on this subject, and I entreat Her Majesty's Government to let both Houses have an ample

1237
opportunity of discussing it as soon as is reasonably possible after its publication.
6.24 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, we have had a far-reaching debate over a large number of subjects, and one is tempted to pick up the numbers of points that have been made. At this late hour I will succumb to the temptation of picking up only one point before getting on to my main subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, raised the whole problem of moral pollution as well as that of national pollution. I was fascinated and interested by her argument, although I did not entirely agree with it. However, moral and physical pollution are to a certain extent the same thing. The misuse of natural resources is a moral and ethical issue, and the punishment that we get from misusing them is a breaking of natural laws. Possibly many would say, including many theologians, that it is a breaking of God's laws as well, and that in this particular case the two are the same thing.
Although the noble Baroness did not give us much hope as to what we could do on the moral side—except that she seemed to be rather nostalgic about a return to the past—I believe that a lot is being done at the moment to improve our approach both to the things she was specifically talking about, and to the whole problem of how we use our surroundings responsibly. I think that we can find an ethical system which both humanists and Christians can use constructively for this purpose. We should be very proud that in this country more work is being done on this particular kind of problem than anywhere else in the world. The Farmington Trust, working on the whole concept of moral education at Oxford, is the first of its kind in the world, and it is producing the kind of material for teachers and schools which is exactly the type that various noble Lords speaking in this debate have asked for. They have asked for more education. I think that we can have more education on a moral basis, and we should be very grateful to the people who are working on this particular subject.
That brings me to my main subject, which I pick up, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the
1238
noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, from a remark made by my noble friend Lord Thurso in his admirable speech. May I digress here just for a second to explain to your Lordships that he could not be here for the second day. He has already written to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and some other noble Lords. As many of you know, communication with the North of Scotland is extremely difficult at the moment, and my noble friend has found it impossible to get down following the change of programme in your Lordships' House. He said that pollution is made by people. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, picked up this thought. There is a population problem, and if we do not examine it we are not really doing our duty in the examination of pollution.
The growth rate of the world's population, whichever estimates one takes (and I know that the experts diverge widely on this subject), is such that it cannot be supported at this kind of rate for very long in human history, for the simple reason that the earth is finite. I fear that those who look to the moon or to the planets for our salvation are probably merely crying for the moon. Over-population of course has its real problems, such as shortage of food. But what we are really beginning to wake up to now is the fact that the first problem to be desperately felt by the rest of the world is pollution, the piling up of waste products; and particularly, as was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, from the civilised and developed countries rather than from the underdeveloped countries.
There are two ways in which we must face this problem, and neither of them can be neglected. The first is that population must be controlled, and the second is that resources must be conserved. We must conserve resources, not only in order that there shall be more resources for the population, but also in order that there shall be less pollution and less waste. In considering the first point about population control, we must see that this country, even though we do not suffer from over-population to the degree that some countries do, takes a lead. There are several reasons for this. First, it is up to the developed countries to set a good example in this way, because there is an understandable suspicion, on the part of

1239
the underdeveloped countries, when the developed and powerful countries say to them, "You must keep your manpower down"—manpower which, very often, they see as their main wealth—whereas the developed countries do very little about it themselves. Therefore, we must set a good example.
The second reason this country must take a lead is that we can do it, and sometimes they cannot. In India, if you do not have sons you are quite likely to starve. As someone put it, the sons of an Indian family are their social insurance stamps. We have a social insurance system in this country; we do not need to breed in order to support our old age and in order to survive. To a certain extent the underdeveloped countries cannot exercise population control in the same way that we can. Thirdly, I believe that, because of problems such as overpopulation which are coming in the world, it is very desirable that this country should be as nearly self-supporting as it can possibly be. I am a free trader and I believe that one should rely on free trade. But I also believe that one should be prepared for any emergency and that this country and Western Europe should be able to be self-supporting.
Fourthly, when we are talking about the quality of life, we must think of the idea of an optimum population. No one knows what is an optimum population for this country, but many people have made guesses. Most of the guesses, from experts on biology and the social sciences, are that we are well over the optimum population at the moment. Whatever the answer may be, we must strive towards it. We must begin to have a population policy, which we have never had before, and perhaps we should begin by aiming to hold our population at its present level. It may be that we shall have to reduce it, but that would be a start.
How we are to achieve this is a complicated matter and not one for this debate, but I hope it is something which at some time we might consider in your Lordships' House. All I want to say about the matter is that I am sure that any incentives to keep the population down must be in the form of incentives for those who do not have children, rather than disincentives for those who do. I cannot think of anything more immoral
1240
than some of the proposals of people who feel as strongly as I do on population control and who would achieve it by reducing family allowances. It is one thing to try to discourage children, but it is another to starve the very families who should be supporting the children who will be the coming generation. Compulsion of any kind is abhorrent to us and it is the last resort. But we must realise, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, that compulsion may have to be resorted to in the end. But if we are going to avoid it, as we must all want to do, we ought to take steps quickly.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he tell the House what he means by "compulsion"? Who would compel whom to do what?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I can see a situation in, say, a hundred years' time when the population of the world is such that compulsory sterilisation ought to be applied in a large number of countries. It would be the absolutely ultimate resort but it might have to come, particularly after a given number of children. The world cannot go on expanding in population. Does that answer the noble Lord?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords. I only wondered whether the noble Lord saw the police immobilising and sedating those to whom this procedure was to be applied—or what?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, in a state of emergency most kinds of social and physical engineering are feasible, however regrettable. We must not think that 1984 cannot happen merely because it is repulsive to us that it should happen. It can happen.
Conservation in resources and thrift are the other side of the coin. It has often been a complaint—a complaint which I have not shared—that in the modern Welfare State private thrift is no longer a popular virtue and is no longer something to be encouraged. But I think it is becoming clear that public thrift is the new virtue: that we must be thrifty with our resources and that we can do this only through social measures. Pollution is at the moment a popular subject:

