Sitting of 15 December 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

  BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  BRIDGE STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, BANBURY BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  THE READING CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MELTON MOWBRAY AND SHEFFIELD) BILL
  As amended, considered.
  To be read the Third time tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Educational Aids (Purchase Tax)
    Mr. Selwyn Gummerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of purchase tax is payable on plastic-covered display boards used in schools for showing geometric shapes.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Not all such boards are within the scope of the tax. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the case he has in mind I will send him a definite ruling.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that all boards which show geometric shapes are subject to purchase tax but those which show circular graphs are not? Does not this indicate that it is time we abolished purchase tax on educational aids?
    Mr. Higgins: I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are different rates of tax for different kinds of board, depending on their normal use. But it may depend on the items placed on the board, which are sometimes not taxed at the same time as the boards. However, if my hon. Friend will send me precise details, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. Selwyn Gammerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the imposition of purchase tax on equipment used in schools and colleges.
    Mr. Kenneth Marksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to waive purchase tax on educational supplies to local authorities.
    Mr.Higgins: Although there is no general provision for the relief of local authorities from indirect taxation, equipment which is of a kind principally used for educational purposes is catered for by a number of specific exemptions. A new category of projectors was added to these exemptions from 1st November this year, and the field is kept under review.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend. Would he help me to understand why many kinds of equipment used in schools are similar to equipment that is used outside and why education authorities such as the Inner London Education Authority have had to provide a great deal of extra money to make it possible to buy these items? Would he bear this matter in mind?
    Mr. Higgins: This strikes at the fundamental principle of the tax, which is that it should be based on the nature of the product at the time when it is taxed, rather than on the end use.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware of the considerable difficulties in the way of manufacturers who supply to Government Departments and who do not pay tax on these items, as compared with suppliers who indirectly supply Government Departments and the local authorities? Is he also aware that this is a matter in which there needs to be an extension of local authority spending? Will he examine the whole question in time for the Budget next year?
    Mr. Higgins: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point, but there are exemptions for specific Government Departments. The local authorities are not included in that exemption because their purchases raise separate questions.

    Industrial Disputes (Repayment of Income Tax)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average time which elapses between the first withdrawal of labour in an industrial dispute and the first repayment of income tax to those involved.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): The information needed to make this estimate is not available.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Nevertheless, would not my hon. Friend agree that when a firm goes on strike, the one department which invariably keeps operating is the department responsible for ensuring the recovery of tax to employees on strike? Will he consider, as a useful experiment, transferring responsibility for the repayment of tax

    1093
    to individuals involved in industrial disputes to East Kilbride where they might find that they suffered the months and months of delay in repayment of rebates which my constituents have been experiencing in the past year?
    Mr. Macmillan: As my hon. Friend indicated, this matter is primarily the responsibility of the firm concerned. It also, incidentally, depends, partly at least, on how long a striker goes on receiving his ordinary pay after being on strike and on how long in arrears he is normally paid.
    Mr. Taverne: Will the Government consider the possibility of putting Pay-As-You-Earn on a proportionate as opposed to a cumulative basis?
    Mr. Macmillan: That is an entirely separate matter. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will bear it in mind.

    Disabled Persons (Tax Relief)
    Mr. John Hannamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek powers to provide tax relief for disabled persons who take up full employment.
    Mr. Higgins: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but there are serious difficulties in the way of providing special tax reliefs of this kind.
    Mr. Hannam: Would my hon. Friend agree that every encouragement should be given to disabled people who try to take up full employment, having regard to the fact that they pay the full tax rate on their often lower-than-average incomes, although they have to contend with high diet expenses and special expenses on clothing?
    Mr. Higgins: I have very great sympathy for my hon. Friend's point, but this is a matter which is not best dealt with through the tax system but rather through the arrangements made by the Department of Health and Social Security.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that there are situations in which disabled people pay income tax the burden of which is in excess of that paid by normal people and that this greater burden resulting from their disability is easily recognisable?
    Mr. Higgins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but, as I said, I do not believe that this matter is best handled through the tax system.

    Investment Allowances (Companies Trading with South Africa)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to provide that companies trading with South Africa receive no investment allowances.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Investment allowances were withdrawn by the last Administration: there are no proposals for reintroducing them.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman treat in exactly the same way firms which, on the one hand, support the South African Government, for example, I.C.I., which runs the South African arms industry, and Unilever, which has three factories employing 6,000 workers, both black and white, on a segregated basis, and, on the other hand, Bookers, Bovis and Wates, all of whom have moral scruples about dealing with apartheid? Does he make no distinction between the scruples of the one group, and the unscrupulousness of the other?
    Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman is still referring to investment allowances, as I said in my original Answer there are now no such things; they were withdrawn by the last Administration. We have no proposals to reintroduce them. If he is referring to standard depreciation allowances, all exporters are treated the same regardless of the markets to which goods are exported.

    Budget
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he proposes to present his Budget for 1971–72.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): I must ask my hon. Friend to wait for an announcement at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although this might be regarded as the usual Answer to the usual Question, there is far more than the usual interest in his first Budget? Is he further

    1095
    aware that there is a widespread confidence that this will prove to be the first of a series of Conservative Budgets which during the period of this Parliament will seek to simplify the tax system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and reduce the weight of taxation which over the last six years has grown far too high?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the Budget debate. Questions must be brief.
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend may say that this is the usual Treasury Answer to the usual Question. Perhaps I could point out that my background note says, "It is not clear what, if anything, lies behind Mr. Shaw's question." But I hope my hon. Friend will think that on taxation we have made a good start in our short period of office, and we shall hope to do better in the years to come.
    Mr. Barnett: On that part of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget which he has already announced, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with those independent commentators who have said that they disagree with him that it is being neutral on demand? Does he wish in any way to modify what he said previously, in view of the additional public expenditure which has been announced since?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said previously about the effect of those measures on demand. I agree with those people who say that to have cut the standard rate of income tax and to have cut the rate of corporation tax, in each case for the first time in eleven years, at least is an advance on the taxation policy of the previous Government.

    National Savings
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the amount invested in National Savings between July and October, 1970; and what was the corresponding figure in 1969.
    Mr. Barber: The net amount invested in National Savings increased between July and October, 1970 by £66·9 million. In the corersponding period of 1969 there was a decrease of £27·5 million. The whole House will be encouraged by this change.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer not agree that this welcome and substantial increase in national savings since the advent of the present Government is a very clear manifestation of the confidence of the people in the handling by this Government of our economy?
    An Hon. Member: Well read.
    Mr. Barber: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is very encouraging indeed.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Chancellor confirm that savings both in total and expressed as a percentage of total personal disposable income, which is a more searching test than that which his hon. Friend cares conveniently to employ, were higher in the second quarter of 1970 than in the third quarter of 1964?
    Mr. Barber: It would be better if hon-Gentlemen opposite, instead of indulging in churlish carping at political success, were to give three cheers when we get a little bit of good news.
    Mr. Taverne: If the Chancellor is not concerned with carping, would he not agree that in the first six months of the year both national savings and personal savings generally set a pattern which has since been continued?
    Mr. Barber: There were, of course, good years and bad years. The simple fact is that the record of personal savings under the Labour Government, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to agree, was not very good. We are doing better now.

    Special Drawing Rights
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consultations he has held with officials of the International Monetary Fund in regard to future issues of special drawing rights.
    Mr. Barber: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend regard the basis of the distribution of special drawing rights as satisfactory, particularly from the point of view of less-developed countries?
    Mr. Barber: This was one matter that was discussed by the Commonwealth

    1097
    Finance Ministers and myself at our recent conference. The proposal to link special drawing rights with aid is a very important question. As my hon. Friend will know, the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund are considering a possible study of this matter.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Government's attitude still in favour of the so-called link clause between special drawing rights and development aid?
    Mr. Barber: The point I made to my colleagues from the Commonwealth, which is the view of Her Majesty's Government, is that this is something that is well worth studying. On the other hand, there are difficulties, and we had better wait and see what the I.M.F. executive directors do, in the light of the clear statement I have made and also in the light of the views of the other executive directors.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: At the Stockholm Conference, for instance, leading to the activation of S.D.R.s, the attitude of the British Government was firmly in favour of the link clause if we could get one. Has there been any change in the attitude of the Government since then?
    Mr. Barber: We are certainly not opposed in principle to the idea, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman means.

    Income Tax (Disincentive Effects)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what practical study he has made of the disincentive effects of income tax at various levels of income and marginal rates of incidence.
    Mr. Macmillan: A number of studies of this question have been made over the years and the results have been considered by the Government.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my hon. Friend consider publishing these surveys in detail? Will he bear in mind particularly that a marginal tax rate of 6s. 5d. for the average man is bad enough but that withdrawal of spending power at the top and bottom of society well in excess of 10s. in the £ is certainly disincentive?
    Mr. Macmillan: We are keeping the question of disincentive very closely under review and are keeping in touch with those working in the universities on
    1098
    this subject, but I do not think that the pattern and the conclusions are firm enough to warrant publication at this stage.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 6d. reduction in income tax announced by his right hon. Friend is equivalent to a 28 per cent. increase in gross income at the higher levels of remuneration? If this is not inflationary, why not?
    Mr. Macmillan: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, this still leaves people at the higher end of the earned income scale paying a much greater proportion of their income in tax than anyone else, and still facing a very high tax bill.

    National Savings
    Mr. Le Marchantasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to encourage savings through life assurance and unit trusts.
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage saving through building societies.
    Mr. Higgins: I am not yet ready to add anything to the answers my right hon. Friend gave on savings on 3rd November.—[Vol. 805, c. 832.]
    Mr. Le Marchant: Is my hon. Friend aware what an advantage it would be to the insurance industry if it were exempted from paying short-term capital gains tax, and equally if unit trusts were exempted from capital gains tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—quite right; I am sorry—where there would be no net disinvestment.
    Mr. Higgins: Certainly I will take into account the point made by my hon. Friend in the general review of this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] On the contrary, I was making it up as I went along. The important point here is to increase the total savings so that the postponement of consumption leads to the release of resources for investment and other uses.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important that of those savings a proper proportion

    1099
    should continue to flow to building societies to assist the drive for greater home ownership?
    Mr. Higgins: I agree with my hon. Friend. The question of balance is very important, because without that we are unlikely to increase the overall total, which must be the prime object of our policy.

    British Capital (Repatriation)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to encourage the repatriation of British capital.
    Mr. Macmillan: I have no new proposals to make at the present time.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my hon. Friend recognise the tremendous advantages for the whole British people, not just for the City, of making London into a tax haven; and will he make a start by eliminating surtax?
    Mr. Macmillan: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is going slightly wide of the repatriation of British investment overseas.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the proposal would be well received by the police and the electricity workers earning £15 to £20 a week, who would love to get their surtax cut?
    Mr. Macmillan: If my hon. Friend's supplementary question were a little wide of the point, the hon. Gentleman's is even wider.

    Wines and Spirits (Duties)
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the reduction of duties on wines and spirits.
    Mr. Higgins: These duties will be included in the general review of indirect taxation before the Budget.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that recent studies have shown that the relationship between demand and price is such that if duties were reduced he would receive in gross a much larger sum? Will he bear in mind that, as a consequence of high duties, people of small means are suffering considerable hardship in this festive season?
    Mr. Higgins: Clearly the elasticity of demand for these products is very important, but I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions about what that elasticity may be.
    Mr. John Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the present rate of duty has discouraged the selling of table wines in the last year, and does not that prove what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has just said, that high duty discourages consumption?
    Mr. Higgins: Clearly a duty of any kind must do something towards discouraging consumption. The question is, what is the exact ratio between change of duty and change of consumption? In that respect, in reply to my hon. Friend, it is necessary to have a run of figures over a time and to look at the matter dynamically rather than in the short run.

    Joint-Stock Banks (Competition)
    Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek powers to enable the clearing banks to compete for deposits by offering variable rates of interest.
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to increase competition between the joint-stock banks.
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in interest rates that will follow the end of the cartel arrangements between the joint-stock banks.
    Mr. Barber: I do not see the need for any additional powers, but we will continue to keep the question under review. I cannot estimate the effect on interest rates of any such change.
    Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while it may not be necessary to seek any extra powers, the clearing banks themselves are unlikely to break their existing arrangements unless my right hon. Friend makes it clear that he would like them to do so? Does he think that the clearing banks should compete with each other in attracting deposits by offering different rates of interest?
    Mr. Barber: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the abolition or retention of

    1101
    the cartel is not merely a question of improving the efficiency of a particular industry. It also has important consequences for credit control which would need to be carefully examined before a decision was reached. This is why I said that we will keep the question under review.
    Mr. Loveridge: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider setting up an official inquiry into restrictive practices in banking?
    Mr. Barber: I cannot go further than I have done, which is to say that we will keep the question under review.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something a little anomalous in the retention of the banks' cartel in view of our policies in various other important fields?
    Mr. Barber: That may or may not be so. The simple fact, as I said, is that there are other matters which are relevant in addition to the efficiency of a particular industry and our general competition policy.
    Mr. Sheldon: In accepting that a cartel is operating, why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer assume that the source of all wisdom rests with the Treasury? Why does not he submit this matter to the Monopolies Commission, or to the new body which is to take its place?
    Mr. Barber: The answer to that question was set out at considerable length by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the Adjournment debate on 2nd December. He explained why that was not appropriate.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that if the market rate were charged by the joint stock banks for overdrafts, some of the big industries would be chased to the market and so leave more money in the joint stock banks for the small business men?
    Mr. Barber: That might be one of the consequences. Another consequence might be that building societies would find that their funds were switched to the banks and they might have cause to increase their deposit rates, which
    1102
    would in turn affect their mortgage rates. A variety of consequences could flow from this change, and the matter is under careful consideration.
    Mr. Barnett: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent report of the Institute of Economic Affairs which seemed to indicate that the cost of the lack of competition may be as high as £90 million? As the Government regard competition as the solution to all our problems, why is the right hon. Gentleman not asking the Monopolies Commission to look at the question of the lack of competition amongst banks?
    Mr. Barber: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for saying that we will keep the question under review. This is a little different from the answer which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) gave to his hon. Friend on 25th July, 1969. I appreciate the points involved in this, just as much as does the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, one has to take all these matters into consideration. As I have said, we will keep this under review.

    Inflation
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have further discussions with the Confederation of British Industry on the consequences of inflation.
    Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir. Cost inflation will be discussed at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council to be held on 6th January, at which representatives of the C.B.I. will be present.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman stress to the representatives of the Confederation of British Industry that we deplore the present practice of passing forward increasing unit costs to the consumer in the form of higher prices?
    Mr. Barber: I have no doubt that the C.B.I. will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Marten: To what extent does my right hon. Friend think that the present inflation, which is due in part to wage inflation, was due directly to the rise in prices as a result of devaluation by the Labour Party?
    Mr. Barber: There is no doubt—it is generally admitted—that one very significant and important consequence of devaluation was to increase prices and to put up the cost of living. There is no doubt about that at all.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about inflation in nationalised industries; and what reply he sent.
    Mr. Barber: None.
    Mr. Hamilton: When the right hon. Gentleman gets representation—I assume that he did have representation by virtue of the fact that he has made many speeches, as has his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, along the lines that the nationalised industries must be whipping boys—will he be prepared to tell the C.B.I. that it must stand on its own two feet and that the Government will not intervene in what they deem to be freely negotiated wage settlements?
    Mr. Barber: The reply which I send to the C.B.I. will be determined when I receive the representation which the hon. Gentleman assumes is coming. I have not heard from the C.B.I. yet.

    Motorcars and Garages (Testing)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his receipts from motor taxation, he will make a grant to the Consumers' Association specifically for car testing and checks on garages.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The question of a grant to the Consumers Association is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I do not think that the existence of motor tax revenue would affect my right hon. Friend's decision.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the Which? inquiry into garages which showed that they were not only thieves but potential murderers? In view of the enormous revenue from motor taxation, whichever Minister is responsible, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that the majority were investigated instead of the few which the resources of
    1104
    the Consumers' Association make possible?
    Mr. Macmillan: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly mistaken the point. The validity of a grant does not depend on the source of finance for it. We cannot start on this hypothecation of revenue, which distorts the Government's judgment in the spending of public funds.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend at once recognise that the representative garage organisations refuted absolutely the kind of disreputable language used by the hon. Gentleman and that the standards of maintenance for motor cars, while varying very widely, are on the whole creditable, not discreditable?
    Mr. Macmillan: I must apologise to my hon. Friend for missing that point. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary was so wide of the point that I did not take it up in substance.

    Whisky (Customs and Excise Regulations)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to bring the regulations operated by Customs and Excise authorities attached to whisky manufacturing establishments up to date; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higgins: A revised system of revenue control was introduced three years ago following a full review in collaboration with the industry. If the hon. Member has a particular point in mind and cares to write to me, I will look into it.
    Mr. Dempsey: Did the Minister consider the degree of rigidity which is sometimes enforced by Customs authorities? Does the hon. Gentleman realise, for example, that some of the manufacturers live in fear and trepidation that a sparrow may get into the whisky store one day and cost a new roof? Is it not worth examining such rigidity so as to lose this type of activity?
    Mr. Higgins: My impression is that, as a result of the change made three years ago, the system is now more flexible. I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says and see whether there is any point which can be covered.

    Unemployment (Fiscal and Monetary Measures)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further fiscal and monetary measures he now intends to use to reduce the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Barber: At the present time I have no statement to make on this matter.
    Mr. Barnett: As the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have argued that the cause of much of our present trouble has been the growth of the money supply prior to June, will he present to the House the figures about it and what he has been doing since? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the effect of the policies which he is now pursuing would be to increase rather than to reduce unemployment?
    Mr. Barber: No, I do not accept that. If the Opposition want to help to get down the level of unemployment, they might get into line with public opinion and speak out against excessive wage claims and support the Industrial Relations Bill—[interruption.] Yes. When they have shown what the Leader of the Opposition used to describe as "some guts", then I think they are entitled to speak for the unemployed.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Should not the right hon. Gentleman be more concerned about the 160 million days per annum lost because of unemployment, than about harping on the Industrial Relations Bill, which does not help the situation at all?
    Mr. Barber: Of course I am concerned. For a long time now—long before this Administration came to office—the level of unemployment has been too high. I have said this on a number of occasions. I very much hope that the long-term action which we are taking will bring down the present high rate of unemployment.
    Mr. Grimond: While the right hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that the increase—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to intervene between the Chair and an hon. Member who is speaking to the Chair.
    Mr. Grimond: While the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt right in saying that the increase not only in wages but in salaries and remuneration generally is a serious matter for the economy, will he also bear in mind that there is now a growing shortage of capital and credit in some of the under-developed areas and that there may come a time when there must be some variation in the policy of the squeeze unless we are to face serious local unemployment in some of these areas?
    Mr. Barber: I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says. But the right hon. Gentleman obviously would not expect me to anticipate any such matters, even if I had them in mind.
    Mr. Emery: While reducing the money supply will obviously have an unfavourable effect on industrial investment and the Government would not want to take action before Christmas, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking to look most carefully at the amount of money supply in January, because it may be necessary then to take stringent action?
    An Hon. Member: It will be too late then.
    Mr. Barber: The question of money supply and domestic credit expansion are matters which any Government would keep under review, and I will do that.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks in reply to my hon. Friend about inflationary wage claims, may I ask whether he still considers that he was right to advocate the payment of 30 per cent. to the doctors during the General Election?
    Mr. Barber: I have no reason to resile from the view expressed by my right hon. Friends and myself regarding the doctors' claim. In the circumstances of that time—[Interruption.]—when his right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Social Services was talking about the economy being in peril—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."]—it was right to say what we did by way of qualification, and I have no reservation whatsoever.