1241
hence the number of speakers in this debate; hence the number of books which appear week by week and month by month on this subject; hence the new magazines on it. It is right that it should be so, because pollution is a grave danger to us.
But Governments are always tempted to deal with symptoms, and pollution is a symptom of deeper ills and wrongs. So I hope very much that the present Government, who have some claim to think of themselves as a radical Government—admittedly, a radical Government of the Right after something like 23 years of totally non-radical Governments—might turn their mind towards thinking about the population problem and policies to meet it, because although we are beginning to have policies for pollution, we basically need a policy for population.
6.36 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I feel a little guilty about adding my name to the list of speakers at the last moment and taking up more time in an already long debate, but I originally meant to speak on the timely Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and withdrew my name because the list was so long. However, as your Lordships are taking two days for the debate—luckily, I think, because your Lordships are so knowledgeable and deeply concerned about the subject—I feel less diffident than before, especially since the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, whose views on motor cars coincide with mine.
We seem to be catching up on old problems such as smoke, and I should like to endorse the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for the Alkali Inspectorate, and also for the Department of the then Ministry of Housing, now the Department of the Environment, which is concerned with smoke control. I believe not only that we have the most comprehensive smoke control legislation in the world—we are miles ahead of other countries and they come to us all the time for advice—but that in the Alkali Inspectorate we have the most effective means of applying that legislation. I speak from some familiarity with the subject, because I had the privilege of being in charge of what is now the Clean Air Act 1968 when it passed through your Lordships' House.
1242
While smoke pollution is a very old problem, we are getting on top of it only because we were prompted to do so by a disaster—the great smog of 1952. Up till then people were more or less prepared to tolerate the fumes and the filth. It is amazing what people are prepared to tolerate if they are led to believe that it is inevitable, but the Clean Air Acts have proved that we did not have to tolerate smoke. The implementation of that legislation has meant inconvenience and expense for many people in industry and in households, but I am sure your Lordships all agree that it has been well worth it.
Because I have already spoken to your Lordships on several occasions about the matter, may return once again to plead with the Government and with your Lordships that we should tackle with some brave new thinking the pollution caused by the motor vehicle? Though doing so will cause inconvenience and some expense, I believe that the expense will be greater if we do nothing. I am not referring to the matter of vehicle smoke, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred at some length, because on the whole that is not a very big problem in this climate. I want to refer to the whole problem mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie.
The motor vehicle is a wonderfully useful machine. It is so useful that it is multiplying, and in its multiplication it is destroying our towns, our buildings and our countryside at a great pace, in spite of the fact that we are trying to adapt ourselves as best we can. The motor vehicle is so voracious of space and quietude that we cannot move fast enough to accommodate ourselves to it. I believe that we shall never be able to move fast enough, and that the condition of Los Angeles is an awful warning of how one of the most useful tools which modern technology has devised can so dominate our existence that the fact that it is a tool has almost been forgotten.
This has not been the case with electricity. We never forget that electricity is a means to an end; that, while it is invaluable, yet it is a dutiful servant. It seems that the motor vehicle is not looked upon as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, called it a cult object. So it has become transformed from the dutiful

1243
servant that it should be into a tyrannical master. From an aid to living it has become a mode of living for which our towns are gutted, our streets and frontages destroyed, harmless and beautiful buildings shaken to their foundations, barriers created between communities and noise and vibration scattered insensitively around the land. I do not foresee (I might say almost unfortunately) our traffic pollution creating a disaster parallel to the smog of 1952 and galvanising us into action. The effects are steady and cumulative and are happening all around us all the time. It seems to me that we shall have to come to a conscious and deliberate choice: either we shall have to choose the Los Angeles solution—and the population being the size that it is, I doubt whether we have room for that solution—or we shall have to say (and I think this is the answer) that the time has come when we must take charge of the motor vehicle rather than allow it to take charge of us.
Now there are some signs—and they are small signs—that this is beginning to happen. The Command Paper says that the trend towards increasing noise has already been halted. The next stage, provided that we are prepared to pay for it, is that we can reduce the noise—and vibration, too. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned, the Government's decision on the size of lorries is imminent. These monster lorries have an effect on the roads like travelling battering rams, and I hope that the Government, in their wisdom, will prevent their use. It will cost money to do so—or rather we shall not have the economies which these very large vehicles can provide—but I think, nevertheless, that preventing their use will be worth it. The Government will have to decide whether to subsidise the construction of more highways within towns. I hope that they will hesitate, for more than the reasons of huge capital cost and dubious return on the money, and will reflect not only upon the immediate damage to the environment but on the inevitable result, which will be a generation of yet more traffic which will require yet more accommodation, and so on. It is a vicious circle.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to follow on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and hope that the
1244
expedient of circumnavigating our towns by tipping the traffic out into the countryside will not continue to be resorted to without consideration being given to the effect which these roads are having upon the countryside. The motorways have given us some wonderful panoramic views of the country, but this amenity has been achieved only at the price of inflicting dirt, smell, severance and, above all, noise on everything around. There is belief in some places that nobody lives in the countryside, but they do; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, many townspeople go there for some peace and quiet. It has become increasingly difficult to find any; and in my little county of Monmouth, which is traversed by many big new roads, it is becoming almost impossible to find a place which is away from the roar of traffic. The engineers take the easiest routes, of course, which are along the valleys, and because these new routes are embanked and have no hedges to act as baffles the noise is thrown across and out for miles around. The result is that previously peaceful villages and hamlets are now noisier than many parts of London and other cities.
The noise comes not only from the engines but from the road surface itself. I know that the Government are aware of this. The Road Research Laboratory tried out a new profile of concrete surface on a road near where I live designed to reduce the road noise, and it is unfortunate that this piece of road which they produced is by far the noisest on the whole stretch. However, it was a try; and I ask the Government to keep on trying, and with urgency. I and other noble Lords have been greatly encouraged by the declaration of the Secretary of State with regard to noise from road vehicles, and I hope that he will press on. My Lords, it will cost money and it will be inconvenient for some, but we do not have to tolerate great noise from road vehicles any more than we have to tolerate smoke, and money spent on noise control, like that on smoke control, will for most people be money well spent.
6.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I have only two excuses for adding myself to the end of this debate: one is that I have something to say, and the other is that I promise to speak for only three