    Capital Allowances and Investment Grants
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings to be derived in 1971–72 by switching from investment grants to capital allowances, after allowing for the transitional arrangements.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of the transitional arrangements I do not expect significant Exchequer savings to arise before 1972–73.
    Mr. Loveridge: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction felt throughout the country that efficient companies in future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—will receive more encouragement than the inefficient?
    Mr. Macmillan—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. For the benefit of new Members, it is not in order to read supplementary questions.
    Mr. Macmillan: In so far as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite allowed me to hear my hon. Friend's supplementary question, may I thank him for it and agree with it.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman does not expect to make a substantial saving by that period, may I ask whether he will tell us why he is choosing to flout the view of the C.B.I. in Scotland that investment grants were substantially more desirable and helpful to Scottish industry than investment allowances?
    Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend, in the course of our debates, has made perfectly clear—the hon. Gentleman can refer to the White Paper—the reason for substituting allowances for investment grants. My right hon. Friend has also made perfectly clear the extra help which is being given to the regions, including Scotland.
    Mr. McMaster: Will my hon. Friend note that the switch is particularly damaging to Northern Ireland, where there is a very high rate of unemployment and where many existing firms find it difficult to make a profit? Will he see whether something can be done to ameliorate the position there?
    Mr. Macmillan: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the difficult position of Northern Ireland is always under our consideration.
    Mr. Jay: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the Increasing evidence of a decline in industrial investment since the change was announced? In the face of that evidence, do the Government mean to press on with the change?
    Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman should be very wary of drawing causal conclusions in that way. One thing that the change must do, taken in conjunction with the reductions in corporation tax and income tax, is to increase company liquidity in this first year and in the second year, to an extent that, as I explained in my Answer, we do not expect significant Exchequer savings to arise before 1972–73.

    Overdue Tax Repayments
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Inland Revenue to pay the same rate of interest on overdue tax repayments as it exacts for tax not paid.
    Mr. Higgins: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. James: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Americans have operated such a system for many years, and that the proposal would represent obvious justice as between taxpayer and tax gatherer?
    Mr. Higgins: It would be a mistake to draw direct conclusions on any of these matters between one country and another. There would be very grave difficulties in the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made. The Inland Revenue is under standing instructions to meet repayment claims as soon as possible. If my hon. Friend has any particular point in mind, I shall certainly look into it.

    Hotel and Catering Industry
    Mr. John Hannamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount paid in selective employment tax by the hotel and catering industry during the year 1969–70 and the total grants paid for developments under the

    1109
    Tourism Development Act during the same period.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: There are difficulties in making a worth-while estimate of the net cost for a year (like 1969–70) in which there is a tax change, but I estimate that the net cost of S.E.T. to the hotel and catering industry would be between £35 and £40 million in a full year at current rates. As regards the Tourism Development Act, the information is available in the Reports of the Tourist Boards.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that this industry, which is vital and likely to become the single largest industry by 1975, should be treated fiscally as an industry and should therefore receive selective employment tax refunds and depreciation allowances on new buildings?
    Mr. Macmillan: Selective employment tax is discriminatory and anomalous as it is, and further selective relief in advance of abolition would make it worse. That is why we do not propose to tackle selective employment tax piecemeal.

    Dental Health (Indirect Taxation)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why toothbrushes do not attract purchase tax and toothpaste is taxed at 36⅔ per cent.; and, having regard to the condition of natural teeth of the young and the effect on National Health Service funds, whether he will now take steps, resulting from his review of indirect taxation, to exempt toothpaste from all taxation;
    (2) why toothbrushes are free of purchase tax, confectionery, liqueur chocolates and soft-drinks are Axed at 22 per cent., and toothpaste a 36⅓ per cent.; and whether, in the interest of preventive dentistry, he will announce forthwith the results of his review of indirect taxation and reform all such fiscal deficiencies militating against dental health, from 1st January, 1971.
    Mr. Higgins: I will keep the dental interest in mind during the current review of indirect taxation. This is not yet complete.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this tax accident, which
    1110
    occurred many years ago, has cost us tens of millions of pounds over the years in increased dental decay and an advance in the National Health Service Vote, and that it would be far cheaper for taxpayers if he abolished the tax on toothpaste on 1st January next and saved a substantial sum of money on the National Health Service Vote?
    Mr. Higgins: That would be a matter for the Finance Bill. As to the quantified aspect of the matter, I have no basis for such figures. My hon. Friend is well known for his crusade on purchase tax anomalies. I shall certainly bear in mind in the general review the point that he makes.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the dental health of the nation will suffer very severely as a result of the recent announcement by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and that a more helpful Answer would have been worth while?
    Mr. Higgins: I hope very much that the Answer was helpful. We are undertaking a review of the indirect taxation system, and I have given an assurance that this matter is among the aspects that we shall look into.

    Charitable Donations (Tax Allowances)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making charitable donations by individuals allowable against their tax.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Baker: As Government policy is to stimulate the contribution which private agencies like charities can make to our national life, may I press my hon. Friend to view the suggestion very favourably, as it would considerably stimulate charitable efforts?
    Mr. Macmillan: There are considerable difficulties in the face of my hon. Friend's suggestion, and there are other ways of achieving the same purposes which we all have in mind. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. I do not think that he would expect me to say more at this stage.
    Mr. David James: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the merit of including surtax as a tax against which donations to charities can be charged? There are bodies like county naturalists' trusts, historic church trusts and so on which one could assist if such alleviation of tax existed.
    Mr. Macmillan: That rather enlarges the question, but I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he intends to seek to establish a Scottish Assembly; and when he expects it to be functioning.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on 10th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 128.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that that Answer conveyed nothing very much? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so tardy in bringing forward this proposal, which in any case had absolutely no effect on the electorate in Scotland at the General Election? What will the difference be between the proposed Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Grand Committee? Is it just a tarted-up version of the Scottish Grand Committee, with no extra powers?
    The Prime Minister: The recommendation of paragraph 322 of the Scottish Constitutional Committee was that constitutional reform should follow the proposals for local government reform. We are adhering to that programme.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister intend to introduce proposals for a Scottish Assembly before or after the Report of Lord Crowther? When does he expect that Report to be in his hands?
    The Prime Minister: We have not been informed when that Report will be to hand. We are not committed to holding up the constitutional reform until after Lord Crowther's Committee reports, but we have always said that it will come after the reform of local government.
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Prime Minister is not prepared to wait until Lord Crowther's Report is forthcoming, will he ask the Committee to accelerate a special report on Scotland to enable him to have the benefit of that important Royal Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I could pass that message to Lord Crowther. I understand that the Commission does not wish to make interim reports on individual parts of the United Kingdom. If a situation arose in which it was desirable, I could certainly broach that with Lord Crowther.

    EDINBURGH (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Strangasked the Prime Minister if he will undertake to pay an official visit to Edinburgh in 1971.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, on 27th March, 1971.
    Mr. Strang: When the Prime Minister visits Edinburgh next March, will he take time to attend a meeting of the Edinburgh Area Council of the Scottish Old-Age Pensioners' Association? After his famous Leicester speech, when he said that price increases hit pensioners hardest, and when he promised to fight on the pensioners' side, will he explain why his Government have announced massive tax cuts for the rich but have stubbornly refused to give pensioners an increase to help them through the winter?
    The Prime Minister: One of the first measures of this Government was to introduce pensions for the over-80s, which we had pledged. When I visit Scotland, I am quite prepared to discuss these matters with pensioners' representatives.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his over-80s pensions Act was such a fraud that the Government are already having to consider fresh legislation? Will he give an assurance that the ordinary pensioners will have their pensions increased soon?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had seen the letters I have received from those concerned, thanking us for introducing that Measure, he would understand the real position. Such a Measure was consistently rejected by his own side throughout the last Parliament.

    DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (MINISTERS)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if he will reduce the number of Ministers in the Department for the Environment.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davis: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment has refused to give an undertaking that he will not take out of rent control properties with a rateable value of up to £250 in London and up to £100 elsewhere, that he has abdicated total responsibility for any thinking on rent legislation to the Francis Committee? In those circumstances, why have so many incompetent Ministers? Let us have at least one competent one.
    The Prime Minister: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

    BANK OF ENGLAND PRINTING WORKS, DEBDEN
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Debden in Essex.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that he should have taken the opportunity to exonerate the workers at the Bank of England's printing works at Debden from charges of excessive over-production in the creation of notes? Would he also acknowledge or deny that, if the Government continue to rely excessively on monetary policy, we could well reach unemployment in the region of two million?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must hold a rather over-simplified view of monetary policy and monetary control. Bank notes and coins represent only 20 per cent. of the total money supply available.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that forays into Essex from north of the Border will be met with appropriate parliamentary retaliation? Is he further aware that my Debden constituents will be delighted to receive him,
    1114
    as they are among his firmest supporters in resisting inflationary wage demands? When the First Lord of the Treasury decides to inspect the money supply at the Bank of England printing works, will he take with him the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who so far has not been able to gain admittance?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even questions on county patriotism must be brief.
    The Prime Minister: Nor, I suspect, has the hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Douglas). I prefer to follow the traditions of the House and to accept invitations from those who represent their constituencies.

    INFLATION
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21st November at Llandudno on the subject of inflation represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Barnett: If the national interest requires a reduction in the level of wage inflation, how does the Prime Minister reconcile his policy of non-intervention with the fact that the result may be a settlement which is not in the national interest?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have defined their policy very clearly on conciliation and its relationship to industrial disputes. I should have thought that the announcement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt very clearly with that.
    Mr. Moyle: What is the difference between a wages norm and the national interest?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman awaits the court of inquiry which is to be held, he may very well see the explanation.
    Mr. Sandys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people feel that he has already made a pretty good start in tackling the runaway inflation which he inherited from the previous Administration? Is he also aware that the smack of firm government is receiving general approval?
    The Prime Minister: It is only a matter of regret that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in their own Administration, announced that they were there to fight inflation, have now given up the battle.

    MINISTERS (TELEVISION AND RADIO APPEARANCES)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given to Ministers on the acceptance of fees for television and radio appearances.
    The Prime Minister: It remains the practice that Ministers do not accept such fees.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does that Answer mean that since 18th June no Minister has received any fee when he was appearing as a Minister on television or radio? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the television and radio authorities that they should make sure that they get value for money, which will amount to pretty much the same thing?
    The Prime Minister: This is rather a serious matter. To the best of my knowledge, no Minister has received any fee for appearing on radio or television since the present Government were formed. In that, we follow the practice of previous Administrations. If the hon. Gentleman has any example that he wishes to bring to my notice, I will gladly make inquiries into it. I have made inquiries throughout the Government, and the answer that I have received is that no Minister has received fees of this kind. In fact, I never even got a fee when I was Leader of the Opposition.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Mr. Cleaver of the B.B.C. is alleged to have said that, according to B.B.C. custom, people who appear in programmes like "Panorama", including Cabinet Ministers, have been paid fees? Can my right hon. Friend write to Lord Hill to get confirmation of who received these fees?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the statement which my hon. Friend reports. I am prepared to inquire into it myself, but in my own experience, I have never known of a case in which a
    1116
    Minister of any party received a fee for going on B.B.C. television. That also applies to those in receipt of salaries here—namely, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whips.

    MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial broadcast dealing with the whole range of Government policies, on the evening of 31st December.
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Prime Minister if he will make a Ministerial broadcast on 31st December.
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a Ministerial broadcast on 24th December.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) on 26th November.—[Vol. 807, c. 608.]
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in anticipation of an affirmative reply, I was going to ask him to promise to introduce retrospective legislation to make his own election manifesto a legally binding agreement, so that the housewives could sue him for breach of promise?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member were ever able to support a Government who had carried through so many of their promises as we have, he could be proud.
    Mr. Kinnock: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and take the opportunity provided by a television broadcast of explaining to old-age pensioners, homeless families—[Interruption.]—I am concerned, even if hon. Members opposite are not—and the low-paid what the term "national interest" means, in view of his continued refusal to do anything meaningful about inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the country will rapidly draw is own conclusion on the repeated insistence of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have no concern whatever with the national interest.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is traditional for Ebenezer Scrooge to make an appearance on 24th December? Would it not be a good thing to produce the Ghosts of Christmas Present and Christmas Past, so that we can compare the two, and perhaps call on his Dickensian friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to play Mr. Beadle with regard to the Oliver Twist attitude he has expressed?
    Mr. Mudd: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that his decision not to speak on 24th December is based on his religious observance of British holidays and that his ability to avoid 31st December is out of deference to not infringing a Scottish ritualistic habit?
    Mr. English: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I thank him for his reply that he will not broadcast on 24th December, since it happens to be my birthday?

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNTY
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss Great Britain's application to join the Common Market at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that our negotiations for entry into the European Communities will be discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.
    Mr. Marten: Since my right hon. Friend is a staunch believer in the Commonwealth, could he take a message to the Prime Ministers' conference from this House that under no circumstances would this House agree to pass any recom-
    1118
    mendation to join the Common Market if it meant in any way harming the Commonwealth, to whom we owe such a great obligation?
    The Prime Minister: The negotiating position on matters affecting Commonwealth countries has been stated from time to time both in the White Paper and by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but it would not be right for me to try to tell the Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries what the House of Commons itself will do.
    Mr. John Mendelson: When the right hon. Gentleman addresses and takes part in the discussions with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, will he make it clear that this new House of Commons has had no opportunity of reflecting the many letters and messages which hon. Members have received from people in Commonwealth parliamentary assemblies on the implications of the negotiations, and that therefore he has no mandate to say either way whether the House of Commons is prepared to approve the bartering away of Commonwealth interests which his Administration are attempting to undertake?
    The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers and their Parliaments follow these matters very closely. They know that the House of Commons has an opportunity of questioning the Minister responsible for the restrictions when he returns from Brussels on each occasion and they will also know of the undertaking that there will be a debate when the House resumes after Christmas. They also know that the final decision is made only when the complete negotiations can be placed before the House of Commons.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL (TELLERS)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I have a rather important Ruling to make. I want to call the attention of the House to an incident that took place last Tuesday, 8th December, on the introduction of the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill under the Ten Minute Rule procedure.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) were appointed tellers for the Noes on the Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill." The Question was agreed to, but immediately after telling against the Bill their names were included in the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill. For Members whose names are to be announced as supporters of a Bill to vote or tell against the introduction of the Bill violates, in my opinion, the well-established principle of this House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice. I must therefore give directions that the hon. Members' names be removed from the list of Members ordered to prepare and bring in the Bill and that the Journal be corrected accordingly.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. If in the incident that took place on 8th December I offended against you or the practices of this House, Mr. Speaker, by the strategy I devised, I apologise to you and to the House. In an attempt to bring in the Bill, to get adequate discussion, to get opponents of the Bill to stand up and be counted, rather than waste the time allotted to other Private Members' Bills, we adopted a strategy of this sort. Therefore, responsibility for what was done was mine, at my suggestion. I apologise now to the House and to you that it was necessary. I should say that I believe a person's voice should follow the vote, but so should the vote follow the voice.
Mr. Speaker: The House will accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.
Mr. William Price: Further to that point of order. I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I did not know it was coming and I had not therefore come armed with information which I should like to put before you at the
1120
earliest opportunity. Some months ago on a Friday in this House on the Conservation of Seals Bill, when the people involved did precisely the same sort of thing that I did last week—for which I do not apologise—
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Price: With respect, I was not asked to apologise. I am grateful for your Ruling because it allows my right hon. and hon. Friends, who thought I had finally gone out of my head in supporting hon. Members opposite, to know what the facts really were. I wish to seek an interview with you at the earliest opportunity to bring to your notice precisely what happened on that Friday some months ago on which we have not subsequently had a Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: If such a thing did happen such a Ruling ought to have been given. I was not aware of it.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate ahead.
Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure, does it not bring the House of Commons into far greater disrepute when on a Friday afternoon people shout "Object" to Measures about which they have not the remotest idea?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Ashton Mr. Ashton rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important day's debate ahead.
Mr. Ashton: While thanking you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as one of the tellers, could I ask you what the situation would be if two tellers find themselves convinced by the size of the majority in the vote and take it upon themselves to suport a Measure?
Mr. Speaker: That is the most ingenious point of order I have heard for some time, but it does not correspond with the history of the case. Sir Gerald Nabarro—[Interruption.] Order. The House recently decided by a large majority that the Ten Minute Rule procedure should take place at this stage of the day's debate. It must listen to the hon. Gentleman.