1245
minutes, and if your Lordships find me speaking for any longer I hope you will make suitably rude noises which will make me resume my seat. I want to hang what I have to say on a remark made by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, who said he thought that manufacturers should be made liable to some extent for the final dealing with their products. In the past, my Lords, products dealt with themselves. I do not want to start a new catch-word; especially I do not want to use such a catchword as that horrible, semi-scientific word "biodegradable." I prefer the real old English word "eatable". The fact of the matter is that in the past, in Nature, things were got rid of because they were eaten. There was always something which ate anything. In fact, in the ultimate, my Lords, you and I are eatable. That is what will happen to us, and all we have to see is that it does not happen too soon.
But the fact of the matter is that we are now using things which are not all that eatable. We make so many things of metal, and there are few things which will eat metal. Metal is remarkably poisonous to life, and apart from the slow process of rust—and some modern metals are almost rust-proof—there is nothing which gets rid of metal. And there are many modern plastics in the same field. If only, instead of using these permanent materials, we could use what one might call semi-permanent materials, as we ourselves are made of, which could be decently eaten by something in the end, a great many of our problems would be over. Let me give a couple of examples. In the field of detergents we had a good deal of trouble until recent years for the simple reason that the detergents were not biodegradable; in other words, there was nothing which would eat them. But a modern detergent is made biodegradable, and as a result it is decently eaten; it vanishes off the face of the earth and troubles us no more—and the same can be done with a great many other things.
Take oil. We are at the moment using mineral oils; and few things eat mineral oils. If we use vegetable oils, a great many creatures will eat them. If vegetable oil were spread over the seas innumerable small creatures would proceed to eat it, all the fish would eat those creatures and we should end up with a
1246
profitable fish industry instead of a serious case of pollution. This will ultimately happen. We shall run out of mineral oils some day; I only wish that we could make it happen sooner. There are a number of other things. Metals are going to run out at some time. We are going into plastics, such as glass fibre, and, very soon, carbon fibre, which is even stronger than metal; and it does not seem beyond possibility to invent some form of resin which, when combined with carbon fibre, will be edible. My Lords, that is all that I wish to say. Let us make our products edible and we shall be rid of them without much trouble.
6.52 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I find myself in the somewhat embarrassing position that in my six weeks in your Lordships' House exactly half of my speeches have been made in support of the noble Lord, Lord Molson—who I hope will be rejoining us in the near future—and to-night I am putting up my percentage from 50 per cent. to 66⅔ per cent. I cannot guarantee to continue such a high rate of support. But I think that I can say with some degree of confidence that it is unlikely that I shall find myself on a different side from the noble Lord when he raises matters of conservation policy; although I am bound to say that I shall be in very strong opposition if he makes many interventions on industrial relations of the kind he made this afternoon. But I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord for the help and constructive criticism that he gave when I had the statutory responsibility for most of the matters that we have been discussing during these two days.
As a newcomer to your Lordships' House, I hope I may be allowed to say how stimulating I have found the many contributions to which we have listened. It seems to me that pollution is a subject which this House might like to take as a recurring theme of debate and that the linked problems of pollution and population policy to which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill drew attention could be best dealt with in a House as rich in experience as this debate has shown your Lordships to be. If that is so, we shall certainly be greatly

1247
helped by the three noble Lords who delighted us with their maiden speeches. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in his place, may I say what a relief it is to see what "Selsdon man" really looks like!
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, and my noble friend Lord Chorley and I have scarcely got our breaths back from discovering that the environment has become a fashionable thing to be in favour of. Twenty years ago we were all of us regarded as slightly eccentric when we constantly made speeches about clean air and clean water. Since then, with varying degrees of suddenness, all the political Parties, most of the local authorities, and most of the industrialists have embraced the environment. It is indeed becoming almost embarrassing, and I am indebted to the Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects for the leading article in their August number, when they commented:
"'The New Environmentalism is being co-opted by big business and big government. It's hard to know which is worse; assimilation by the establishment, or the outright hostility shown by such as Mrs. Samuel Neill, of Mississippi, who at last month's continental congress of the Daughters of the American Revolution made the remarkable comment that subversive elements plan to make American children live in an environment that is good for them'."
My own interest in pollution stemmed from the fact that I represented an industrial area. The grass was sooty, the sheep were grimy, the rain came down as diluted sulphuric acid which was dangerous to health and damaging to property, and the once beautiful Irwell ran brown and stinking. My noble friend Lord Burntwood, who made a most impressive maiden speech, claimed that the Tame was now the dirtiest river in the country. Twenty-five years ago that could have been said of the Irwell, most of which I have represented at one time or another, but I happily yield pride of place to the Tame as the dirtiest river in the country. In the case of the Irwell, we have made progress: new sewage plants, the linking of factories to the sewers, pressure from the river authority and the local councils, and action by local enthusiasts like the Lumb Valley Anglers have had their effect. The Fifth Annual Report of the Mersey and Weaver River Authority is an encouraging one. They say:
1248
"It is a pleasure to report that the reputation of this river which was nationally, if not internationally, known for its grossly polluted condition is now unjustified."
It is still bad, but it is much better than it was, and I am happy to assure your Lordships that in at least one tributary of the Irwell there is now excellent trout fishing.
Not for one moment am I suggesting that we can afford to be complacent; but I do believe that we are in real danger of losing our sense of proportion. And if we lose our sense of proportion we shall be discouraging those who are working to improve the situation and we shall not help the cause of conservation. Yet day after day people and newspapers with short memories tell us that pollution is getting worse. That is true in only a limited sense. Generally speaking, we have made in this country great progress and are far ahead of other industrial countries.
Speaking for myself, I am proud of what we have done in this country. For over 100 years from the first alkali inspector, Dr. Angus Smith, down to Mr. Ireland, the Chief Alkali Inspector to-day, the whole world has studied and profited from the progress we have made, technically, administratively and by legislation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Raglan for the well-deserved tribute that he paid to the alkali inspectors.
To-day—and I think that the House should remember this—other countries send their representatives to Britain in order to learn about clean air and clean rivers; and they come because our efforts have been so comparatively successful. There are fish in the Thames; the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has reminded us that birds are seen in London to-day that we have not seen for years; there are more plants which are growing to-day in areas which were previously given over to privet and laurel and possibly rhubarb. It is good to know that before the recent setback the number of "black authorities" in the country had dropped to 23 out of a total of 1,200. Although it is not good enough, it is good to know that 41 per cent. of the mileage of our rivers is classified as clean. I think that the real point is that, while not exaggerating in our assessment of pollution, we cannot afford to be complacent. Our success must spur us on to further efforts because there are still too many dirty

1249
rivers, too many dirty estuaries, too many dirty beaches, still too many black areas. In addition—this is one of the things that worries me most—new and more dangerous pollutants are being developed, and I suspect that one of our greatest problems is going to be that of keeping our legislation in phase with technological changes.
I confess that I found Lord Sandford's characteristically courteous and informative speech not wholly encouraging. It was an interesting exposition of the Labour Government's achievements, for which we on this side of the House are most grateful; and it was an equally interesting catalogue of the present Government's inactivity in the same fields. I cannot recall a single practical proposal that the noble Lord discussed which the Labour Government had not already announced and had not been included in Mr. Crosland's White Paper. In every other respect the noble Lord could say only what the Government were considering; what they were discussing; and what he hoped they would lay before Parliament in the near, but imprecise, future. There was indeed not much evidence of the dynamic, purposeful Government which we were led to expect in June.
The survey of the rivers is a case in point. I attached a great deal of importance to this and, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford (to whose work with the Thames Conservancy and the River Boards Association I pay quite unqualified tribute), it is cheaper to get water out of the rivers than to build reservoirs. Although these ways and means of clearing up pollution are expensive there is always the other side to the account.
I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had to say, but we are not, I must add, living from hand to mouth in quite the way that he suggested so far as water policy is concerned. I think that all of us should compliment the Water Resources Board on the way it has started planning the water supplies of the nation so that we can avoid the kind of thing which has been properly objected to by your Lordships' House from time to time.
Regarding the survey of the rivers, my noble friend Lord Kennet and I had expected
1250
that it would be produced much earlier than the present Government seem to be content with. We are now told that there will not be any publication before the end of 1971, but it is difficult to believe that the Government could not, at any rate, tell us the broad gist of the very detailed survey which has taken place.
I think that the Jeger Report is another example. I invited Mrs. Jeger to be the chairman and the Marchioness of Anglesey to be deputy-chairman of the Working Party to consider and report on the public health, amenity and economic aspects of the various methods of sewage disposal. That is an urgent problem. I wanted to find out the seriousness of the health risks, particularly on the beaches. I wanted to know how much we should have to spend to stop sewage going into our rivers, and I was of course very conscious of the amenity aspects.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I digress for a moment to remind you of what happened when Queen Victoria went to visit Cambridge at the time when crude sewage used to be put into the Cam. She was shown round by the Master of Trinity, Dr. Whewell, who was, I think, Vice-Chancellor at the time. She asked him what the pieces of paper were that were floating on the river. Never at a loss for words he said, "Those, your Majesty, are notices saying that swimming is prohibited".
I asked the Working Party to report quickly, and in a very short time they produced what I think is a most valuable document. Now the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, tells us, to use his own words, that the Secretary of State is "in broad sympathy" with the Working Party's "objectives". I do not know whether the noble Lord draws a distinction between "objectives" and "recommendations", but it sounds a little halfhearted and a little dilatory. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who will follow me, will announce before very long what are the conclusions of the Government on this most important report. I hope that the noble Earl will tell us what is the time-table to which the Government are working. I should like him also to tell us just a little more about penalties, because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was not perhaps

1251
as forthcoming on this subject as he might have been.
My Lords, to-day the penalties for pollution really are ludicrously inadequate. Although the noble Lord said that the Government hope to proceed by co-operation—a very legitimate way of proceeding—I think they would find that co-operation would come a great deal more readily if the penalties were made more realistic than they are at present. When, too, my Lords, can we expect the report of the Central Advisory Water Committee which I reconstituted in order to advise on the structure of the water industry? When is it going to be ready? Will it be taken into account in deciding what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Report of Mrs. Jeger and her colleagues?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think I did say that the Report of the Central Advisory Committee is hoped for by the end of January.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. That, of course, was a hope and not a firm assurance. I noticed that with all these reports the noble Lord, who is a very obliging noble Lord, kept saying how much he hoped that something would be done. I for my part was hoping that perhaps we could have something rather more positive, and know quite definitely that the C.A.W.C. was going to report in January and that the Government would take that into account in any announcement that they make about the Jeger Report, because there really does seem to me to be a lack of drive or sense of urgency in dealing with this problem.
Pending an announcement from the Government we can only express our gratitude, I think, to Mrs. Jeger and her colleagues; to the Thames Conservancy; to the river authorities and their staffs; to the Greater London Council and the local authorities; to the research workers; and to the voluntary bodies like the River Thames Society, the Pure Rivers Society, the Anglers Co-operative Association and all those other voluntary organisations which as the noble Lord,
1252
Lord Hayter, said, are a very British phenomenon. They have alerted public opinion and taken effective action, and I think they deserve some more positive reaction from the Government than we had from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary last week.
My noble friend Lord Chorley very rightly reminded us that the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, had referred to the reform of local government. I sat at Lord Redcliffe-Maud's feet when I was an undergraduate and I treat his views with the greatest respect. I am sure that he is right when he says that local government reform is urgent if the fight against pollution is to be effective. I am equally sure he is right when he says that we have to get rid of the wholly artificial planning distinction between town and country. I believe that the 1968 Planning Act was a good Act—it is true that I am a little biased in its favour—but it needs local government reform to make it even better; and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us what is the Government's time-table for local government reform.
My Lords, if I may turn for a moment to the sea, here I confess that I find little cause for satisfaction. A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the pollution of the sea. I think that perhaps this is the most effective way of highlighting the need for international action in respect of the environment in general. It was the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who first told us that pollution knows no national frontiers, and other noble Lords have echoed that point of view. It is one with which I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, had to say, for in this highly competitive world it is difficult to impose on our industrialists financial burdens which American, Japanese and German industrialists do not have to bear. So I am glad that there is this awakening of international interest in pollution and that bodies like the Council of Europe, O.E.C.D., and even NATO, are discussing it. I attach enormous importance to the conference which is to take place in Stockholm in 1972, under the auspices of the United Nations. I believe that the United Nations have been particularly fortunate in persuading Mr. Maurice Strong to undertake the organisation of that conference.