TOBACCO AND SNUFF (HEALTH HAZARDS)
Sir G. Nabarro: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the labelling of packets containing, and to amend the law relating to the advertisement of, manufactured tobacco products, including snuff; to limit the content of tar, nicotine and other harmful substances in manufactured tobacco products, including snuff, when offered for sale; and for purposes connected therewith.
An earlier Bill in the last Session called the Cigarettes (Health Hazards) Bill failed through lack of Parliamentary time. In the Sessions before that a Bill moved by the then hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne Dr. John Dun-woody also failed through lack of Parliamentary time. The Bill proposed today is both a stronger and much wider Bill than either of its predecessors having regard to the climate of contemporary opinion both in Britain and overseas.
The fact is that the great majority of countries of the Western world and indeed many major countries elsewhere, including Russia and Japan, are moving towards restrictive legislation in the matter of tobacco. In this country we have so far carried out only one relatively minor step. That was the banning of advertising for a single tobacco product, cigarettes, on a single medium, namely television.
I would propose, if leave is given to bring in this Bill, three important restrictive measures with regard to the consumption of tobacco, notably cigarettes and including snuff. Those three measures are, first, that a bold, graphic and lurid health warning be printed on the exterior of all containers and packets of cigarettes and tobacco products. Snuff is included for a single, logical reason, namely, that snuff is powdered tobacco and whereas there may not be identical and powerful reasons for supposing that snuff is damaging to health in the same fashion as the inhalation of tobacco smoke, snuff is nevertheless a tobacco product and should be included in the Bill. If the bulk of and majority of informed opinion outside this House and within it decided specifically to exclude snuff at a future stage of the Bill, I would, of course, submit.
The second major feature of the Measure proposed is a critically important one. It is to print on the exterior of
1122
all containers for tobacco and tobacco products, notably cigarettes, the poison content of the manufactured tobacco itself, notably such poisons as tar and nicotine. The third provision which may be introduced into the Bill in Committee if the Government support the Measure, but not otherwise, is a total ban on all advertising by all media of all tobacco products. This is now recommended in many countries, in their respective national legislatures, and is believed to be contained, according to advance statements, in the forthcoming Second Report and Recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians on Tobacco. It is generally believed to be an acceptable measure for containing and eventually restricting the consumption of tobacco, especially in the form of cigarettes.
My reason for believing that this Measure is so important in our contemporary society is the evil influence of tobacco consumption, notably cigarettes, upon human health. There cannot be any reasonable doubt today that there is a direct link between the consumption of tobacco and such dread diseases as cancer of the lung, carcinomas of many kinds and, whether afflicting males or females, coronary and other heart diseases and bronchial ailments of every description. The fact is that the bulk of medical opinion in Britain today confirms that about 100,000 men and women are losing their lives annually, directly or indirectly, as a result of tobacco consumption in all its forms.
I put to the House this afternoon a single feature of that astonishing figure of 100,000 deaths annually on this account. Nobody has yet been able to quantify or put a monetary figure on the cost to the National Health Service of one death out of the 100,000 deaths arising from tobacco consumption, but I aver, with a great deal of support outside the House, notably medical and surgical, that probably the cost of treatment of a lung cancer case by doctors and nurses, and hospitalisation before death, probably aggregates £1,000 per case.
I hear an hon. Member say "At least", and I, too, believe that that figure is an under-estimate, but I put it this afternoon at £1,000 per death for all these facilities. But if that is a true estimate then 100,000 deaths a year would account for an expenditure under the

1123
National Health Service of £100 million, or approximately 5 per cent. of the total National Health Service Vote.
I say that no Government should stand on the sidelines and observe this chronic waste of funds and medical resources as well as the disastrous waste of human life without taking steps to limit it. Of course, in a free society it is impossible to require by Statute that men and women will not smoke. We cannot enact on such a matter. We can only try to persuade; I believe by the general means I have described.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer should listen carefully to these words—I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is nodding assent. The fact is that this year he collects £1,160 million in Tobacco Duty. Out of that £1,160 million, 87½ per cent., or £1,045 million, is on account of Tobacco Duty derived from cigarettes. So seven-eighths of the duty conies from cigarettes and one-eighth from other forms of tobacco products.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a mighty vested interest: it is valid to say that if tobacco consumption reduces, as it would under the proposed Bill, a Chancellor of the Exchequer will lose revenue, but I appeal to my right hon. Friend that human health in Britain is vastly more important to our community, and to all human progress besides, than his immediate and current Revenue in the year I have quoted, vast sums of money though that represents.
For all these reasons, I believe that Britain should lead, not follow, in this context, restrictive legislation on consumption of tobacco and cigarettes. The Bill is supported by eleven other Members representing the maximum permitted number of 12 sponsors for a Bill. Of those, seven are Tory Members, four are Labour Members and one is a Liberal Member. Of the 12 Members, eight are laymen and four are medical doctors. It is therefore an all-party Measure powerfully supported by both medical and lay Members.
Mr. Lipton: I oppose the Motion. First, I must declare an interest. I am an honorary member of the Society of Snuff Grinders, Blenders and Purveyors, and I have a very beautifully illuminated testimonial to that effect.
1124
Second, I submit that it is an abuse of process, if not highly irregular and unusual, for an hon. Member introducing a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure to announce before the Bill is presented that he will abandon one important provision. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has already indicated that he is now prepared to exclude snuff from the provisions of the Bill. I wonder whether he has secured the consent of the eleven hon. Members who support him to this important alteration.
It is quite clear that the hon. Member has not taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the facts, which are, briefly, as follows. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that snuff-taking is harmful. As a matter of fact, snuff-takers are a happy breed of men and women, and if the hon. Member were to take the trouble to examine the criminal statistics he would find that only a minute proportion of the country's criminal population takes snuff.
Probably one of the country's greatest authorities on the subject is Professor D. F. N. Harrison, Doctor of Medicine. Master of Surgery, and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. He published an article,
"Snuff: its use and abuse"
in the British Medical Journal of 26th December, 1964. I do not know whether the hon. Member took the trouble to read that article before he compiled his Bill. Professor Harrison, who is the head of the Institute of Larynology and Otology, University of London, has not altered any of the views he then expressed. Snuff apparently does not reach the lungs. There is no relation between the taking of snuff and lung cancer.
Though small, the snuff industry is very old and provides consistent employment, without strikes, for a number of working people throughout their lives. Nearly 30 per cent. of the snuff manufactured in this country is exported, and so makes a useful contribution to our export trade. It has no tar content—this is only produced on burning.
Because, quite obviously, the hon. Member has not given sufficient thought to what he is doing in introducing his Bill, and because when the Bill is finally

1125
printed, if ever it is printed, it will be quite different from what it was originally intended to be, I wish to register my opposition. Nevertheless, in order not to waste the time of the House I shall not press my opposition to a Division, on the assumption, the undertaking, that the hon. Member will exclude all reference to snuff when the Bill is dealt with, if ever it is dealt with, in Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir G. Nabarro, Mr. David Steel, Sir M. Stoddart-Scott, Mr. Cronin, Dr. Stuttaford, Mr. Bishop, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. Parker, Dr. Vaughan, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Jessel.

TOBACCO AND SNUFF (HEALTH HAZARDS)
  TOBACCO AND SNUFF (HEALTH HAZARDS)
  Bill to regulate the labelling of packets containing, and to amend the law relating to the advertisement of, manufactured tobacco products, including snuff; to limit the content of tar, nicotine and other harmful substances in manufactured tobacco products, including snuff, when offered for sale; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 12th February and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Walter Johnson: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) said this about the closed shop:
  "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 …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1025.]
  Mr. Hartington was not thrown out of his job. He is still working for British Railways and his case is being considered by management, by trade unions, and by Mr. Hartington himself. The hon. Member for Belper ought to correct that statement at the earliest opportunity.
  In addition, during the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to an appeals body as being "a kangaroo court". In effect, this appeals body consists of trade unions and management alike and all appeals are held fairly. I think that this statement, too, should be corrected by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker: With respect, these are two points that might be raised in debate. They are debating points.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a very important point for the House here. As I understand it, the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) could not raise this matter in the normal way during the debate yesterday was that these allegations were made in the course of a maiden speech which, by the convention of the House, may not be interrupted.
  I suggest that it is time that we considered that intervention, because it is becoming a little intolerable to have to sit back and listen to mis-statements which cannot be corrected at the time.
  You said that it can be raised in the course of the debate, but you know perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, with due respect,

  1127
  that this depends on who is called during the debate. Nobody can have a guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, as a representative of the T.S.S.A. in the House, has a special standing in this matter. [Interruption.] Yes, his own union. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that as a member of the T.S.S.A. and as a former official of the T.S.S.A. of standing my hon. Friend has a special feeling about this matter. He was inhibited from raising the point yesterday because it was a maiden speech. Can we have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to how the House can be protected against mis-statements of this kind in maiden speeches?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady is on a serious point. The final answer to what she has said is that the hon. Member for Derby, South has corrected, under the guise of a point of order, what he regarded as a mis-statement made yesterday. It was made in debate yesterday. The tradition of maiden speeches is that they should be non-controversial. That has gone, but it places the House in great difficulties if very controversial speeches are made which contain statements which an hon. Gentleman wishes to correct and cannot in the nature of things. It is a rather serious matter.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not also the tradition and convention of the House that if an hon. Member is to be criticised by another hon. Member he is given notice of it so that he can be here to defend himself?
  Mr. Speaker: This ought to be done.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to take up your time or that of the House, but in fairness to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) and in fairness to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), because I am sure that it was not her wish, may I point out that she said that the hon. Member for Derby, South was the representative of the T.S.S.A. in the House?
  Surely it is a fact that, although many of us may quite properly belong to various organisations which may have a viewpoint of some value to put forward
  1128
  in the House, we are only here as the representatives of our constituents. I hope that the other sort of representation will never exist in the House, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not wish it to go unchallenged on the record.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady both know that Members of Parliament are representatives of those who send them to Parliament.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are on the second day of an important debate. At least 30 hon. Members sat all day yesterday trying to get in. The more time we spend before we get on to the debate the fewer hon. Members will be called.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Further to that point of order. I will not take more than a moment, Mr. Speaker. It is well recognised that a maiden speech should be uncontroversial, which amounts to an understanding that the speaker should not be interrupted. Surely it is perfectly in order, however, for a speaker called subsequently from the other side to take up the points which have been made in a maiden speech.
  Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that that was perfectly in order.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that at least ten maiden speeches have been made in the debate on the Consultative Document and in yesterday's debate. Are you aware that when we debated the rate support grant last Thursday, which was an ideal occasion for maiden speeches to be made, not one maiden speech was made? There were no fewer than four consecutive speeches from this side of the Chamber. As ideal opportunities are allowed to go begging, may I suggest that when controversial issues such as the Bill come up maiden speakers should be asked to reserve their debuts for another day?
  Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member in the House eagerly waited once to make his maiden speech. We have a record number of new Members in the House. It is true that they are inclined to choose important debates for the occasion of their maiden speeches. I think that that, too,

  1129
  is natural and not new to this group of maiden speakers. I hope that we can get on.
  Question again proposed.
  3.57 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I am glad to intervene in this debate, both because of the importance of the Bill and also because at one time, as the House knows, I held the high office of Minister of Labour. I went through the same sorts of traumatic experience as others who have held that office have recounted from time to time, including the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) yesterday.
  Nevertheless, I look back on it with pleasure, because it was that period of my political life when I made fewest enemies—some would say for good reasons; some would say for bad. In any case, it enabled me to establish a working relationship with trade unionists and with employers which I valued and which I have since been able to maintain.
  Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of your exhortation about the number of hon. Gentlemen who will, quite naturally, wish to take part in the debate. I noticed that yesterday more than half the time available was taken up by Front Bench speakers. Therefore, with your permission, Sir, and that of the House I should like to make my intervention as brief as possible. In it I wish to address myself to the main principles of the Bill, which is surely the purpose under our procedure of a Second Reading debate. The House will have the opportunity of eliciting detailed information and of debating the drafting during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. I think that most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen—I think I detected this in the attitude of many on the Opposition Front Bench yesterday afternoon—will feel that there are delicate and important issues in the Bill and that often very fine matters of judgment are required in deciding which is the best way of achieving the purpose of the main objective for the Bill.
  What I suggest that we need to do in this debate is to establish clearly some of the issues with which we are dealing and the genuine differences between the two sides of the House.
  1130
  I approach this matter from the point of view that in the last 25 years, or just over 25 years, since the last years of the war, we have seen a process of intensive change and reform in almost every aspect of our national life. Whether it is in social services, education or housing, whether it is in the economy, in company law, in the field of monopoly legislation, employers' restrictive practices, or in our own political organisations and institutions, we have witnessed a continuing process of investigation followed by modernisation. It was begun in the last years of the wartime Coalition. It was continued under the Attlee Administration and by all Governments since. And yet the one major field in which there has been no such reform is that of industrial relations. But I suggest that no one today, whether inside or outside the employers' organisations and the trade unions, can deny that reform is urgently needed, least of all the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I have here a mass of quotations which I could use to substantiate that, but I have no desire to go into the matter in detail today. Suffice it to say that the right hon. Gentleman staked the future of himself and his party on reform and he lost. No overseas observer does other than express astonishment that since the war it is this field which has escaped the general process in Britain of examination and reform. It is an extraordinary exception and, because of the implications for the Bill, I want to examine for a moment the reasons for it.
  I think that there are three reasons. The first is the belief, which was held for a long time, that those concerned with industrial relations, employers and unions, helped by bodies which study these matters both inside and outside universities, would bring about such a reform themselves. Ten years ago I shared that view and openly declared it. At the Ministry of Labour I embarked on a course of trying to encourage those concerned to bring about this reform. But today no one believes that this process is possible, least of all perhaps the moderate, forward-looking employers and trade union leaders who want to see it brought about. The ten years which have intervened have, for some, certainly myself, been years of disillusion which have shown that it is a futile hope to

  1131
  expect that those concerned will be able to deal with the problems which undeniably exist.
  The second reason is that at the outset there was a prevailing feeling that this was an area in which the rôle of the law was almost negligible and in which there was very little room for improving the situation by new and better legislation. [Interruption.]
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Listen to the speech.
  The Prime Minister: I have given up expected that members of the Opposition Front Bench will listen to other people's speeches.
  There was the feeling that industrial relations were human relations. This doctrine was held widely at that time, and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, having launched an all-out attack on every aspect of the Bill, finished her speech yesterday by summing up her view as meaning "What we need is better psychology".
  When I was Minister of Labour 11 years ago, this was undeniably the prevailing view. My judgment then was that it was right to continue with that traditional policy and not attempt a modernisation of the law. The Leader of the Opposition has from time to time enjoyed himself teasing me by saying that I flatly refused all pressure to set up a Royal Commission in 1959, citing a famous Motion on the Order Paper. I have a photostat copy of the Motion here. What he never revealed was that that famous Motion was signed by precisely two Members. That illustrated the extent of the pressure at that time for any sort of inquiry or any change in legislation.
  I can well understand the position of those who argued that case in the 1950s and early 1960s. What I cannot understand is the position of those like the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn who still argue that case today. There has been a deterioration in the standard of industrial relations so marked and so damaging as, in my view, to undermine the whole basis of that traditional argument.
  There are still those who argue that the law should not be brought into industrial relations. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear,
  1132
  hear."] I understand that point of view which is held in all sincerity. In the thought which I have given to this matter since those days, I have come to realise that this is not the issue. The law is already in industrial relations. It receives little publicity in many of its aspects, but it is there and it is sometimes effectively used. There are very recent cases in which unions have sued employers quite justifiably and successfully.
  The unions have never hesitated to use such rights as they have when they thought it appropriate to do so. There are far more injunctions against unions today than are recognised publicly or in this House. Those injunctions are, almost without exception, observed by the unions because they are law-respecting bodies when the law is brought into action. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many injunctions have there been?"] In 1969 there were about 10 injunctions against unions. None of them received publicity, and they were observed.
  Human behaviour in industrial relations is based on the existing law, much of which has remained unchanged for between three-quarters of a century and a century. There is no question, I believe, that human behaviour in industrial relations is conditioned, governed and based upon the existing law. Very well, then. It is not a question of keeping the law out of industrial relations. There are some who object to bringing the law up-to-date in accordance with the concepts of a modern industrialised society. In my view, a modern law will be respected, just as an out-of-date law can be evaded or exploited to the detriment of the community.
  We can argue about and discuss the proposed law in Committee, but one of the things which I regretted about the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn yesterday was her attempt to undermine the instrument of the law, namely, the courts proposed to be set up by the Bill, before it has even been established. She described the proposed courts as "Government dominated". I hope not to hear that phrase about a British court of justice mentioned in the House again. The proposed courts are to be established on the same basis and same principle as the restrictive practices courts for dealing with the restrictive practices of employers or

  1133
  with resale price maintenance—judges, plus those with knowledge of the relevant conditions.
  I do not recall any criticism of this arrangement when it was a question of setting up courts to deal with employers and their restrictive practices and resale price maintenance. Nobody then argued that those were "Government dominated" courts. Nor do I believe that a British court will ever be dominated by any Government of any party.
  The third reason for the lack of action in this field is the strength of the interests opposed to change and the entrenched nature of the privileges which must be called into question in any serious attempt at modernising industrial relations. We saw vividly these interests at work in the defence of these privileges in the closing years of the last Administration, and they triumphed. I do not wish to go over that matter again, except to say that the price paid by this country has been very high and is now recognised more and more clearly. It was higher than any believed possible at the time. Perhaps many of us looked at it then as a political matter. It has since proved to be a matter of industrial relations of the highest importance: nearly half as many strikes again since that time as before, nearly twice as many days lost, and wage settlements directly afterwards at a wildly inflationary level by the criteria set out by the last Administration. The return to any sort of normal healthy situation is bound to be an anxious and painful process.
  Yesterday the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn made a negative speech. It was more than that: it was an intemperate speech. To many of us it was, I think, a depressing speech. When she was in office she attempted reform. It was through no fault of her own that she was not able to bring it about. In the view of many of us, the right hon. Lady—and I said this to the House at the time—showed remarkable courage. It is, therefore, rather sad that, although we criticised her for her approach over the cooling-off period, when she suggested that responsibility should lie with Ministers rather than with the courts and in one or two other cases, she should condemn root and branch a Bill which is trying to do many of the things she attempted and which
  1134
  contains many of the provisions which she herself wanted, and I believe in her hearts of hearts still wants, she does less than justice to herself in the attitude she has taken.
  There comes a time when the country as a whole realises that the case for reform is proved beyond doubt. And when that stage is reached, the arguments of the diehards and those who oppose no longer carry weight. That is the position which we have reached in this country today. To many it must be ironic that the Labour Party, which was founded to accelerate the pace of change in this country, and which has a notable record in many spheres in so doing, should now base so much of its political activity on resistance to change where it is obviously needed, and where the Labour Party itself has acknowledged that need.
  This Bill is a recognition, which is perhaps long overdue, of the major place occupied today by trades unions and employers' organisations in the economic and social life of the nation. As this Measure recognises, the rights and responsibilities of employers' associations and unions are a matter for the community, and the community are responsible for their ordering through Parliament, just as with other institutions throughout the course of history. I still fail to understand why those who are so concerned, quite justifiably, about individual rights and about democratic procedures can be slow to recognise and indeed applaud the fact that those will henceforth be ensured in the clearest possible way under the law of the land. Recent events have shown—
  Mr. Kevin McNamara Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—
  The Prime Minister: No, I cannot give way. Recent events have shown beyond any doubt that the country, if not the Opposition, is well aware of this need for this comprehensive reform. Too often the attempt to resolve these differences purely by co-operation based on the existing state of affairs has failed. People are sick and tired of the consequences of this failure. What we need to do now is to produce a legislative framework for industrial relations which will meet contemporary needs instead of the needs of 75 or 100 years ago. This is necessary not only for the health of our society but