1253
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for what he said about the machinery for dealing with oil pollution. We set it up after the "Torrey Canyon" incident. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is no longer with us, because he played a most valuable part during that period in helping to slop people from taking too catastrophic a view of what had happened. We are assured by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that the machinery we set up is working well and that the lessons we learned at the time of the "Torrey Canyon" were put to good use in the case of the "Pacific Glory". Before I leave the question of the sea, perhaps I ought to say how pleased we all are to learn from the last report of the Natural Environmental Research Council that the Council have set up a new component body, the Institute for Marine Environmental Research, which is housed, I think, at Plymouth.
I should like to turn briefly to the question of the air. I agree entirely with what the Chief Alkali Inspector said in his last report. He said that conditions had improved beyond recognition in the past ten years, but added that there could be an even greater improvement if the money were available. I hope that your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government will remember what I said earlier, that although the costs are great, there are countervailing economies on the other side of the balance sheet.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised the question of noise and nuisance from cars. I was glad to learn last week from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that further regulations about noise from traffic are coming shortly. I hope that they will not be long delayed. And I hope that the regulations which came into force in April are being vigorously operated. I also want to support very strongly indeed the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and of my noble friend Lord Raglan that the Government should not give in on this question of 44-ton lorries. In my view, it is unthinkable that lorries of this size should be allowed to drive through towns like Chichester and York and other great treasures of this country.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that I am almost on my last point but I
1254
want to say something further about noise from aircraft, particularly in respect of supersonic booms, because I did not find the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, very reassuring. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will tell us that the Labour Government's pledge in the White Paper, that these flights overland would not be allowed, will be the policy of the new Government as well. I know that the noble Earl is the last person to be swayed by any vulgar consideration of electoral popularity, but I can assure him that if the Government follow the policy laid down in the White Paper it will probably be the most popular thing his Government will do. I have had representations from the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Society and from the River Thames Society about the proposal to have a landing ground for VTOL and STOL aircraft in the Surrey Docks. Those who have written to me are concerned not only about noise but also about pollution, which apparently is greater from this type of aircraft. I should like to know from the noble Earl whether the Government are considering this aspect of the problem and I shall be grateful for any encouragement I can give to those who have written to me.
Finally, my Lords, this is probably the last time that I shall address your Lordships' House before Christmas. We have spent many hours discussing the unseasonable subject of water, and in wishing your Lordships a happy Christmas, perhaps I may end by quoting from that prolific and apparently immortal poet, Anon, who wrote in the last century:
"Pure water is the best of gifts that man to man can bring,
But who am I that I should have the best of anything?
Let princes revel at the pump, let peers with ponds make free.
Whisky or wine, or even beer, are good enough for me."
7.17 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like straight away to thank my noble friend Lord Molson for making this debate possible. I think that there is no one in your Lordships' House better fitted to introduce a debate of this kind than my noble friend, and for one particular reason. The Government warmly welcome all that the voluntary societies

1255
up and down the country are doing to preserve and conserve our countryside. There is a particularly British élan behind this voluntary work, it seems to me, and it is particularly good that many of those organisations should have come together in the Committee for Environmental Conservation, of which my noble friend is Chairman. It is indeed a real national asset that there is so much co-operation on a voluntary basis and a continuing, if sometimes raucous, dialogue between the voluntary societies, industry and the Government to secure the control of pollution and the wise use of our environment.
Having said that by way of congratulating my noble friend, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale—who, if I may say so, made a particularly delightful speech—in thanking the three noble Lords who made notable maiden speeches in the first day's debate last week. I was particularly glad to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, had to say. I remember his father and, like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I had the honour of working in the room in which "Archie" Sinclair worked, when he was Secretary of State for Air at the time of the Battle of Britain. The noble Viscount is a notable reinforcement to the Liberal ranks. I was glad, too, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood. When he went under the alias of Julian Snow, he was a colleague of mine in the Council of Europe. He is a notable reinforcement to the Labour Benches—though I do not think they need much more reinforcement. I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Selsdon, not least because he is a notable reinforcement to our own Benches.
My Lords, listening to those speeches, and to the 34 or so other speeches that we have heard in this two-day debate, one reflection has run through my mind: that while on occasions we in your Lordships' House perhaps "scratch each other's backs" a little too much, on this particular linked area of conservation and preservation, pollution and the environment, your Lordships' House has a particular contribution to make. It has done so in the past, and I am sure will continue to do so over the years to come. This
1256
is a subject to which your Lordships, both by your experience and, indeed, by the way we conduct our debates, are particularly fitted; and I hope that we shall continue to dwell on this whole area.
Pollution is no new problem for us all. It has existed as long as mankind. In Adam's day the wastes were small in volume and natural in character, and the world was able to absorb them quite easily. But as man has multiplied—and in our lifetime his powers of multiplication have indeed been formidable—as he has crowded into cities, and as his technologies have advanced, so the problems of pollution have multiplied. I emphasise this by way of starting my speech. One often hears people speak of pollution these days as if this were some novelty which had just burst upon an astonished world. It is true that "pollution" and "environment" have become catchwords in these days. My hope is that this fashionable preoccupation is not a mere passing phase. There is a danger that the environment may become a bandwagon on which every organisation in our modern society, responsible or irresponsible, gimmicky or just sheer cranky, may try to jump. I know that the deep, informed concern which has been expressed in this long discussion will persist here when this particular bandwagon has been overtaken by another one.
It is my belief, of course, that we have to hold with steady energy to the antipollution course on which we as a country are set. I stress this because I believe it to be of real importance that there should be some real continuity in our treatment of pollution matters. It must not be allowed to become a fad of the moment or a preoccupation of any particular Party. Continuity is also important, I believe, because pollution has roots so deep in the fabric of our society, exists as it does because of actions far back in the roots of our society and because, too, it will take many years to cure.
Having said that, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, feel that we should not forget the other side of the national pollution coin. Things are much better than they might have been in this country, because for over a century our fellow countrymen have devoted a great deal of effort to pollution control. We have, as noble Lords in all