  1135
  also as an essential part of a long-term economic strategy.
  Both sides of the House recognise that Governments have tried to establish a pattern of steady and sustainable economic growth by various means during the last 25 years. Too often their efforts have been frustrated by the requirements of short-term economic management. We are determined that this should not happen again.
  Successive Governments have been forced by an adverse balance of payments to resort to deflationary measures. Having achieved that deflation, they have then found it necessary to stimulate the economy, to reverse a rise in unemployment, and to try to make use of what has become spare industrial capacity. We are all familiar with this story. Then there is excessive pressure on demand and more trouble with balance of payments. The round starts again, but the underlying factors have not changed during the past 25 years.
  In this process the competitive pressures inherent in the existing system of collective bargaining and the consequences of industrial disputes, as of other forms of industrial disruption, have pushed up money incomes beyond what both sides of the House recognise to be possible in a productive economy. Sometimes the rise has been faster, sometimes slower, but nobody can deny what has been happening over all this period.
  This, then, is the underying problem. Even when the present rate of growth of incomes and prices has been moderated, the problem will still be with us. It is possible for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that this Bill will not produce an immediate answer to this problem. But there is no doubt whatever that it is a vital element in the longer-term strategy for dealing with it. It has now become clear to the country that such a strategy is necessary for our industrial health and for an expanding economy.
  That strategy is aimed at establishing a framework which will enable this process to come about, but it has many other strands which I have constantly tried to emphasise, and I do not wish to go into them in detail this afternoon. These are the strands of control of public expenditure which have been constantly
  1136
  emphasised by the Labour Administration, the reform of the tax system, improved management and industrial training and the social policies of both Governments. If these are to be completed, one must add the reform of industrial relations. One must also take into account what it would do to help responsible management and responsible trades union leadership, and to provide the opportunity of securing genuine and lasting improvement in pay and conditions.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—
  The Prime Minister: No, I will not give way. How often have we heard that those who should be supported in industrial relations are those who are forward-looking and who wish to obtain a genuine improvement in their standard of living through improvements in earnings which will equal productivity. This is the problem that this Bill seeks to answer on both sides of industry. It cannot by itself bring results. It must be accompanied by the rest of the economic policy I have been describing, but it is essential and will contribute to the changing attitudes which everybody recognises is necessary.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday, in summing up the purposes of the Bill, said that it sought to bring order, stability and confidence to the system of free collective bargaining. This would happen because the rules and procedures laid down in the Bill will be clear and firm. There will, of course, be the benefits of adhering to the rules. If contracts are made, I believe that in a law-respecting society the great majority of them will be kept, and that once disputes arise they can be resolved in an ordinary way.
  The people of this country are asking more and more that we should abandon the old methods in which every Minister of Labour has taken part and should have a means under the law for orderly resolution of industrial problems. It is this change in climate that British industry and the whole economy desperately needs today.
  The rules and procedures will undoubtedly secure growing support from the majority of employers and trade unionists as they are seen to work to their

  1137
  advantage. It will exert a growing influence for good in industrial relations and in the way in which employers and unions deal with one another. No longer will management and union leaders in some industries need to devote so much of their working time to wearing each other down in a senseless war of attrition.
  Mr. Skinner: Name them!
  The Prime Minister: We have heard constant emphasis on the number of strikes, and this undoubtedly is an important element in our economy and in our production. It takes no account whatever of what those of us who meet the employers and leading trades unions know, and that is the burden it places upon them individually in handling these problems constantly and in knowing all the time that the next problem cannot be far away. No longer will it be necessary to go on strike over a man's dismissal. Is not that an advantage? An orderly method—[Interruption.] I am sorry if there are some who do not wish to see these things resolved in an orderly way. What the Bill does is to make—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate with a running commentary.
  The Prime Minister: It will be unnecessary to strike over the question of deciding who belongs to whose union or whether an employer should recognise a particular union, again, because an orderly procedure is laid down.
  Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Gentleman must sit down.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has not distinguished himself in his interventions so far.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: The Prime Minister cannot get up on his hind legs in the House—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) that he must contain himself.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order. I just heard the Prime Minister remark, after I had attempted to get him to give way to an intervention of mine, that I
  1138
  had not distinguished myself in my interventions so far. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the Prime Minister to explain precisely what he means by that?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to encourage the Prime Minister. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. By common consent, this is an important debate and most of us on both sides want to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that my hon. Friends do not press this point any further. On consideration, the right hon. Gentleman might regret that he made his last remark, but whether or not he does, this is an important debate in which it is important that the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. Gentlemen should be heard.
  The Prime Minister: I was developing the thesis that such strikes will be unnecessary because an alternative and orderly means will be laid down. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may well have views as to whether they are the right means of doing it in an orderly fashion. That is a matter for open and frank discussion in Committee. It is not a reason for repudiating an orderly means of dealing with these matters under the law. The House will take the view that a principle of the Bill is that it is the force of argument and not the argument of force that must be decisive in these matters.
  As a result, both managements and unions, instead of being constantly harassed by unnecessary disputes, can plan ahead to improve productivity and create better working conditions for everyone in their industry. When that happens, the employer will have a better chance of maintaining his schedule and his delivery dates—
  Mr. Ashton: And his profits.
  The Prime Minister: Exactly. And out of his profits he will be prepared to pay more in wages as the product of assured industrial peace. It will be to the advantage of both sides. If hon. Members opposite have not yet realised that aspect of industrial life, they are way behind most of the people in their own trade unions.

  1139
  The employer will undoubtedly be prepared to pay more with an enforceable agreement which gives him that period of time in which to plan ahead and achieve results. That is the whole basis of advantage in the way in which the Bill is constructed. What is more, the nation will better be able to afford higher real wages, because they will be soundly based on productive efficiency.
  No one has ever denied that there will be hard bargaining before contracts are signed, but the trade unions as well as the employers will be the better prepared for it. They may need to improve their organisations. They will probably decide to pay their leaders and their staff salaries which will match their new responsibilities. This, too, has been urgently needed, as has been recognised by every foreign observer of the industrial relations scene in this country. Those of us who have talked to leading trade unionists in other countries, as I did when I was Minister of Labour and have done many times since, have so often wished that we could have here by voluntary arrangements many of the advantages which they have overseas.
  Is it too much to expect that in this country we, too, could have a statistical bureau, supported by both employers and trade unions, so that this element was automatically taken out of any discussion or negotiation, because it would be paid for and supported by both sides, and both sides would accept its conclusion? To any ordinary person, it is elementary that we should have such a system. It exists in other countries, but here we have never got anywhere near it.
  I do not think that when the Bill becomes law the trade unions will shirk the responsibilities of which I have spoken. Certainly, under the Bill these new responsibilities will have solid advantages for their members. Their bargaining rights will be extended, and their membership can therefore increase. This will depend on the trade unions themselves and what they achieve.
  As the provisions of the Bill take effect, we shall see better-organised unions. It may be that the number of individual unions will decrease, because they will see it to be to their advantage to bring that about to get the staff they want and to pay better salaries. The unions will
  1140
  have the rights and incentives to membership offered under the Bill.
  In the end, this will produce what everybody has been urging upon the Governments for many years, which is to introduce legislation to have stronger and more successful union leadership. That is a view which I very much support. They will be in a position to negotiate a better and fairer deal for their members in exchange for genuine productivity and for the assurance of industrial peace. Those are the advantages of the Bill, which I believe to be very great indeed.
  If the procedures are not followed, and enforceable collective agreements are broken despite the union's effort, then provided the union uses its best endeavours to persuade its members to return to work, neither the union nor the official union leaders will be liable to compensation awards. The official union leadership, therefore, will be in a much stronger position to deal with troublemakers. Again, it is something for which moderate union leadership has been asking.
  Hon. Members: Who? Name them.
  The Prime Minister: Employers themselves will be able to—[Interruption.]
  Mr. James Sillars Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must contain themselves.
  Mr. Skinner: I have not said anything lately.
  The Prime Minister: The employers will be in a position to take disciplinary or legal action against unofficial strike leaders.
  Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order. As one who has listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, and who might have liked to put one or two points to him, may I suggest that it would be easier for my hon. Friends to contain themselves if he would kindly consent to give way once or twice?
  The Prime Minister: I am trying to meet the wish of the House that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to take part in the debate. I just wish

  1141
  to say that when I am asked to name particular individual union leaders, I do not wish to do so—[Interruption.]—I do not intend to indulge in personalities about trade union leaders.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that the provisions in this legislation have been asked for by responsible prominent trade union leaders. How does he explain that these proposals have met with the unanimous opposition of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress? Where are these leaders to be found if they are not there, because the General Council is made up of the general secretaries and presidents of the unions? How can the right hon. Gentleman be so barefaced as to imagine that we will believe such nonsense?
  The Prime Minister: I said that moderate trade union leaders have long been asking for their own position to be strengthened. There is no doubt about that, and those of us who have talked and dealt with them know that—[Interruption.] Indeed, so do the right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite. It was asked for many times during the last eight days, when these matters have been publicly discussed.
  If the unions themselves disregard enforceable agreements or engage in unfair practices unprotected by the law, they will be liable. There are those who object to this provision. In my view, in any society based on the rule of law, this must be so. It is essential that it is accepted. But I do not believe for one moment that the unions are likely to put themselves in breach of the law. They will not choose to act in such a way as to risk their funds, the subscriptions of their members, in ill-judged and unlawful actions. I am sure that their members would not wish them to do so and will themselves exert pressure to prevent it happening.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: You hope.
  The Prime Minister: But managers and management will find that they have new responsibilities which they must accept if the new climate in industrial relations is to be created. They must take the initiative to secure improved industrial relations in their own businesses and factories. This
  1142
  responsibility is clearly upon them. They will have to negotiate collective agreements including dispute procedures, which will be effective. These are agreements by which management must abide just as much as the unions and union members. Therefore, the responsibilities are placed on both sides and are fair and equal. The Bill provides the legal framework which will enable both management and trade unions to advance in authority and in efficiency.
  There is one point which the Leader of the Opposition may wish to deal with later when he winds up, as I understand he intends to do. It was left to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to say, last night, that if his party is returned to power, at some future date, it will repeal the whole of the Bill. It is a little unusual to allow such an important announcement to be made by one so newly on the Opposition Front Bench. Nevertheless, it is a vital and important announcement about which all those concerned with industrial relations, employers and trade unions, should know. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will live to regret the day that he ever allowed that pledge to be made. It will cost him just as dear as his original retreat did.
  In my view, the people of this country in these last few days have made clear their own view about the conduct of industrial relations, with which the Bill is concerned. They have faced many difficulties and hardships. They have faced the immediate difficulties with courage and determination because of, and for the sake of, the longer-term interests of the nation which they have at heart. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have had evidence of that. They will have found that although there has been resentment—
  Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): On a point of order. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not want to mislead the House or the country, but by his recent remarks he has clearly implied that the Bill would have dealt with the recent electricity dispute. It is completely untrue to suggest this.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order but a point of argument which was also made yesterday.
  The Prime Minister: I have—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have summarised what has been revealed and commented upon amply in the Press and which has also—[Interruption.]—been appreciated by the great majority of right hon. and hon. Members. It has been a resolve of the nation that as a community we should stand firm until a position is reached in which the interests of the community are respected. Allied to that has been a very real determination that our industrial relations ought to be conducted in a new way, to get away from the bickering and bitterness with which we are all too familiar, and to search for an orderly way of resolving difficulties; to establish rules which are fair to all, and then to make sure that those rules are kept to give everyone in industry a chance to work out a more fruitful relationship. This resolve has been quite clear in the public mood, and it gives particular importance to the timing of this debate. It was said years ago that there is nothing so strong as an idea whose time has come.
  The ideas in the Bill have been widely discussed and carefully prepared. The time has now come to carry through this reform which the people overwhelmingly demand.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: In his speech the Prime Minister has ignored some of the important aspects of the conditions and circumstances in which the party opposite is introducing the Bill. We know that trade unions are within the law already. What the Prime Minister has to justify is the extension of the law into trade union activity and industrial relations, and to show that this is the best way of achieving a common purpose. We are not against change. We have views on how change should be brought about. If change can be achieved by voluntary action, by self-discipline instead of statutory discipline, we believe that that is the better way.
  The party opposite has not a good record on either industrial relations or trade union law. I was very interested in the philosophy of the Secretary of State when he read the first Clause. He referred to liberty and freedom, order and discipline, and we were told that many fears entertained about the Bill would
  1144
  prove to be unfounded. He also said that there was no reason to doubt the Government's motives, and that the purpose and object of the Bill was contained in Clause 1.
  On these benches we have a philosophy about trade unions, too, and it goes back a very long way. Our aims are to make trade unions strong and free to strive for improvements in people's living standards, to enable them to play a constructive rôle in industry and society, and to combine their growing strength, which we on these benches welcome, with modernisation, moderation and responsibility.
  The Prime Minister may say that those are his aims, too, but I regret to say that millions of trade unionists, including the most respected, responsible and trusted members of the Trades Union Congress, do not believe that; and, I am sorry to say, neither do we. When I was on the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, as I was for nearly 10 years, we used to go carefully through the agenda beforehand, and sometimes we had before us a motion to which, on the face of it, one could not object. It looked all right. But the late Arthur Deakin, a shrewed and powerful man, used to say, "It is not the wording of the motion that matters so much as who is moving it." So even where the wording of the Bill seems fairly harmless, we have to see who is moving it.
  Why should we on these benches have any reason to doubt the Government's motives? It is because the Tory record on trade union legislation in my lifetime has been pretty awful. The last major change was the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, a punitive Measure deliberately intended to break trade union power. That Act was born on the benches opposite under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. David James Mr. David James (Dorset, North) rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Houghton: I am among the dwindling number of survivors of the historic meeting at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, when the General Strike was declared in April, 1926, and I shall say something of the consequences of that experience a little later.

  1145
  As the Prime Minister said, or implied, although we spent a good deal of time yesterday on the detail of the Bill, the general principles and objects of it have not yet been decided by the House, for there was no approval of the Consultative Document in the Motion which the House carried; it was a Motion to note the Consultative Document. I shall, therefore, as did the Prime Minister, examine some of the broader aspects of the Bill and the conditions in which it is introduced.
  In winding up yesterday, the Undersecretary of State asked: Is the Bill necessary? Is it fair? Is it workable? He answered, "Yes" to all three. But these are matters of opinion. The Secretary of State has neither asked for nor yet obtained from the House any approval of the Consultative Document, so each of us must bring his own judgment to bear on these questions. I disagree with the Under-Secretary of State, but my first observation is that this is a bad time to be discussing a Bill of this kind at all, and this is an important aspect of the matter on which the Prime Minister failed to comment.
  The atmosphere at present is distinctly unfavourable for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] What is bad in it is being feared, denounced and hated by the trade unions outside, and what is good in it—which is not a great deal—can scarcely get a hearing. The reason for that—again, not mentioned by the Prime Minister—is that the Government have alienated the working people by their recently announced policies, and now the right hon. Gentleman is antagonising them. Many of the Tory backwoodsmen are beating their tom-toms and demanding that something be done about the unions. How can the Bill possibly receive a calm reception and rational debate in present circumstances?
  The Prime Minister declared from the steps of No. 10 in June that his aim was to unite the nation. Now he is dividing it. The heading to a remarkably perceptive article in the Sunday Times last Sunday said it all:
  "To divide the nation is to fail to govern."
  Last night, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) said that he thought it very
  1146
  necessary to restore the consensus to get get acceptance of this kind of legislation in the country today.
  As for freedom, in his famous Guildhall speech—which many of my hon. Friends seem to want to have placed in the Library of the House—the Prime Minister said of freedom, "You have it; you are going to get more of it; but you must use it aright". We want to know the respects in which the Bill enlarges the area of freedom. The truth of the matter is that the Government are visibly failing in the main purpose of government, and I believe that in due course they will be dismissed for it, probably sooner than many expect.
  We wish to be fair, even in a debate such as this which rouses considerable emotion and controversy. Admittedly, the Government inherited noticeable trends towards inflation. This was brought about by only partial success—[Interruption.] This seems to amuse the Prime Minister. Did he find that inheritance funny when he came to power? I was saying that the trend has been brought about by the only partial success of the prices and incomes policy and its subsequent failure—let us face it—under a Labour Government. But since last June the Government have done nothing but aggravate the situation.
  The mini-Budget, with its shift of social expenditure from the State to the individual, and the failure to give more support to families with young children, except among the desperately poor, have fanned the flames of social discontent. Fears of a prices spiral and the substantial gains of the pacemakers in wage movements have, naturally, aroused most serious anxieties among others about being left behind. This is what many of the pay claims now are about, and especially in the public sector which is notoriously too close for comfort to the chilly winds of plateaux and the draughts surrounding guiding lights. The public sector is the one in which there is the deepest apprehension.
  I was in this sector of trade union activities myself, and I know the difficulty there has been over the years in settling any firm principle for fixing pay in the public services. Civil servants, for example, took years to obtain fair comparability as a firm principle for

  1147
  fixing their pay, and they were always worried lest Governments, in pursuance of their economic aims, might resist the application of the principle upon which they had staked so much.
  I turn now to a general look at the industrial scene in Britain today, where, I think hon. Members on both sides will agree, there is much room for disquiet. A new generation of workers are on the march. They are seeking to uphold their dignity and attain fulfilment of their personality. There are tensions and stresses on the shop floor, due to intensive methods of modern industrial production. Small things spark off big rows. The use of power has become obsessive in the minds of some people. The level of tolerance is falling all the time. There are more and more conditions up with which the worker will not put.
  People generally and workers in particular feel that they are being propelled helplessly along by hidden forces of finance, science and technology over which they have no control. This state of discontent cannot be brought within the framework of any trade union law. We are in the midst of one of the great human changes in history, and the problem all the time is how to contain it, how to encourage what is good in it without aggravating it by pettifogging interference by the law. The urgent task of Government as never before is to unite the nation with policies which make us feel that we are all one of another, and that our common aim is to make life really worth living for all the people.
  Instead, the Government are pushing us towards the more ruthless social and competitive philosophy of the Britain of my youth, to be seen even today in the United States. The Government are preaching to the unions on Sundays and turning the lawyers on them for the rest of the week. What can be more futile than to contain symptoms of widespread unrest by legal constraints and collective penalties? This means first the law, then the courts, then the bailiffs and then the police. This Bill deals with the traditions, instincts and behaviour of mass movements of large sections of workers, bound together by the struggles and history of a common interest and purpose and organised for collective action.
  1148
  The Prime Minister ignores this. He talks of the people of Britain expecting something as if 10 million trade unionists were not part of them. We are talking about them when we refer to what the people of this country expect. The great mass of the trade unionists are expecting a fair deal, they are expecting to retain their freedom to combine, they are expecting to retain their right to negotiate, to retain their right to strike. What is there between us except that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are disqualified from joining in this discussion?
  The exercise of the traditional rights and policies and practices of the trade union movement, strenuously fought for, often bitterly won, cannot be converted into a form of industrial delinquency and pitched into the realm of law and penalties without deep resentment on the trade union side. No doubt many hon. Members have read the plausible paragraphs of the Consultative Document and wonder what the fuss is about. Is it not fair; does it not seem right; is it not necessary; will it not be workable, what is the matter? Fundamentally, what is the matter is that there is a wide difference in thought and mode of life and attitudes between working people and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is about pride and history.
  Many unions will be required to alter their rules to qualify for registration. We might just as well ask the Church of England to alter the 39 Articles to get State approval. Suppose trade unions said in large numbers that they would prefer not to register but soldier on and sweat it out to retain what they believe to be their right to conduct their business in their own way. In any case, it is a mistake to try to codify human behaviour for those who have to live together where the mood and circumstance make great differences in attitudes between men and women on both sides of industry.
  This Bill reads like a guide to good order and discipline in a grammar school. It was drafted in the solitude of the Inner Temple, and many of the provisions will not withstand the mighty roar of disapproval from the mass meetings. The Donovan Commission was sensitive to the deep complexities of its task, but this Government think they know better. Again, I will be frank with the House. The Labour Government at one time

  1149
  thought that they knew better until they persuaded the T.U.C., as they were entitled to do and as it was proper to do, to take on board in the voluntary movement the aims and purposes which otherwise would have to be achieved by legislation. This Government are in no position to get that response from the Trades Union Congress, and so they are attempting to do it by legislation, without consultations or consent.
  If the Trades Union Congress had been left to get on with the job, it would have been making good progress by now in building up its authority with the unions. But the Tory Government have wrecked it. The Government are so foolish as to believe that they can introduce a Measure like this without any prior consultation or prospect of cooperation. Despite all that Donovan said about compulsory strike ballots and against the introduction of new procedures for dealing with public utility stoppages, the Government go stubbornly on.
  Union ballots have many problems, and those of us who have had to conduct them know what they are. There are problems of time, cost and security. On the face of it, there are opportunities in, for example, Clause 48 for serious mischief where a dissident minority can be in a position, so it appears, to force a ballot on the question of sole bargaining agent every two years. Many similar questions were raised yesterday. In my experience, very few Bills have been introduced in which so much is in doubt or obscure. We have only touched the fringe of the legal picnic that we shall have in Committee.
  Only decided cases, reached at great cost in time and money, will make sense of many of the general phrases such as "arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination". There has been nothing like this since the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, and that was the Tory idea of putting handcuffs on unions which were getting above themselves. No wonder the Labour Government repealed that Act lock, stock and barrel at the first opportunity. I was there in 1926. I saw great men of the trade union movement, including Ernest Bevin, sing themselves to disaster to the hymn "Abide With Me". They were men of character and integrity, patriotic men whose last thought was to overthrow the Constitution or intimidate
  1150
  Parliament. When the law had construed their actions as an attempt to do both, they speedily called off the General Strike and the miners were left to struggle on alone. Then the wrath came. A sympathetic strike was outlawed; the closed shop in local government employment was made unlawful; the Civil Service associations were banished from the T.U.C. and their political funds dispersed. The Civil Service Union had to get a certificate of approval from the Registrar to make sure that it was fit for civil servants to belong to.
  During the war, when I and some of my friends went to the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, to beseech him, in view of the war situation and of the co-operation and patriotism of the trade unions, to repeal that part of the 1927 Act which forbade Civil Service unions belonging to the T.U.C, the tears streamed down his face and he confessed that his Conservative supporters would not let him do it. The great man, the biggest of the war leaders, was not able to persuade his hon. Friends, even during the war, to release the ban on Civil Service associations joining with others for their mutual benefit. Not even Ernest Bevin, who was Minister of Labour at the time, could win back their freedom. His hour came in 1946—an hour for which he had been waiting 20 years, to move the repeal of the 1927 Act.
  The House will forgive me if I feel deeply emotional about those experiences at the hands of people who preceded right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I simply cannot listen to a Conservative who says that he wants to strengthen trade unions. He is not fit to try. This must be left to those of us on this side of the House and to the trade unions.
  The Labour Government left an uncompleted task last June, and we shall take it up again. It was an honourable endeavour to assist trade unions in their work. We had published a Bill to which probably right hon. and hon. Members opposite would not take serious exception. It can be studied afresh and discussed with the unions. We shall give more attention to management—the education and training for management and the qualifications for management. It takes a lot of training to make a craftsman, but anybody can be a manager.

  1151
  Any blunderbuss can be a staff man making lots of trouble and mischief.
  There are two sides to every dispute. What the public hears most about is what the unions are doing. All too frequently they hear very little about how management brought about the dispute. Managers are as important as engineers and designers. In some places management still lives in the era of the bully and the sack.
  The solution to industrial relations, to the extent that there is any such thing permanently in our changing society, lies mainly with those directly involved in them. It is there that we should get things moving. The Government have lost one of their most valuable assets in undertaking this exercise, and that is the good will of the unions. It is no good saying that it is the wild men who are protesting loudly about the Bill. This Bill is an affront to the responsible leaders of the trade union movement. How can it possibly succeed without their support?
  We want a revival of the spirit brought about in the early days after the First World War by a distinguished Speaker of the House, Mr. J. H. Whitley, the Chairman of the Whitley Committee. He created the Whitley Councils throughout the public services here and in the Government services in the Commonwealth which are now celebrating 50 years of fruitful work. Speaker Whitley learned his industrial relations the hard way, as an employer in Halifax, and in his dealings with the most unpredictable and at times most unruly and noisy group of workers I know—the House of Commons. We have no qualifications to talk to anybody about behaviour, still less about efficiency and productivity. We are as Victorian as the most backward mill in my constituency.
  This Bill is not the answer. It is not the small print which we must look at so much as the men behind the print. They are spreading disaffection in the land. They are stimulating pressures in our acquisitive society which make for militancy and unreason. The Prime Minister did not examine the turmoil in social and industrial life which is creating this restiveness of human activity and purpose.
  We believe that there is an alternative to the Bill, but it will not come in this
  1152
  Parliament and it will not come from this Government. To find that constructive alternative is the task which we on these benches are setting ourselves.
  As the Prime Minister has referred to statements made about the intentions of a future Labour Government concerning the Bill, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) last night, may I be permitted to give the authorised version, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy. What we say is this—and let me put it on the record because this is what we intend to do:
  "We call upon the National Executive, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress, to develop our constructive alternative to the Tory Bill which will ensure that a workable accord between a future Labour Government and the unions and their members can be put to the electorate as a firm basis for the repeal of the Industrial Relations Bill now before Parliament."
  That is what we say, and that, I am confident, will come to pass.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Butler: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye so that I may make my maiden speech. I am very pleased to make it in the last few days of Mr. Speaker's active service in the Chamber.
  My constituents in Bosworth will excuse me if I do not give a long description of the constituency's excellence. We are down-to-earth people who live and work in West Leicestershire, and we like to get on with the job. My predecessor, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, a distinguished Parliamentarian, would wish me to debate the matter in hand. I should like to say only this about him. His independence of mind and action proved attractive to his constituents for many years. I hope to emulate his independence of thought, but I hope that in so doing I shall not fall out with my Front Bench to the same extent as he fell out with his Front Bench.
  Yesterday the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) gave maiden speakers a little homily. I respect his words as I respect his 50 years' service as a trade unionist. If I overstep the limit of non-controversiality, I beg the indulgence of the House.

  1153
  This is a controversial Bill, with disturbing, and meant to be disturbing, implications for some people. The controversy will die down only when the proposals are properly understood and recognised for what they are meant to be, and when elements outside the House stop fanning the flames of that controversy. The Bill will only be properly understood when it is seen to contain a set of fair and reasonable rules under which the voluntary system can freely operate.
  As right hon. and hon. Members would expect, I shall speak from my own experience and from a study of industrial relations for a number of years. I have worked, and I mean worked, in industry for 15 years. I started off by experiencing 168-hour working, and I may be one of a comparatively few hon. Members who have done so. I do not mean 168 hours round the clock: hon. Members will recognise the seven-day, three-shift system. Recently I have risen to management and have been running manufacturing and selling units in my constituency. This is a broad experience which allows an insight into industrial problems.
  My experience has been largely in an industry where industrial relations are good. Our principal union is the Hosiery Workers' Union, and I say " our" because management and union see eye to eye on the main objectives. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, both sides see that on the future prosperity and profitability of our industry depend its ability to pay good wages and defend the jobs of the union members. Relationships are good, in that we have procedural and substantive agreements which allow for plant bargaining. We have in the past negotiated three-year agreements which have been observed, and for men at least we have moved from what might be described as the obsolescent system of piece-rate payment to what is effectively a time rate with an added incentive bonus. This has all been done under a voluntary system.
  Hon. Members might well ask why we should alter this state of affairs. If all industry had the virtually strike-free record of the hosiery industry and plenty of other industries, there would be much less need for the Bill. There would need to be a tidying up of what
  1154
  has become an anomalous situation in the law, but much would not be necessary. Unfortunately this is not the case.
  Following advice from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday, instead of taking to bed with me tomes of law, I took "In Place Of Strife" and re-read it. I am struck by the similarity of the analysis of the problem and of the solution—although there are important distinctions in the degree and emphasis of the solution—to the proposals in the Bill. The author, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), clearly saw some need for an outside force to help to rectify the situation. "In Place Of Strife" required a greater use of law and of lawyers. By implication the author saw that legal agreements should eventually be legally binding. The difference lies in what that force should be. In "In Place Of Strife" it was to be the force of the intervention of Government. The Secretary of State could produce an order to recognise unions; an order on the employer to bargain; an order on the employer not to recognise unions as bargaining agents; an order for a conciliation pause, and so on.
  Our proposals put maximum emphasis on the continuance of voluntary relationships within a framework of law, as opposed to interference by Government. In this country we observe and respect the law if it is fair and sensible, but we in industry bitterly resent interference in matters which industry can better deal with itself from its own experience.
  I hope in due course to see agreements become legally binding. This will ensure better preparation of agreements and, more important, bring about longer periods of trouble-free running in industries which are beset by intermittent troubles. Whatever may be the argument about America losing more days through strikes than this country, the general feature in America is that strikes come at the end of a period of trouble-free running for which management and men are able to plan.
  In opening the debate yesterday my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of the C.I.R. This is clearly close to the centre of the Bill, and I shall want to look very closely at the Clauses defining its responsibilities, areas and sequences of action. I shall also want to

  1155
  look at the safeguarding of minorities. By that I mean the clerical and professional staff whose position can easily be overcome by the majority of manual workers.
  The Bill has been criticised as taking away freedoms and rights. It has been said that it does not have majority support in the country. I am on the edge of controversy here, but, if the House will permit me, I will read a letter which is typical of many letters which my hon. Friends have received:
  "I have never voted anything but Labour in national elections, but I am wholeheartedly in favour of reform in industrial relations … I am convinced that, quite apart from the emotional outburst caused by the power cuts, the great majority of people hope that our elected representatives will not give in to industrial pressure."
  This I think is the crux of the matter:
  "Some kind of order and reason must come into the country's economic affairs. You have the good will of us all in your efforts to end irresponsible stoppages."
  I could not have summed up my own feelings better than that letter does. I believe that the majority of the people are behind the Government, and behind the proposals in the Bill. They certainly were on 18th June, and that is why I have had the pleasure of speaking in this Chamber this afternoon.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Neil McBride: I listened to the debate on the Consultative Document and to yesterday's debate. I listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, and I marvelled that he should say that there were delicate and important issues in the Bill. Of course there are. The delicate and important issues are industrial relations, which were never more important than now when this country can live only as well as it can sell abroad.
  Industrial relations cannot be computed, but that they are valuable, intangible and very real no one can doubt. Here, the man who heads a grade 3 Administration is dividing the nation. The Bill is the greatest divisive factor we have seen for many years.
  I note that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, from the industrialists to the so-called workers, do not state their interest, but I will state mine. I have been a
  1156
  member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers for over 30 years. I am the son of working people. I represent a constituency in South Wales which returned me with a majority of thousands because of the trade unionists in that great Socialist belt. I am a former secretary of the Trade Union Group of M.P.s in this House. These are distinctions which are personal to me and of which I am proud.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was right that one should declare one's interest. Yesterday I was appalled to hear one hon. Gentleman, declaring that he was a libertarian, say that he was in favour of bashing the trade unions in Belper. The hon. Gentleman forgot all the lessons of history. The Minister is, I think, a former industrialist. He will have read history and will find historians on these benches who will always find parallels.
  It is unfortunate, but true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said today, that the people of this country do not trust this Government.
  Miss Mary Holt: Rubbish.
  Mr. McBride: The hon. Lady might be an expert on rubbish. In that case I bow to her expert knowledge.
  The Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement will oppose the Bill to the uttermost limit of the law. We will oppose it in totality. When we come back—it may be soon—we shall repeal it.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)—he and I are members of the same organisation; I hold the same qualifications as he does—said that the Tories have never loved the trade unions; they never will. The road from Tolpuddle in Dorset through Peterlee to the 1970s is studded with examples of industrial victimisation, repression and social ostracism. Nobody can deny that. The facts are there for all to see.
  Let us look at those whom the Tory Government are attacking: the unions, the nebulous faceless ones, the unidentified. They are used to the faceless ones, but these people are easily identified. They are the people who talk to

  1157
  me over my garden wall as I cut the grass in front of my house. They are the women in my area who do a good job and then come home and make an excellent job of running a home. When I have an opportunity to go to the football field in Swansea to see the City win, I come up the road with the blokes, ordinary people like myself, some of the 10 million. The right hon. Gentleman should have a care electorally because they have families; they have votes. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that—[Interruption.].
  The Bill does not comprise original Tory thinking. The right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General have borrowed from the American, the German, the French and the Italian legal scenes.
  The right to join or not to join a union comes from the Germans. The enforce-ability of collective bargaining is of French and Italian origin. The old Taft-Hartley Act, the cooling-off period, is well known. The Bill is a composite of something about which the Tories have not thought.
  There is no doubt that the trade unions are fighting against not merely repression but legal strangulation. I believe that it is the duty of everyone in this House and of the free Press, for which I have a profound respect, to present a balanced picture to the country. We should let the people know precisely what is afoot.
  Even now the Minister is perhaps a little worried. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if consultations can be entered into he will alter the Bill. He is on record as saying that. Yet the Minister told the trade unions: "You are welcome to come and discuss my document as long as you stick to details." But the crooked pillars remain. What cooperation did the right hon. Gentleman expect from that?
  Recently the Solicitor-General was reported in the Daily Telegraph as saying that
  "… the new law would reaffirm and set beyond all doubt basic principles which protected the right of employees to strike and to act in combination … The law … would be law with a human face."
  I suggest that the Solicitor-General, who is a veritable tyro in industrial relations, did not know what he was talking about.
  1158
  The Minister of State said that we could not expect the Government to carry out the Bill without the co-operation of the trade unions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has stressed that the trade unions are responsible bodies. The Prime Minister talked about moderate leaders, but he was careful not to name them. In fact, he could not. The people in the trade union leadership who support the Bill can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
  The Government hope that the Bill will be on the Statute Book before the Summer Recess and that it will begin to operate next autumn. The Government are seeking to tie the trade unions by having rules vetted by a Registrar. The right hon. Gentleman, who had the privilege of writing in my trade union's journal this month, knows better than most that that union is the most democratic in the world. Over many years it has made provision for rules revision. In every branch room there is a rules revision book in which members can enter suggestions. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say me no. Therefore, that argument does not apply to my union.
  Let us consider the code of industrial practice which has to be presented within one year of the passage of the Bill. What is in the code? No one knows. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman knows. But he is singularly coy about it. I believe that it is wrong that the Minister should be empowered from time to time to alter it as he sees fit.
  Turning to the Clause dealing with the simple issue of the right to join or not to join a trade union, I would say that since June this has been causing trouble in Germany. This is embodied in the trade union law of the West German Republic. What will happen? The free rider, the man who will take everything for nothing, will disrupt authority. He will erode the authority of the trade unions and create dissension in the shop. I accuse the Minister of adopting the old French colonial maxim of "divide and rule".
  Consider the principle of the closed shop. I asked the Minister last Thursday if it had not been of inestimable value to the country in maintaining high standards of skill in qualifications and he was forced to say "yes".