1257
parts of your Lordships' House have remarked, a long and honourable national tradition in this field stretching back to the Alkali Act 1863. We should remember, too, that the rivers of the industrial North, much though they may leave to be desired so far as purity is concerned, are on the whole a great deal better than they were in the 1880s, because of the persistent efforts of local authorities, river boards, and now of the new river authorities. But, that said, I recognise, and the Government recognise, as many noble Lords have recognised in this discussion, that we still have a long way to go. We must remember that in England alone there are more acres of derelict land than there were acres in the whole county of Middlesex.
If I may say so, I was deeply impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, in an exceedingly well informed speech, had to say on this aspect. He was, of course, asking for a departure from the financial policy in this respect at present being pursued by this Government, and the policy that was pursued by the last Government. But I think his words merit careful examination, and I can inform him that they will receive that examination. But to try fully to answer the noble Lord would need a great deal of time, and I hope he does not expect me to do so in winding up a very long debate.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I am most grateful for what he has said. I do not expect a detailed reply, but if he would like me to provide more detail than I was able to in my speech, I shall be happy to do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: That will alarm the noble Earl.
EARL JELLICOE: I should of course be delighted; but not at this particular moment.
So far as our rivers are concerned, we know that their condition leaves a great deal to be desired. Nor can we yet be smug about smog and smoke. It is true that since 1952 when some thousands of people died as the direct or indirect result of the great London smog, a great improvement has been won in our capital city. Birds of all sorts are coming back to London. Flowers are blossoming, as we have been told; and even the Foreign
1258
Office is losing some of its grime. But, my Lords, we have not yet attained that Wordsworthian ideal, where:
"Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie…
"All bright and glittering in the smokeless air."
Nevertheless, we are making progress. We know the temporary setbacks. Of course, I am not intent upon making a Party political speech this evening, and I will not go into that story. But these are not merely inherited areas of pollution. They are also all the new creations of our century—modern industrial processes; new products like pesticides and plastics; the mobile pollutants; the noisy and smelly pollutants, like the motor car, on which my noble friend Lord Gowrie gave us an interesting and informed discourse, and the aeroplane. All these pose great problems for us.
In short, my Lords—and I should like to make clear that the Government recognise this—there is a great national job to be done in this field. We have, of course, important assets. We have as the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, and other noble Lords have reminded us, a tradition, and a valuable one, of co-operation between Government and industry in the regulation of pollution. We are fortunate, too, as I think this discussion has shown, that our objectives are shared by all the main political Parties, even though there may be differences over tactics and methods. Which Government does these things better is, of course, a matter of choice.
I should like to join in congratulating the last Government on some of the initiatives that they have taken, and in particular to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Greenwood and Lord Kennet, upon the notable part they have played over the last few years. On the other hand, I should like to point out that "conservative" and "conservation" have the same etymological derivation; and, that being so, I can assure my noble friend Lord Molson quite categorically that we are going to place just as much emphasis on preservation, on conservation and on anti-pollution as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and his noble friend and friends have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, twitted us gently and pleasantly, but there was a concealed sting in his tail about

1259
the Jeger Report and such-like matters. But I think my noble friend Lord Sandford gave the facts, and all I would say is that in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, from his impartial perch upon the Cross-Benches, I did not get the impression when he referred to the speeches of my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that he thought the present Government were showing less concern for these matters than the last Government.
Be that as it may, our problem is not to agree on what in an ideal world we should like to see done, but to make sure that we get our priorities right in the real world in which we live. We must remember here the great time lag, the time scale, involved in these matters. The three to five years needed for a major engineering scheme, like a sewage works; the ten years which my noble friend Lord Molson reminded us may well be required for a water project—
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, with great respect, would not the noble Lord agree that quite recently "the quality of Mersey" was "not strained"?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am getting there. I know that the noble Lord has been treasuring that particular little "nugget" which he has now kindly contributed to us.
In any event, we are not short of good advice in these matters. We have the Royal Commission; we have the Central Unit now firmly embedded in the Department of the Environment, the Research Councils, the universities, and a host of volunteers and voluntary organisations. We have the experience of the United States, as my noble friend Lord Gowrie has reminded us. I think it is marvellous luck that we live in the same world as the United States because, as Professor Galbraith recently reminded us, they often show us where not to go. We do not lack knowledge and advice. I believe that we require a continuity of purpose and vision in this field.
One area which we all agree, by any standards, we have to place high on our social priorities is the cleansing of our rivers—the area on which my noble friend Lord Molson placed so much emphasis at the start of our debate. Our rivers
1260
—even Lord Nugent of Guildford's Thames—are not as clean as was once the case. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that King Henry II (I think it was) kept a polar bear in the Tower of London. He used to let it out on a rope for aquatic excursions in the Thames to fish for salmon. Even with all the improvements brought about by my noble friend Lord Nugent, and his predecessors, that polar bear would to-day be rather lean and hungry.
It is perfectly clear that in this field of the cleanliness of our rivers and waters we have to run fast if we are going to stand still. We know that our demand for water supply will double by the end of this century, and my noble friend Lord Nugent, speaking from all his knowledge of this, has emphasised this matter. We know that the volume of effluent discharged into the rivers will increase therefore by a comparable amount, and we know that the volume of water available for dilution in the rivers will tend to decrease. We can reasonably fear that in the next decade or so we shall be faced with new chemicals which will cause us new headaches.
We are all aware of the importance of clean rivers in their dual function as a source of water supply and for the discharge of effluent. All of us should be fully aware of their importance for sport, amenity and recreation. We are foolish if we do not remember but neglect the interests of the 3 million anglers in this country; of the 700,000 boaters; the 75,000 water skiers; 45,000 oarsmen; 35,000 canoeists and 6,000 skin divers. If we are going to see that the rivers perform these essential triple functions of water supply, discharge of effluent and recreation, then we need bags of money.
Take, for example, the Edinburgh sewerage scheme now under consideration. That will cost, I believe, £14 million. The Tyneside Sewerage Board's estimate for their scheme, also under consideration, is, I believe, £30 million. Inevitably a decision to spend money in cleansing the environment involves a decision not to spend it on something else. Therefore we must be certain to get our decisions as right as we can; and this means a careful choice between priorities. It also means that we should get our structure at the centre as good as we can. That is one reason why our first