  1159
  I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that the employer alone should not be the sole labour recruiting agent. The system has stood the test of time and has been of value to the country. But the agency shop is a hotch-potch if ever there was one. It is a product of several disordered minds. We shall find with agency agreements that the deciding factor is not trade union members, but those who are not in a trade union.
  I believe the Bill will create chaos in industry. There is no doubt that it will cause trouble for those who, like myself, have been shop stewards in one industry in particular—and at one time I was a deputy general convenor of shop stewards—where there are no industrial relations; namely, the shipbuilding industry. No hon. Gentleman opposite can tell me anything about the good graces of employers. I have never experienced any.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What a lot of nonsense!
  Mr. McBride: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) represents a smallish county and has a smallish mind.
  Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. McBride: No, I will not give way. What will happen is that industrial relations will be enveloped in a cocoon of case law, and shop stewards will be bewitched, bothered and completely bewildered because the Bill is vicious anti-trade union legislation. The chief responsibility of the new registrar is to ensure that trade union and employers' association rules conform to certain standards and are observed. I have already mentioned my own trade union's rules. If the Minister wants to find any better standard than those rules, he is looking for rules par excellence.
  On the presumption of creating legal enforceability in collective bargaining, it is ludicrous to seek to abolish that which is freely recognised; namely, the observance of settlements binding in honour only, which, amazingly, are well observed and work very well. Why alter this situation? Where will the benefits accrue? I suggest that there will be no benefits,
  1160
  and no hon. Gentleman opposite can say otherwise.
  If we are to be confined in the rigidity of a legal straitjacket, then we must deal with the question of unfair practices. What happened yesterday was that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) spoke on the point of law it emerged that there were five lawyers in the House all of whom had different opinions. We shall find the matter of precedent impinging on the argument. The only people who will benefit are the members of the best closed shop in this country, the lawyers, though personally I have an affection for the law.
  In the list of so-called unfair industrial practices in the matter of freedom from liability for action offenders could be called upon to pay compensation. However, in the Bill there is no mention of a man without whom modern industry could not cope; namely, the shop steward. I know the Government do not like shop stewards, but industry could not get on without them. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has been connected with industrial matters for so long, knows as I do that shop stewards are the people on the spot who make arrangements, and their agreements work well and enable the whole industrial process to continue.
  Mr. John Page Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—
  Mr. McBride: No, I will not give way. Everybody knows the ostensible reason for the unofficial strike and the Bill itself makes special provision for getting at the wildcats. But the real reason behind an unofficial strike may be that a certain issue is the last straw which breaks the camel's back, or it could be due to a dozen other reasons.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said that an examination of industry could be effective in finding a solution. Middle management, which is pretty rotten in British industry, could be examined with a view to seeing what contribution it could make. I agree with what was said by my union president, to whom reference was made yesterday, that this Bill is probably the most iniquitous piece of legislation to be placed upon the Statute Book.

  1161
  If we look at the penalties contained in the Bill, we see that even the Cloth Pressers Union, with 120 members, is liable to a £5,000 fine. The Tory sledgehammer intends to enact provisions to crack a nut like the Chain Makers and Strikers Union with a similar penalty when that union contains only 236 members. There are some unclear passages in the Bill which will have to be clarified.
  Clause 52 empowers an employer to disclose information in accordance with good industrial relations, but he also has a right to withhold information. There again is a conflict which will need to be clarified. Trade unions are required to carry out agreements and procedures and the situation may well occur—which would be a ludicrous situation—that the general secretary of my union could be held responsible for the actions of 1,300,000 fellow-members.
  It is significant that many big and powerful groups have given a cautious welcome to the Bill. Indeed, British Leyland, one of the largest concerns in the United Kingdom, has expressed the view that reforms can be achieved only by management and workers getting together voluntarily. I believe that that is right. The Bill in its present form would, if enacted, contravene the International Labour Office resolutions which have been ratified by the United Kingdom. It is clear that the Bill will bring political action into industrial relations and eventually will be the reason for causing chaos and harm to industry.
  There will be a new hierarchy of 1,000 civil servants as a result of the provisions of the Bill. A sum of £5 million will be required to carry out its requirements. This comes ill from the Conservative Party, which during Labour's term of office railed against the increase in the number of civil servants. We on these benches will oppose the Bill, which is designed to bring the trade union movement to heel with the aid of the stick. It follows inevitably that we shall work to see the day when it is repealed.
  The Government have forgotten that the T.U.C. has made great strides in modernising the trade union structure. On a day when the importance of industrial relations was never more strongly exemplified, a Tory Minister throws a spanner into the works.
  1162
  I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have thought that running through the trade union movement like a golden thread has been the undoubted courage and ability of my forebears in the trade union movement. The direct political forebears of hon. Members opposite repressed and victimised my people and ostracised them socially. But with the courage that is legendary we won the day. [Interruption.] That might be unpleasant to hon. Members opposite, but it is a fact and I should like to imprint it on the minds of hon. Members opposite.
  That is why in the end our viewpoint will prevail and we shall see the Bill repealed, Providence willing. Tory Governments created the necessity for the workers of this country to combine to secure decent wages and conditions, though not all have yet achieved that standard. The Tories sought to victimise and repress my forebears, and they lost. They will lose again in these modern days when the Bill is thrown out.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. McBride: I shall not give way. I am sorry. I am not discourteous, but I have already said "No", and I hope that hon. Members will understand.
  History will record that though the Tory Government of 1970 introduced a Bill seeking to repress the trade union movement, the resilience and fighting ability of the movement saw to it that we defeated the Tories yet again.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I am mindful of my good fortune when many hon. Members wish to speak. I trust that the House will have no cause to criticise the length of my contribution, but I admit that it may be a little difficult for me to be entirely non-controversial. I ask hon. Members for the traditional indulgence of the House towards a new Member, and hope that they will forgive me if I lean rather heavily upon it.
  I have the honour, as a Kentish maid, to serve a remarkably individual Kentish constituency, comprising the ancient cathedral city of Rochester and the great historic naval and military town of

  1163
  Chatham. In this service I follow distinguished predecessors, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). The last Member, Mrs. Anne Kerr, made many highly individual contributions to debates in the House, and she was a keen supporter of the view that the House needed more women.
  It comes as a surprise to many people to learn that Rochester is the fifth busiest port in the country. It is true that this is mainly due to the activities of the B.P. oil refinery on the Medway. But certainly, unlike many other ports in the country, it has enjoyed harmonious industrial relations, a credit to the men and management.
  My constituency, in addition to its historic amenities, is an industrially expanding area. It is shown as such in the South-East Study, and, consequently, it is clear that fair, just and good industrial relations are vital to the well-being of the people I serve. Although the naval dockyard acreage falls primarily within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), many people from Rochester and Chatham work there, and it must be a matter of satisfaction for all the parties concerned that after many months of patient negotiations a productivity agreement has been secured.
  My interest in the Bill is not only because it is an important matter for my constituents, but because I believe it to contain principles vital to the cause of individual freedom and human rights. Hon. Members will know that I have particular reason to be well aware of the support given to human rights, certainly in the international sense, by past and present Members opposite. It seems, regrettably, that they have a blind spot about the human rights denied to many by union action.
  I wish to speak to Part II of the Bill:
  "Rights of Workers"
  and specifically about Clause 5, which speaks of a worker's right:
  "… if he so desires, to be a member of such trade union as he may choose;

  (b) subject to subsections (3) and (4)"—

  dealing with the agency shop agreement—
  1164
  "the right, if he so desires, to be a member of no trade union or to refuse to be a member of any particular trade union or other organisation of workers".
  Reference was made yesterday to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and to the clause that states that no one should be compelled to belong to an association. That seems to be a basic human right to which our people are entitled.
  Because of my long association with local government, I read with interest the response of N.A.L.G.O. to the Government's Consultative Document on Industrial Relations. Before I offend against the strictures to new Members yesterday by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), may I say that I am referring to that union only very respectfully, and admitting that its document is against the Government's proposals. Nevertheless, within a paragraph headed:
  "Issues of Principle"
  there is the following sentence:
  "… on the need to preserve a fundamentally voluntary system of industrial relations … firmly rooted in a tradition of independent and responsible self-government by a Movement whose ineradicable base is voluntary association."
  That may well be the view from N.A.L.G.O.'s window, but I should like to tell the House of a matter brought to my attention which hardly falls within the phrase "voluntary association".
  It concerns the young owner of a firm which employs about 50 or 60 staff. I understand there are fewer than 50 such firms in the country. Their work is contracted out to them by large firms with their own similar departments, and only when the pressure of work extends their own staff beyond capacity.
  The union involved has, by strike and other industrial action, "induced"—the word used in the Bill—the larger firms to sign agreements containing clauses saying that they will not contract work out to any firm which does not operate a closed shop. The young owner of the firm to which I refer has now had placed before him an agreement which he is requested to sign before 1st January. His staff were members of the union. Many of them have complained to him about the union's actions, and one of them has thrown in his union card in disgust at the union organisers' behaviour. The firm's

  1165
  owner is now confronted with the agreement, which he knows to be totally in breach of the Bill's proposals, though they are not yet law, and confronted also with the prospect of the enforced dismissal of a loyal employee and, presumably, payment of redundancy pay.
  Hon. Members will see clearly that this firm and its staff, having at present no protection in law, are confronted with extinction unless they comply with the closed shop agreement—
  Mr. Ashton: Quite right.
  Mrs. Fenner: I leave other hon. Members and the public at large to assess whether this is a freedom and a human individual right.
  Even more important than this firm, the one man who has rejected his union because of its action is denied the basic human right to take this decision to reject the union to which he faithfully belonged, because of its action, and thus to retain his livelihood. Surely, while there remains one man or woman in this country subjected to this unfair industrial practice, the Bill is necessary—
  Mr. Ashton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fenner: I am sure that no hon. Members would wish this cap to fit them—
  Mr. Ashton: Even though this is a maiden speech, will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fenner: Hon. Members will have noted that, not wishing to infringe upon their kind indulgence, I do not refer to the union by name. My reason for the cloak of anonymity in regard to the former union member and the firm is different. While I have immunity and privilege in this House for the things I say, the owner of the firm in question and his loyal staff have no protection.
  I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on this matter. In his reply, he has naturally drawn my attention to the provisions of the Bill, which will prevent this abuse. I have written again to him pointing out that it is only when the Bill is law that protection will be afforded. What is his advice in the interim to victims of this unfair practice?
  1166
  I am sure that under Clause 11(2) no one person can selfishly exercise this human right not to belong to a trade union. Applied to the case that I have set before the House, the union could clearly, under that provision, desire this employer to enter into an agency shop agreement. The employer, if unwilling to do so, or the union or negotiating panel may make application to the Industrial Court which, if satisfied under paragraphs (a) and (b) can request the Commission to proceed with a view to taking a ballot on the question. This Clause ensures that if it is the wish of the majority of workers in a firm, no one man and no member can thwart the wish of the majority to seek to secure such an agreement.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—I am sorry that she is not here to hear me say this—said yesterday that the Clauses concerned with the agency shop agreements were irrelevant and a dangerous piece of frivolity. I am sorry that she should refer in such a way to legislation which pays heed to the wishes of workers about union representation. It is quite clear that, to her, what is in this case of importance is not the majority wish of the workers but only the unfettered power of the unions.
  No union behaving responsibly and lawfully, and with the real interests of its members at heart, needs to fear that a majority would not support an agency shop agreement asked for and sought by such a union.
  It is as a former member of a union, the A.C.S.D.D., that I speak in support of the Bill. I am certain that the interests of a strong and responsible trade union movement and the interests of individuals and, thus, of my country will be best served if men and women can continue to be sure that membership of unions is on the basis of voluntary association.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: May I exercise the privilege of a semi-old hand and congratulate the two maiden speakers so far in this debate? They replaced two great characters, Mrs. Anne Kerr and Woodrow Wyatt, both of whom I knew very well and for both of whom I had a great respect. Woodrow Wyatt was in trouble in the 1964–66 Parliament, and Anne Kerr was in trouble from the 1966 Parliament onwards. Every

  1167
  one of us here this afternoon could pay tribute to the work of those two people.
  However, to the maiden speakers I should like to make one or two suggestions. First, if there are any Whips about, they should send some notice to people making a maiden speech to inform them of the rules of the House, or the conventions as to what it is about.
  Mr. Ashton: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it would be common courtesy for an hon. Member, making a speech attacking any particular union—as my own union has been attacked in two speeches yesterday and today referring to D.A.T.A.—to mention the name of the union and also the name of the firm involved? Would he also agree that there is no difference between a trade union putting pressure on a sub-contractor to make his employees join the union and any firm making a take-over bid for another firm? Surely if the principle of take-overs between firms is right for free society and free enterprise, it is equally right for a trade union doing the same thing.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his analogy: I think that that is so.
  But to return to the question of maiden speakers, the position is, as I understand it, that all people coming into this House have served an arduous apprenticeship. They are not newcomers to this business but professional politicians. None of us, as a professional politician, should ask for the indulgence of the House or its protection during a maiden speech. I see no reason for this. The two maiden speakers this afternoon are capable of looking after themselves and answering interruptions.
  When maiden speakers get up to speak, I understand that they should say that they are going to make some controversial remarks and have no objection to people intervening during their speech. This overcomes the problem. I am certain that the two speakers we have heard today could have said that they had no objection to interruptions, and all would have been in order. I would therefore suggest to the Whips that a note of this sort might go to maiden speakers saying that it is up to them to decide whether they want interruptions or not.
  1168
  I hope that we can have some change over these conventions.
  A few other conventions have been shattered this afternoon. One was the time today when the Prime Minister's mask fell off, pretty early on in his speech. He then went on to contradict the views of at least five members of the Government sitting on the Front Bench beside him. This raised a most curious situation. As one's eyes travelled from the Prime Minister along the Front Bench, we were going over in our minds some of their recent comments about this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman who sat next to him was referring to blackmail; he said that the unions were blackmailing the nation. I remember the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to him saying last week that the trade unions were holding the nation to ransom. The right hon. Gentleman's third colleague—and I made a note of his contribution—said that the trade unions were absolutely irresponsible.
  Recognising all these contributions about organised labour, the Prime Minister went on to give us his solution, which was to strengthen trade unions. He said that what he wanted to do was to so frame the law of the country so that it would enable trade unions to act effectively, and therefore make more effective this blackmail and irresponsibility referred to by his right hon. Friends.
  In an inflationary situation, of necessity there will be more strikes. One must inevitably follow the other. One of the tragedies of the political mechanics of a society such as ours is that it is not the other way about. I wish it were. When there is a need for strikes and militant action in industry it is during periods of depression or deflation. It is then that militancy would be most effective, but, unfortunately, it is only in periods of inflation that we have maximum militancy. There is a relationship between the number of strikes and what is happening in society and the fact that workers are now taking home a smaller share of the profits.
  The other thing about the Prime Minister's speech was that it was the first time that we have had an honest acceptance that this Bill is about wages. This is the first time we had a statement from the Conservative Party saying that the policy on industrial relations is about

  1169
  wages, trying to curb inflation and all the other phrases which they use. It is their method of intervening in the whole question of wage bargaining, in the hope that they will strengthen the employer, enabling him to resist more effectively the demands of organised labour. The Prime Minister said this this afternoon, and that was the point at which his mask fell away and we had the truth for the first time.
  Now we understand what it is about, and it confirms the views expressed by the C.B.I., which said that this Bill will enable industry effectively to combat what is called "wage drift". The C.B.I. agrees that this will strengthen the employer, not trade unions, in dealing effectively with wage drift, particularly as it applies to piece workers.
  The other point arose when dealing with the matter of the transfer of power to the shop floor. It is true, as my right hon. Friends have said, that power has shifted to the shop floor. Therefore, the Government, in arguing against this shift, say that the Bill is designed to help deal with the situation, to deal with militant shop stewards and this new power which has found its way to the shop floor and is effective in obtaining wage bargains.
  The final point in the Prime Minister's comments was this curious misunderstanding as to what is going on. I hope that the powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has answered his questions. I hope he understands that the T.U.C. and organised labour are opposed to the Bill and that it is the employers who support and welcome it. It seems as if the Prime Minister was claiming that there was support from the trade unions.
  I have been reported in one or two newspapers as suggesting that the Bill should go through "on the nod", that we should not amend it. My view has been consistent from the beginning of the debate about procedure. It has been that we should intensify our opposition to it, that we should oppose the Bill in principle. I say that to do that we should not amend it. I welcome the Government's decision to allow the Committee stage to take place on the Floor of the House. It will enable us to oppose the Bill more effectively and promote our alternatives. My point is that it is a Bill
  1170
  with which we disagree in principle, and because the rules of the House forbid Amendments which break the principle of the legislation we should not attempt to amend it but should design our own constructive new Clauses to replace the present ones.
  I hope that ultimately this will be our strategy. I hope that we shall use the opportunities in Committee to oppose the Bill in principle and not amend it in the way that Bills have been amended here over the centuries. I know that it would be the first time that it would have been done but this is the one occasion when to stretch the Government to the limit we should argue the case in principle.
  I turn to Part VIII of the Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here because I want to refer to something he said about it. This is the Part of the Bill that deals with the 60-day cooling-off period. I want to quote from the Amalgamated Engineering Union Journal published the day before yesterday and containing an article by the Secretary of St0ate headed "The Government's view, by the Secretary of State for Employment". The right hon. Gentleman says:
  "Finally, to protect the national interests, it will propose measures for use as a last resort in an emergency. Where a strike may cause an emergency, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to ask the N.I.R.C. either for a 60-day restraining order against its leaders, while everyone seeks an alternative solution, or a ballot if there is doubt whether the threatened strike has majority support. In no circumstances, I should add, would there he any power to order the individual to go back to work."
  That is a clear statement that there is no power in the Bill to order workers to return to work if they are on strike.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has arrived in the Chamber. I am quoting from his statement that there is nothing in the Bill which would empower anyone or any court to order a striker back to work. Trade union leaders have already said that they will not order anyone back to work if a dispute occurs in these circumstances. It follows that if the C.I.R. or the N.I.R.C. or the trade union leaders have no power or desire to order people back to work this 60-day cooling-off period is non-existent. Any provision under Part VIII of the Bill cannot be effective in the circumstances described by the Minister.