1261
priority was given to reshaping our decision-making and administrative machinery to make it as good as we can. This is not a Party point, because a good deal was in the pipeline in June in this respect. I am quite certain that the firm, integrated structure of the new Department of the Environment is a great improvement on that loose, confederal pyramid in which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, found themselves, at least temporarily, interred.
On the question of structure, the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, asked me a question or two about local government. I agree that this is extremely important in this particular area. There is not a great deal that I can say at this particular time. I can remind noble Lords who do not know this that Her Majesty's Government propose to publish in the new year a White Paper giving their views on local government reform. I cannot anticipate what that White Paper will say, but I can assure all noble Lords, including, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, that the Government do not propose to retain the "present crazy eighty-year-old framework", to use the noble Lord's words—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether there is any significance in the fact that it is a White Paper and not a Green Paper? Have the present Government dropped the idea of Green Papers as consultative documents?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the last, Government published at a similar time last year a White Paper on local government reform. There is no particular significance; we are following, perhaps, a good example set by the last Government in this respect. Green Papers also can serve a useful purpose in certain other areas.
At this late hour it would be wrong for me to go over the ground which has been so ably traversed by my noble friend Lord Sandford, but I should like to deal with some of the matters brought up by noble Lords in the debate. I cannot cover all the ground; I cannot cover, for example, some of the matters, interesting as they are, which are not really germane to the White Paper—for example, the question
1262
of cigarette pollution, whose importance I do not underestimate, and on which we are presently awaiting an important further report from the Royal College of Physicians. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that this Government very much recognise the deep significance of that report. if he or other noble Lords wish to find time for its debate in your Lordships' House, of course time can easily be found through the usual channels.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am very grateful and I thank the noble Earl.
EARL JELLICOE: Nor, my Lords, will it be right in this debate to go too far into the question of moral pollution, important though that is, raised by my noble friend Lady Emmet. If my noble friend Lord Inglewood would forgive me—for he made a very forceful and challenging speech which we are used to hearing from him—it would also be wrong for me to go too far into the subject of the A.66 and that lovely lake, Bassenthwaite, at this time, not least because I did not have any warning that he was going to raise this important subject; but I will see that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend forthwith, although I suspect that the newspapers may well convey them.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Thank you.
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, rightly said that we have as a starting point sound, scientific knowledge founded upon research. We need this. We need it, for example, to appraise the real magnitude to the stability of the earth's climate, posed by supersonic aircraft flying in the stratosphere. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who raised that point will be aware that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was asked by the previous Government to look into this specific question. I understand that they will be publishing their conclusions in their First Report very shortly.
Scientific and technological research are likewise needed into the problems of eutrophication of lakes and streams, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, in a very interesting speech, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who reminded us that even the tiniest river might no longer be safe by the time it has wound its way to the sea.

1263
This problem is being taken seriously and there are at present about 35 research workers in half-a-dozen experienced teams examining the practical issues involved and a further dozen or so investigators in the universities studying the more fundamental aspects of this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayter, also pointed out that it was not much good trying to control pollution unless it was known how much pollution was going on; unless one was able to quantify it. The Government entirely share the noble Lord's view. As the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, stressed, such monitoring must use the best scientific methods and be on a sound quantitative basis. All I can say is that here again the Government entirely agree.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in a charming as well as a notable speech, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Burton, rightly emphasised how essential it was that pollution control was looked upon as inseparable from good planning. Whatever restraint we may impose upon our philoprogenitive instincts, in response to the siren song against procreation of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, we must all perforce recognise that population problems within this crowded island, and the problem of population location, are bound to increase over the coming decades. It must certainly be part of the business of planning to try to see that the countryside of Britain—" that masterpiece of produced beauty", as Henry James termed it—is used as wisely as possible.
In this context I should like for just a second to dwell upon the serious problem of the location of reservoirs, which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, emphasised in his speech. Of course, I would agree with the noble Lord that we need a national strategy for water and one, moreover, that is interwoven with and takes account of other national strategies: for example, strategies for farming, a stategy for forestry, a strategy for outdoor recreation, a strategy for wildlife conservation. But it is certainly my understanding that it is precisely this strategy which the Water Resources Board is endeavouring to develop and which the Department of the Environment will seek to relate to these other national strategies. There
1264
must be some balance here. There is the great problem of the quantity of water, emphasised by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, and that has to be balanced against the equally important amenity considerations. Sometimes individual judgments here are agonisingly difficult; we should not underestimate their difficulty.
Having said that, I should like merely to emphasise that the Water Resources Board is not solely interested in reservoirs. The Board is at present nearing the end of a detailed feasibility study of the proposed Morecambe Bay barrage and it has already published its studies of The Wash and the Solway. It is also playing a leading part in the study of the River Trent, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, spoke so poetically. Again, we are fully alive to the importance of using underground aquifers, about which my noble friend Lord Ingleby spoke. All these factors will be taken into account in the development of our national water strategy.
I believe that recycling or the re-use of what we now call waste is also one of the roots of this matter. Nobody would disagree in principle, I think, with my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley or the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in their hope that recycling of waste is a growth industry. Considerable advances are now being made. I will not go into details—probably the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is fully aware of them—but if either he or my noble friend Lady Emmet require details, I will gladly write to them.
May I turn very briefly in conclusion to the international scene. Our national effort, I believe, is but one element in what must increasingly be a world campaign. Many pollutants know no frontiers. In much of this matter, one nation's out-tray may be another nation's in-tray. We have, of course, heard the allegations that sulphur dioxide going up the chimneys in Britain may be coming down in acid rain over Scandinavia. In any event, we know that the climate of the earth and the equilibrium of the oceans can be materially affected by what mankind discharges into the air or puts into the sea. Some of these may not be pressing problems at the present time, but if we are to stop them from becoming so we shall need real international collaboration, because in these matters