  1171
  Assuming that a dispute has taken place and a strike has occurred, it appears that even though the Minister may say that there is a national emergency and seek from the N.I.R.C. power to order a 60-day cooling-off period, neither the Minister nor the trade union leaders will have power under the Bill to order the men back to work. I take it that the 60-day cooling-off period would not be effective unless the men actually volunteered to return to work.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Member is right to the extent that the Bill makes clear, as we made clear in the Consultative Document, that there is no power to order strikers as a whole to return to work. What the Bill does take power to do, and the power already exists through injunctions under the present law, is to get an order from the court that those who call or induce a strike should cease and desist from so doing. Hitherto in this country, and also in the United States where this power exists, injunctions of this kind have always been obeyed, and I suspect that they will continue to be obeyed.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the Minister. He now confirms that even if trade unions or shop stewards do not try to persuade men to go back to work and the men themselves decide not to return to work, there is every right to ignore the 60-day cooling-off period ordered by the N.I.R.C.—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Contempt of court.
  Mr. Atkinson: Under the Bill, it cannot be contempt of court. I know that if I am wrong I shall be corrected, but, as I read the Bill, there cannot be contempt of court. I understand that the Bill is worded as it is in order to allow men to remain away from work irrespective of any advice given to them; that if they wish to ignore such advice they are not in contempt of any court decision.
  Mr. R. Carr: The law cannot compel, and we do not seek to compel, large numbers of men to do anything like that. The law can, if operated, place an order on those who induce or call strikes to do
  1172
  certain things. If they do not obey the order of the court, they will be in contempt of court. Assuming that it was a registered union, the penalty for contempt of court would fall on the union—that is, the corporate body—and not on the individual union representatives. But let there be no mistake about it: contempt of court is a serious matter, and a serious penalty would fall on a union whose authorised officials did not obey the court order.
  Mr. Atkinson: Again, I am grateful to the Minister, because it is part of my case that if the men remain away from work they are liable to destroy their own organisation if the property of the union is confiscated or measures are taken against the leadership as a result of their contempt. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the Amalgainated Engineering Union Journal is not correct. The men would be destroying their own union by ignoring the advice to return to work, because their property would, in part, be confiscated.
  There is no clear definition in the Bill of what is an unusual industrial practice. One assumes that during a 60-day cooling-off period it would be quite in order for an employer to say to his workers, "I want you to work seven days a week. I want you to work all the possible overtime and step up the speed of production so that we can stockpile in order to face a strike when it comes about." If during the 60-day period the shop stewards refuse to do that, are they also in breach of any decision taken by the N.I.R.C.? According to the Bill, they are.
  But there is worse than that. This legislation is hated by the trade unions because not only can they not prevent the employer from building up stocks in anticipation of a possible future strike but, assuming there was failure to agree after the 60-day period and there was a strike, it would be illegal for anyone to prevent that employer from delivering those goods to a customer, because the Bill forbids action to be taken which may harm some innocent person, and in this case the customer would be an innocent person. That means that the whole argument is loaded heavily against organised workers—
  Mr. R. Carr: I certainly do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unnecessarily but he was, with respect, talking nonsense a few minutes ago about what the employer could make his workers do during the 60-day cooling-off period. Of course he could not force his employees to work overtime and do all the things the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They are perfectly all right as long as they maintain their contract of agreement, and under the contract of agreement the employer could not force them to do any of the things about which the hon. Member talks. So, with respect, he is wrong.
  Mr. Atkinson: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if overtime is a particular feature in a workshop it is accepted as being normal working. If piecework is a normal function, the worker himself has no right to say that he will work to rule. He has no right in that 60-day period to say that he will work a minimum number of hours, work to rule or go slow. The Bill makes it impossible. It means that the employer can say, "We will continue to work overtime during the 60 days"—if that is the normal practice. Or he can say: "We will continue on piecework". Or he can say: "We will accelerate output in order to stockpile in readiness for a future possible dispute".
  These are arguments which will doubtless be developed in Committee, and I do not want now to delay the House except to refer to procedure, and to take up a statement made by the Prime Minister. I will refer particularly to engineering.
  I do not know whether hon. Members opposite know it, but since 1922 the employers have resisted any change in the York agreement and it is they who now look for a strengthening of their position by using the C.I.R. and the Industrial Court to make certain that their right to take unilateral decisions is reinforced by the law. That is what the employers are demanding and have demanded of the party opposite and, presumably, it is what they will get under the Bill. On the other hand, T.U.C. statistics show that about 55 per cent. of disputes are caused by decisions made unilaterally by employers to change working conditions, sequence operations, materials or the like.
  Obviously, the C.I.R. and the N.I.R.C. will endorse the employer's right to take
  1174
  decisions of that sort in the absence of consultation In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, neither the C.I.R. nor the Industrial Court itself will reverse the whole of this procedure in industry and make a change which the employers have resisted for 48 years. Yet, if change is to be made, it must be made by the courts that the Minister wants to set up.
  I come now to the question of what is likely to happen in the Trade Union Movement in the months ahead. The Trades Union Congress is to be recalled on either 16th or 18th March, and between now and then a lot of trade unions will want to make up their minds about what sort of action they will take and how the Labour movement as a whole will resist this legislation.
  It is obvious from the decisions taken by the majority of executives so far that there will be no co-operation. Trade unions have rejected the legislation, made known their objection, and declared that they will not co-operate. It follows from that that no member of the Trades Union Congress or of a recognised trade union will accept any invitation from hon. Members opposite to take part in any of these quasi-judicial bodies—or even judicial bodies—set up by the Government. It is now generally accepted—words like " quisling " have been used—that any trade unionist would incur the wrath of his comrades in the union movement if he were to take on a job with the C.I.R. or the National Industrial Court. That is the first sign of non-co-operation.
  Then there is non-registration. We all know that under these proposals all trade unions are registered automatically for the first three months of the Bill's operation. If unions decide not to register in the future, they must contract out. The discussions throughout the union movement now is on whether unions should contract out of the whole process of registration; and the unions' views will be put to the T.U.C. on 16th or 18th March. All of them recognise that there are difficulties. [Interruption.] I do not want to take on the hon. Member for Hendon. North (Mr. Gorst) on the subject of commercial radio. We all recognise his interests. We understand one of the real reasons why he is here.
  Unions recognise that there are difficulties with superannuation funds and the property problems may be involved.

  1175
  None the less, they recognise that they may be driven to contracting out of their registration obligations as proposed by the Bill.
  I suggest that the argument that there are serious disadvantages may not be valid. If unions, registered or not registered, agree with any employer's proposition or industrial wage agreement, there is no question of registration and no problem. The problem arises only when there is disagreement—disagreement with the employer, disagreement with the decision of the C.I.R., or disagreement with the decision of the National Industrial Court. The point unions must then consider is that, if that is so, they lose immunity both ways. They lose immunity by non-registration and by the disappearance of the 1906 Act. They also lose immunity if they disagree with a decision taken by any of these courts or if they disagree with an employer. Presumably compensation against the union will be the same in both cases. Therefore, a trade union has nothing to gain from registration. This will be the basic consideration before the T.U.C. on 16th or 18th March.
  During your absence, Mr. Speaker, we were interrupted for a little time. On your return we resumed a degree of reasonableness. None the less, I apologise for having delayed the House for longer than I originally intended.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Sutcliffe: I have listened to many speeches in the House since June. I have in mind the words of Edward Gibbon. He was most famous as an historian, but as a Member of the House he wrote:
  "The great speeches fill me with despair, the bad ones with terror."
  He was eight years a Member and never made his maiden speech.
  I am sure the House will understand if I approach my task with some apprehension. I may be controversial, but I hope not so controversial in the context of this debate that the House will not show me indulgence.
  I must declare my interests. They are not substantial. I am a director of a family hotel business.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), in the debate on the Consultative Document, took us back to
  1176
  the 1825 Act. I think it was Joseph Hume who said, during the passage of that Bill,
  "The trade unions are estranging their best friends."
  The same may be said of the forces opposing this Bill so far as public sympathy goes.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that the problems of 1970 are not cured by turning the clock back to 1870. In saying that the right hon. Lady turned the argument upside down. There is no question of turning the clock back. It virtually stopped in 1906, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister illustrated. The law governing unions has not advanced, although the British economy has. Today our economy is immeasurably more complex, highly geared and intermeshed than it was in the reign of King Edward VII. The community is vulnerable as never before. These things are so obvious that they should not need saying.
  It simply is not good enough to say that we are all right as we are and as we were in 1906 and to say, as did the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that we must wait for change by self-discipline. For at least the last 20 years we have been waiting for change, whether by self-discipline or by a new psychology, and we have been content to afford the luxury, if one does not call it injury, of a great many avoidable industrial troubles.
  I am not saying that those industrial troubles have all been due to unions rather than management. There has been progress—progress in improvement and extension of the machinery for settling disputes and in removing, or at least alleviating, some of the greatest injustices of the past. Some of this progress has been relatively recent. It has not provided the psychological break-through or the discipline.
  We have had progress in another direction, too. I refer to the not unsuccessful efforts of governments to secure and maintain full employment. The corollary of that full employment is the undreamt of power of organised labour. Everyone knows that concentration of private economic power can grow oppressive from lack of restraint. This is no new phenomenon.

  1177
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fair balance he was seeking to strike between freedom and order. Shakespeare knew about this. He expressed it no more eloquently than my hon. Friend, though perhaps more poetically:
  "Take but degree away, untune that string An heark what discord follows!"
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that "unfettered freedom destroys itself". Shakespeare rendered it like this:
  "Power into will, will into appetite;
  And appetite, an universal wolf,
  So doubly seconded with will and power
  Must make, perforce an universal prey And, last, eat up himself."
  Our 16th century ancestors lived in an age of confusion and violence, if not of inflation, and they were as great as those of our own day.
  I do not find the opposition credible or consistent. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has more than once intervened in the debate to point out, if race relations is suitable for legislative action, why not industrial relations? The argument is well nigh identical in the two cases. To support the one but to reject the other, on whichever side of the House, demands a great deal of casuistry.
  A few moments ago I taxed the right hon. Lady who leads from the benches opposite for her insistence in turning the clock back. To understand the mentality of the party opposite, that is just what I propose that we should do. We should go back 100 years to the Ballot Act. It became law in 1872, but the die-hards fought it for more than two years in what a contemporary described as
  "the fiercest conflict ever known up to that time within the walls of Parliament."
  In the tradition of all good last ditchers defending the indefensible, they said of the secret vote that it was "un-English", "the practice of America and the countries of Europe", "foreign to our habits and repugnant to our instincts". That is almost exactly word for word what hon. Members opposite are saying now about the legal framework.
  The opponents of the ballot box said, "No hole-in-the-corner voting—publicity is the keynote of our constitution," to which hon. and right hon. Members opposite echo, "No legalistic structure."
  1178
  Those were the words of the right hon. Lady earlier: " No legalistic structure—the voluntary system is the keynote of our negotiation."
  But the parallel is more remarkable than that. They said of the Bill in 1870 that it would not stop and would not even check bribery. It is interesting that the Commission appointed in 1880, eight years after the Act, to investigate an Election Petition, was hailed to have proved them right. According to the Commission,
  "it did not appear that the mode of taking votes by ballot had had the slightest effect in checking bribery."
  How easy it is at one and the same time both to overestimate and underestimate the effect of good law!
  The Opposition condemn the Bill as unlikely to check or stop the abuse of strikes. It would be just as reasonable for them to assert that there should be no law or law courts because the law is sometimes breached. But how right my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in his emphasis, in his assessment of the purpose and effects of his Measure. He has said that he sees it as a means of educating people and influencing their behaviour, not as a preventive but a deterrent. I wish that hon. Members opposite would get the message. A piece of legislation is no painless overnight cure but more like a convalesence. The Bill is not a pill. The Opposition will abandon their pledge to repeal it, as surely as there is no pressure in Britain these days to repeal the Ballot Act, or in America to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Once the unions get this law and hon. Members opposite come out of their last ditch, they will not want to go back.
  My constituents in West Middlesbrough and Thornaby live south of the Tees, and they are surrounded by the Cleveland Hills, the North Yorkshire Moors and the sea. They work in what is appropriately called the "powerhouse of the North". Nowhere in this country will one find so great a concentration of industrial investment in chemicals, steel and oil, and port facilities which will soon be second to none. Nowhere in this country will one find an industrial complex so cut off by bad road communications from its main artery, the A1. There will be no through dual carriageway until 1975. But in almost every other respect the

  1179
  growth of industrial Middlesbrough has been revolutionary. Barely 140 years ago, Joseph Pease sailed from Teesmouth to see the newly completed railway terminal, and he prophesied that the bare fields would be covered with a busy multitude. Middlesbrough in 1858 was described as
  "the town which has won a name without a history, is important without antiquity and commands the attention of statesmen by the magnitude of its commercial activities."
  The recent merger of the towns alongside the Tees, including Norton which has a unique claim upon the attention of the House, has been no less revolutionary. It has created the country's newest county borough, which is also its seventh largest town.
  Tees-side deserves to be better known. Its four revised constituencies are not even recognised in this House and probably will not be until seven years from the borough's creation. This is a particularly regrettable result of the last Government's failure to implement the Boundary Commission's proposals.
  If our history has been short and dramatic, it also has its harsh side. Above national average unemployment for many years has been our lot in the North-East. Apart from the hardship of people out of work and the waste year by year—£50 million worth of output lost annually would not be too high a figure—it has left its mark on industrial relations. For most of the Trades Union Congress's 100 years' history, insecurity has probably been the most important single factor animating unions. It created a tradition of bloody-mindedness—the result of the not unjustified belief in the past that "if you don't do down you will be done down". So long as we continue in the North-East to lose more jobs than we gain—our gross loss in Tees-side is up to 3,000 jobs a year and so long as we continue to move rapidly from labour intensive to capital intensive industry, a sense of insecurity continues. It is difficult for us to extinguish completely the searing memories of the 30s. Even in a new generation they smoulder on.
  It is against this background that tribute should be paid to management and men, many of whom are my constituents, involved at I.C.I. in what is perhaps the most comprehensive and radical reform of the industrial relations
  1180
  system within any major British company. A new structure of pay and conditions has been agreed nationally, but it has to be negotiated at plant level before it can be implemented. The approach is a very positive one. It provides for wage increases of 20 per cent. or more, improved status, and the replacement of incentive bonus schemes in eight grades based on a job assessment scheme. It also deals with sick pay and annual holidays, provides no enforced redundancy, and concedes the closed shop. It is estimated that at least 10 per cent. of management time will be absorbed to introduce it, and that that cost in time and effort will continue while it is in operation. Every job is analysed, and revised. Objectives are modified by feed-back from the plant floor. Finally, jobs are classified on a points system according to grade.
  The main opposition has come from craftsmen over that part of the scheme which allows production workers to do simple maintenance when no craftsman is available. Progress with this weekly staff agreement has been slower in Teesside than in other parts of the country, but Tees-side has more craftsmen than anywhere else. Bargaining is hard. To preserve the direct gains anticipated in productivity over a period is not easy.
  The example of men and management at I.C.I. shows what can be done in a multi-plant company. I hope that the Bill will be a spur to plant bargaining of just this kind, with managements involved from top to bottom in negotiating basic wages and conditions of work instead of trying to adapt and fit national agreements to local plant circumstances. I am sure that this is the most critical factor in industrial success.
  I am sure that a number of hon. Members will have seen the engineering industry's Handbook of National Agreements. It is a daunting tome and sufficient explanation of much industrial trouble. The weekly staff agreement—known as W.S.A.—approach demonstrates a much more realistic division between managers and managed. It is important to recognise that the interests of employees, employers and owners are not the same; yet the whole of our industrial relations has been based on the old dichotomy of workers and bosses. That cannot fit the industrial pattern of the future.

  1181
  No one was more clear about this than my predecessor, Dr. Jeremy Bray. He foresaw more and more highly qualified employees with educations equal to that of managers as the result of advanced technology. Dr. Bray could claim to be more at home with a computer than any hon. Member of this House, and literally so since I believe that he had one in his sitting room. It may have helped him to make his disturbing calculation that Labour Government spending on the creation of new jobs cost more than pensioning off workers from the North-East to live in the South of France. While this portrays him at his most provocative, I am sure that he is missed by this House for his admirably thoughtful and commendably independent contributions to debates.
  This Bill will not have, in that it will not need to have, any startling impact on a firm like I.C.I. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said in a very fine maiden speech, there are firms in the country where the impact from the Bill will not be very great. At I.C.I., management and unions are unlikely to make their agreements legally binding. Negotiation is give and take, with a great deal of compromise. I am not sure that agreements which are full of reservations and exclusions can be expressed in legally effective language. However, it should be possible to make both sides agree on watertight arrangements for settling disputes and abide by them. Disputes procedures can be accurately described. Such a procedure can be made an element of every contract of work, and it should be made enforceable because disregard of it is both abusive and irresponsible.
  The provisions for bargaining units in Clauses 41 to 51 will not have any major impact upon I.C.I. There are about nine unions involved at I.C.I. plants, and they have a signatory union approach equivalent to the joint negotiating panel envisaged by the Bill. It works well.
  The Bill outlaws the closed shop, and this is a provision of W.S.A. which has been the subject of a lot of hard bargaining at I.C.I. But it is most unlikely that union membership will be affected materially. I have listened to the fears of union representatives that militants who are dissatisfied with a settlement will opt out, stir up discontent, and form break-
  1182
  away unions. I do not dispute the strong feeling and the sincerity on this issue.
  I think that the case for the closed shop was put more convincingly by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) than I have heard it put before. But the need to maintain bargaining power will be a strong deterrent to unions becoming fragmented. The agency shop is a compromise unlikely to command support on either extreme in this issue, though I think that it demonstrates my right hon. Friend's determination not to be dogmatic.
  The public image of unions is that they are undisciplined and oppressive, though I do not suggest that that is a true reflection on the movement as a whole. There can be no denying that the public has been puzzled to understand why unions can be so harsh to individuals who refuse the join them and so tolerant of their adherents who refuse to adhere and be bound by union rules.
  Fair rules, clearly defined responsibility, better finances and greater confidence will change the unions' image under the law. Mr. Frank Cousins had a sane attitude on this issue. He said:
  "I have never favoured making a man join. It should be within the power of our organisation to persuade people to come in."
  I believe that the Bill will give unions a better case and the persuasive power that hitherto they have been unable to command.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) that too much hysteria has been worked up against the Bill. However, I cannot believe that he really thinks it irrelevant in the long and the short term, even to a firm like I.C.I. It is beneficial that it is there in the background. Its influence is all on the side of responsible people. The inept and irresponsible on both sides of industry will feel its pressures. But largely it will work undramatically, contrary to what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have led us to believe. It will be in the background and, at best, with time it will bring about a far better climate.
  I am aware of no inconsistency in affirming my support for the Bill and at the same time my belief that the key to good industrial relations remains with management, men and unions. The Bill