1265
no island is really an island, and, if I may say so in that context, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, that the question of marine pollution pre-eminently lends itself to international collaboration.
In any event, the Government favour and intend to continue to contribute to international work which can lead to solid practical results in organisations like the O.E.C.D. and the United Nations Specialised Agencies. We also attach particular importance to the World Conference on the Human Environment, which the United Nations is convening in 1972 in Stockholm. We are playing our full part in preparing for this Conference. Our officials in the Departments concerned are in close touch with the Secretary-General and his staff and have had talks with them within the past three weeks, both in New York and in Geneva. We expect to receive shortly, and to respond to, the Secretary-General's proposals for the agenda of this Conference, and shall be playing our full part in the Preparatory Committee meeting in Geneva in February.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that subject, may I ask whether he is able to say anything about the suggestion of the Secretary-General of the Conference that all countries should have a national committee to prepare for it, to which I alluded in my speech at the beginning of the debate?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords, I cannot immediately answer. I remember the noble Lord's remarks about Mr. Christian Herter. I must apologise to the noble Lord: I am not in a position to comment on that point, but I will write to him, if I may, about it.
Finally, my Lords, may I turn to the economics of pollution and the associated national or international problems to which a number of noble Lords have referred? This is not an easy field in which to be dogmatic. The problems do not lie only in the methods of calculation of gross national product and the rest of it. It is often comparatively easy to say in one plant or in one industry how much is going to be spent in the control of pollution. It may be far less easy to estimate the cost to society of that part of pollution which is not being controlled, and less easy to estimate the cost of
1266
additional measures to remove that part of pollution which is not being controlled. In any event, we are anxious to pursue the study of these questions both nationally and on an international basis, where we hope that the work of the 0.E.C.D. may be of special value. A certain amount of work has been done in this field internationally, but, as yet, not much nationally. In any event, we do not intend to let this question hold up progress with practical solutions in this country. It is an area which we believe needs and deserves further study.
Much the same can be said about the so-called "question of international standards", the advantages of which have been mentioned by some noble Lords and the disadvantages by others. This, again, is a difficult and complex matter. It is quite clear that rules are needed for matters such as oil tanker operations and for certain consumer products which are traded internationally, but beyond this we find that conflicting points of view are expressed, not only in your Lordships' House but also in international discussions. Here I would say once again that the Government will play an active part in the elucidation of these problems, keeping in mind the characteristics of our position as a small, highly industrialised island. But I should again emphasise that we shall not allow international discussion to hold up progress on the domestic front.
The aims of the international agencies at work in this field are high and praiseworthy, and let us hope that they can at least go a long way towards achieving them. But while we "do our thing" abroad—and we shall do it—we must recognise that our credibility will in the end depend upon how far we have been able to put our own polluted house in order, to clean out our own Augean stables. It is our task to manage our own land, and we are answerable to our own people. If I may say this in conclusion to my noble friend Lord Molson, it is my sincere belief that the debate which he initiated some days ago will assist us in discharging those not inconsiderable responsibilities.
8.52 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I think we can reckon that this has been a particularly successful debate in your Lordships' House. It is not only that the

1267
number of those who have spoken is unusually large, but the quality of the speeches has been particularly high. Also, without exception, I think the speeches have been extremely balanced in their content. We are particularly glad to know, from the three maiden Speeches, that we have recruits to your Lordships' deliberations who will be a great help to us in the future.
My Lords, I hung this debate on Command Paper 4373, which was the work of the last Government, and I sought to find out what the present Government were going to do in the way of continuing with that policy and carrying it even further. I am glad that we have had from both the Ministers who have spoken a complete assurance that in, I think, every respect they intend to follow the lines which were laid down by the previous Administration. Indeed, they emphasised the continuity to such an extent that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, almost seemed to complain that they were following so slavishly the good example which he and his colleagues had set. However, the noble Earl the Leader of the House—and I take it as evidence of the importance which the Government attach to this matter that the Leader of the House should himself have wound up this debate—gave an explicit promise that however closely they might follow the general lines laid down in the White Paper, they would not only be as energetic as the last Government but would carry the policy even further. In view of this assurance I ask permission to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  TAX COLLECTION AND REBATES
  TAX COLLECTION AND REBATES
  AIRCRAFT NOISE: SONIC BOOM AND FLIGHT TIMES
  AIRCRAFT NOISE: SONIC BOOM AND FLIGHT TIMES
  EXCHANGE CONTROL AND OVERSEAS PORTFOLIOS
  EXCHANGE CONTROL AND OVERSEAS PORTFOLIOS
  HOUSE OF LORDS "HANSARD" PRICES
  HOUSE OF LORDS "HANSARD" PRICES