  1183
  represents a long overdue attempt to introduce in place of strife an element of reason, fair play and justice.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members, having sat here during our two days of debate so far, wish to take part. Brief speeches will help.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hanson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) on his maiden speech. The early part of what he had to say gave us the fruit of some literary researches, greatly appreciated by the House, I am sure. The hon. Gentleman quoted Gibbon, and mentioned that during his eight years sojourn here he had never made a speech. No doubt, Gibbon was the recipient of the sort of advice which Sir Winston Churchill is reputed to have given to a new Member who sought the advice of that great man about when he should make his maiden speech. It is said that the new Member was astonished to receive the advice, "Never, Sir", and that, when he asked for an explanation, Sir Winston replied, "Better that your fellow Members ask, 'Why does not he speak?', than, 'Why does he?'." [Laughter.] That sort of advice or stricture could never be given to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, but it might have explained Gibbon's silence.
  I was greatly struck yesterday by the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), when, speaking proudly after his 50 years of experience in the trade union movement, he referred to the trade unions as one of the great estates of the realm. One recalls that Sir Winston Churchill once described the trade unions as the fourth estate. Yet even as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking on that theme, I could not help reflecting on how extremely conservative and how resistant to change the great estates of the realm always are.
  Would the Monarchy, for example, have changed but for the barons at Runnymede or but for what was done by Pym and Hampden in this House? Of course not. The Monarchy always wanted its power to remain absolute. What of the Church? It was always in-
  1184
  tent on keeping its power, until that power was eroded by the action of Parliament. Parliament itself was always resistant to change until it was forced to change by pressures from outside, pressures which brought about the great Reform Bills and enlarged the franchise. In this century, there was a tremendous battle with the other place until it surrendered its power to the representatives of the people in the Commons.
  The trade unions are no different from any of the other great estates of the realm. They do not want their power to be touched or interfered with in any way. They are as conservative and as resistant to change as any of their predecessors in the great and proud rôle which they have in our community.
  I am not, therefore, impressed by the argument that there is no room for the Legislature to intervene on trade union matters. Far from it. The trade unions themselves are the child of this House. They have no legal powers or rights save the powers and rights given to them by the House. The situation is the same on the other side of industry where we are concerned with corporate power. The limited company is itself a creation of the law; its powers are controlled and restricted by the Companies Acts, which are revised from time to time. The power of companies to conspire together in restrictive practices is subject to legal sanction under an Act passed by the House. It is right, therefore, for the House of Commons from time to time to look at the trade union law and see what change is necessary, for, inevitably, change must come from outside the trade union movement itself.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made an eloquent and effective speech, the most effective speech we have heard. It was effective because it was emotional, and it was emotional because of his experience. I thought it a fine parliamentary performance. I sympathised with the view which the right hon. Gentleman expressed, that change ought to come from the inside and there is so much which the trade unions themselves could do. I think that that is right, but the point is that they do not do it.
  In my view, the trouble with the Bill is that it has been oversold. For political reasons, this being an election year

  1185
  and trade union reform having been an electioneering slogan, so many hon. Members opposite—not the Minister himself or the Solicitor-General, but the Tory backwoodsmen—have been selling the idea that there is a magic formula in the Bill to overcome much of our industrial troubles. In fact, there is not.
  That part of the Bill about which there has been the greatest ballyhoo, that is, the part dealing with the legal enforcement of work contracts, is, in my view, the least effective part of it. I very much agreed with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) when he wound up last night. The hon. Gentleman's speech was in marked contrast to the opening speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who attacked the Bill and evoked frightening thoughts of what might happen; of the whole panoply of the criminal law being brought to hear, and of people being sent to prison. I thought that that was nonsense. Much the more effective criticism came from the hon. Member for Walton when he said that the Bill, or that part of it, was likely to prove ineffective.
  I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Clauses dealing with legal enforceability. It is difficult to find an effective sanction for that kind of approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was right last week to direct attention to the penal provisions in the Act of 1875, repeated later in—I am not sure of the date—
  Mr. Thorpe: 1919.
  Mr. Hooson: I am much obliged—the Electricity Supply Act, 1919. Those penal provisions were not invoked during the General Strike, and they have not been invoked by the Minister recently, and rightly so. This shows how difficult it is to get people, as it were, to obey that sort of law and to apply that kind of sanction. In his heart of hearts, the Minister understands this, I am sure. I noticed that he nodded yesterday on one or two ocasions when I intervened on the question of effective sanctions behind these provisions as they stand, and I am certain that he will find it extremely difficult to enforce some of these agreements.
  We are told that in this country our great problem, as opposed to that of
  1186
  the United States, is the problem of the unofficial strike, not the official strike. The unofficial striker is breaking the law now. He breaks his contract of employment. He can be sued by his employer. Why should employers show great enthusiasm for taking him to court for breaking the law under the new Bill than they have shown under the present law?
  Mr. Orme: There are to be special courts.
  Mr. Hooson: I know the argument about special courts, but the great problem in taking a man to law, quite apart from the difficulties of litigation in any event, is that a long time passes between the point when the contract is broken and the point when the remedy is obtained. By the time one goes to court, whether it be an industrial court or any other, to seek a remedy, one has forgotten what the dispute was all about. This is why it is so difficult to apply the right kind of enforcement.
  I believe that the Bill has been oversold in that there have been gross misstatements about the efficacy of this part of its provisions, and on the Labour benches there has been the grossest exaggeration of what this part of the Bill is designed to achieve.
  In fact, it is not a pernicious Bill. The right hon. Member for Sowerby put his finger directly on the real point of opposition when lie said that what worried him was the authorship of it. "We cannot", he said, "accept a trade union Bill from a Tory Government". That was the burden of his speech, and, in the light of his background, I can understand it. But I cannot accept that as the right approach to legislation. From whatever side of the House it comes, we must judge legislation on its merits, not on the ancestry of its authors. It really beggars description to have a fine parliamentary performance from someone of the right hon. Gentleman's standing which, when one analyses it, comes down to the basic criticism, "We cannot trust the authors of the Bill. Although the Bill says one thing, we think it is designed to achieve another."
  I have referred to what I regard as, in many ways, the worst aspect of the Bill, but I must now talk of other aspects. One of the results of the Bill may be to change the pattern of industrial disputes. We may have far more official strikes

  1187
  and fewer unofficial strikes. I do not know whether sufficient thought has been given to this aspect. Another matter I find to criticise in the Bill is the 60-day cooling-off period. My experience in the United States, and I had some discussions about this recently, is that it has not been very effective. On the other hand it has to be said that the critic from the United States whose article was distributed by the Trades Union Congress regarded this provision as what he called "plus" despite the criticism of it. I do not think that this will be so in this country because the tradition of the United States is very different from ours.
  I believe that two of the best members of the Government Front Bench had a large part to play in the handling of this Bill, namely, the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General. I was in the United States recently and by accident followed in the footsteps of the Solicitor-General. I discovered he had been there in the spring and had been making various contacts with certain people and had held discussions with a view to preparing a Bill of this kind. I accept from the Minister and the Solicitor-General that this is a serious attempt to deal with the great industrial problems of the country. I regret that he has taken so much of his model from the United States and so little from such countries as Sweden and Germany which, certainly in the post-war period, have had relatively fewer labour troubles than the United States.
  My approach and that of my party to the whole problem with which we are concerned in this important Bill is markedly different from that expressed by the Front Bench opposite or the Opposition Front Bench. I do not accept that unofficial strikes invariably, as seems to be suggested, result from wild-cat action or irresponsible attitudes. There is a great deal of validity in the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton yesterday and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West that very often on the work floor an aggravating problem suddenly arises. There is no proper management procedure to deal with it. There is the abrasive effect of perhaps a headstrong management and possibly a headstrong shop steward. Nevertheless, there is more often than not a genuine reason for the start of a dispute. The dispute
  1188
  is not dealt with quickly and it soon grows to be an unofficial strike.
  I greatly regret that in this Bill, which is supposed to start putting our industrial relations on a better footing there is no kind of grievance procedure laid down to deal with the problems where they really arise, which is on the shop floor. The modern labour reform law which this Bill is supposed to represent is in marked contrast to the 1962 Act introduced in Germany where they recognised that the important relationship in industry is on the shop floor between employers as represented on the shop floor and the employee as he is doing his daily work on the shop floor. The Government have started at the wrong end of the scale.
  Having made these general criticisms, I nevertheless think that, in the mood of the country at present, with the background of the failure of the trade unions to reform themselves, it is necessary for this House to have a prolonged look at labour relations, the kind of opportunity that we can only have when a Bill of this kind is presented and considered in great detail in Committee. This Bill has many valuable parts to it. The more valuable parts have had less publicity so far.
  Mr. Skinner: Name them.
  Mr. Hooson: I will tell the hon. Gentleman which are some of the valuable parts. Let me name one very important potential development, and this is the permanent Commission on Industrial Relations. Everyone in the House knows that we are dealing with the most sensitive matter in our community in industrial relations. There is no subject on which posturing and pontificating contribute less than on this subject. We are setting up procedures, but whether or not they will be effective will largely depend not on the procedures but on the skill of the people who are to use them. That skill does not come overnight, but it is likely to come through such a Commission. This is a long-term matter and it could make the most valuable contribution to relations in British industry.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that an indisputable factor required for this Commission to work is the co-operation of the

  1189
  trade unions? Does not this Bill deny that type of co-operation?
  Mr. Hooson: I do not agree with the hon. Member on this subject and with others who say that this will never get off the ground. In three years' time this Bill will be less controversial than our decision last week on British Standard Time.
  Mr. Orme: You must be joking.
  Mr. Hooson: I sometimes am in the habit of joking, but I am not joking when I venture this opinion. I believe this because the fears of the trade unions have been over-stated. The real contribution of the Bill will be in the long term. Another provision which could be of the greatest value is the code of industrial conduct. I belong to one of the oldest-established trade unions in the country. I am a member of the Bar.
  Mr. Orme: Closed shop.
  Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): It is not a trade union.
  Mr. Hooson: If hon. Members would like to qualify for the Bar we would be delighted to welcome them.
  Mr. Orme: What about solicitors?
  Mr. Hooson: They have The Law Society. However, I said that I was a member of one of the oldest trade unions in the country. It is a trade union and because it has a monopoly position it has to have very strict standards and a code of conduct which is strictly enforced. If a person wants a privileged position in society, and sometimes it is necessary to have it, there must be, whether by law or otherwise, a code of conduct laid down. Every good trade unionist would agree on this point. If any trade union, whether the Bar Council or any other, is in conflict with the public interest and this House then this House must be paramount. If it applies to the professional bodies in this country it equally applies to trade unions too.
  The code of industrial conduct could be most beneficial. On the other hand, it could he a series of platitudes, unexceptional and unenforceable, and that is what codes sometimes tend to be. But if great thought is brought to bear on it, the code
  1190
  of industrial conduct should be another valuable contribution to the Bill.
  I intend, and I have so advised my hon. Friends, to vote for the Bill on Second Reading.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: That is Liberalism.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member is in no position to talk about Liberalism. He does not know anything about it. This Bill needs to be considered in depth. There are many parts of it about which I have great reservations but there are many parts which could be of great value. I hope that the combined wisdom and experience of this House is brought to bear upon it. Whatever its origin, whatever its authorship, it is important that this House should bring its vast combined wisdom and experience to bear on it and I hope that the Minister meant what he said yesterday when he invited Amendments and suggestions for improving or changing the Bill. The Government cannot afford to be dogmatic about it. It is important from the country's point of view that we get the right answer. The country is certainly in the mood for a Bill of this kind, but it is equally and more important that the answers that eventually go from this House should be the right ones.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stokes.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order. The tradition of the trade union-sponsored Members of the House is a long and honourable one, Mr. Speaker, and it so happens that the biggest sponsored group is that of the Transport and General Workers' Union, which correspondingly also happens to be Britain's biggest trade union. I feel that there is, therefore, a need for the voice of that trade union to be heard in debates of this kind. I therefore respectfully draw this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and seek your guidance about it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of selection of speakers is the very difficult task that is given to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is aware that many trade unionists wish to speak in the debate. Mr. Stokes.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Stokes: As a true blue Tory, I listened with the greatest enjoyment to the spen-did speech which we have heard from the gallant representative of the Liberal Party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). One thing which it proves is that perhaps today the Liberal Party is more up to date than the Labour Party.
  I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, that you have allowed me to take part in this debate, because I have spent 25 years in industry, first in two of the greatest companies in the country—I.C.I. and Courtaulds—and latterly as a mangement consultant dealing with personnel affairs on my own account. Of the many personnel managers whom I meet from time to time, very few indeed are opposed to the Bill.
  I should like to start by recommending some of the less controversial aspects of the Bill. I am sure that one general benefit from it will be to highlight to everybody the importance of human relations in industry, because too often many people tend to think that better organisation and methods, more expertise and the latest techniques and systems are the answer to company problems. In my submission, they are not. It is the men who matter and, in particular, the men at the top.
  Another essential factor in good relations is, as the Bill states, to encourage good communications by employers disclosing information to workpeople. This is something which, even today, some large firms in industry still find exceedingly difficult. This is perhaps an aspect in which industry could turn to the Forces, where young officers are taught very early on to put their men in the picture. In particular, the foreman, who is in a sense the n.c.o. of industry, should be given much more information, a better office and better facilities, because he is the man who is dealing with the first-line troops.
  I speak as someone who goes into several factories every month and I think that there is sometimes a misunderstanding in the country about workpeople and what they do. I seldom find factories where workpeople are not working hard. There are, of course, black spots in cer-
  1192
  tain industries, but most people do a good day's work in their factory and workplace. It is, however, up to management, in collaboration with the trade unions, to work out policies for more effective work. I believe that in the years to come, the Bill will support that.
  We aim for higher productivity, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke earlier today, but productivity alone is not everything. People must be interested in what they are doing and be involved. That, again, is a task for management. I welcome in the Bill the proposals to safeguard employees from the actions of those who might lead them away from their duties. I do not subscribe to the view that subversion starts trouble, but sometimes subversion feeds on trouble when it is already there. Sometimes, both management and unions have to appeal direct to the rank and file over the heads of those who are irregularly and temporarily leading them badly.
  The Bill is very clear on a man's right to decide whether to join a union. In future years, this problem is likely to occur more often with the staff of a company than with the workpeople, because we have seen in recent years a very large increase in staff unions. It is difficult to generalise—much depends on local circumstances—but, in the main, I am a strong supporter of workpeople on the shop floor being strongly unionised. I am not, however, generally speaking, a supporter of all staff people being unionised in the same way and, in particular, belonging to the same union. Their needs are different.
  I welcome the new periods of notice specified in the Bill for employees. I felt that it was absurd and unfair that, until recently, a typist, for instance, because she was on the staff, was entitled to three weeks' holiday and often to a long period of sick pay, while a charge-hand or senior workman with many years' service would, perhaps, be on a week's pay with no sick pay entitlement.
  One feature of the Bill which, to my knowledge, has not been touched upon from either side of the House is the overlap of the Bill with race relations legislation. I know that this is a dangerous and difficult topic, but I fear—and I speak from experience—that

  1193
  already, in some circumstances, the existing race relations legislation can prejudice the rights of natives of this country as compared with those who have come from overseas. This factor must be carefully looked into.
  The Bill is particularly relevant when we have seen in recent years the tendency of certain unions to abuse the strength of their position. As a practising industrialist, I sincerely believe that the Bill will strengthen leadership in the unions—and all good managements wish to face a strong and well-organised union.
  Employers' associations have scarcely been mentioned. I believe that they have a great deal to do to make themselves more effective. Their members should take a more active interest in their activities, and their public relations in particular fall far short of those of the unions.
  In conclusion, I return to my original theme that it is management, and management alone, which can ensure good industrial relations. I believe that the Bill will set out the framework. The rest is up to all those who work in industry.
  7.19 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) spoke in remarkably non-controversial style, possibly because he was not a maiden speaker. Today we have heard one maiden speaker after another on the benches opposite making blistering attacks on the trade union movement and on the Opposition, always preceded by an avowal that they would not be controversial and leaving us wondering what on earth they will be like as orators when they loose their restraints and become controversial. The hon. Gentleman said a great deal with which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed. I wish that I could feel that my speech will be as uncontroversial as his, but I feel obliged to register a disagreement with the attitude to the Bill of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
  Of course, many criticisms can be made about the Bill. It is complicated. It may well not work in its major provision. It is only partly relevant to the current prob-
  1194
  lems which plague us. If legislation is needed in this field, as I think it is, the Conservative Party is not the organisation one would choose to introduce and implement it, for all the reasons admirably given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
  On the other hand, there is a real problem. The public knows that there is a real problem. My right hon. Friends stated over and over again last year that there was a real problem. At the same time there are some good things in the Bill. I wish very much that my right hon. Friends had tabled a reasoned Amendment and set out to improve the Bill in Committee. I cannot understand or support the violent, unrestrained and partisan attacks made on the Bill by my right hon. Friends. To describe it as a monstrous tyranny which takes us back over half a century, as one of my right hon. Friends did, or as a blackleg's charter does not seem to me appropriate. It is dangerous and likely to mislead the public about the Labour Party's true attitude in this important field.
  I wonder whether it is right to say, "No matter what happens, no matter how the Bill works or does not work, we will repeal it if we get the chance." I wonder whether that is wise. It may well be that when we return to office, as we shall do in due course, we shall want to repeal the Bill. But I wonder whether it is wise to close the option between repealing the Bill and amending it and to say, "If we are returned to power we shall not amend the Bill but repeal it completely".
  I was glad when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby made clear that the pledge about repeal is conditional on our successfully co-operating with the trade union movement in producing a new, constructive alternative to the Bill. I am glad that the unconditional statement of repeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) last night is apparently not a true statement of the Labour Party's position. Further, I assume that the statement which my hon. Friend made in the debate on 26th November does not represent the position of the party. He said:
  "My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn made it clear that we would oppose this Measure root and branch and that, if it should come on into operation, we would destroy it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 733.]

  1195
  That goes much further than the pledge of repeal. It is not only an unconditional statement; it hints at direct action against the Bill if it comes into operation. I am glad to have had the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sower-by that that is not the position adopted by my party.
  I find it difficult to understand the extreme attitude of my right hon. Friends. I do not think that it is the view of my constituents. I do not believe that it is the view of the Labour voters who sent me to this place. It gives a dangerously misleading impression of the Labour Party's relations with the trade unions. We have to be a little careful in our statements to the public, bearing in mind our close partnership and our many ties, including financial ties, with the trade unions. I think that our party would be wise to try to avoid giving a misleading impression about our rôle in this field.
  Finally, this attitude contrasts so sharply with the attitude of my right hon. Friends quite recently when they were the Ministers responsible. We all know that from time to time politicians have to eat their words. It is one of the drawbacks of our profession. Like our low pay, it is one of the things we cannot avoid. It is no great disgrace to eat one's words on a small matter, or even on a big matter, provided a decent interval of time has elapsed between one's avowal of conviction in one direction and changing it to an avowal of conviction in the other direction. But when one eats one's words on a major matter of national importance with the minimal interval, the politician concerned loses credibility when it comes to discussing the subject in question.
  We all know that there were differences between "In Place of Strife" and this Bill. But there were also remarkable similarities. Both accepted the principle that the law must be invoked to check unofficial strikes. "In Place of Strife" provided for the fining of unofficial strikers. I recall one or two of my right hon. Friends speaking in favour of the attachment of wages for this purpose. At that time I thought—and I am sure that I was right—that my right hon. Friends were facing up to a very serious
  1196
  national problem with great courage and complete conviction. I agreed with what they said. I spoke in my constituency and on television in favour of the stand which they were taking. Now tonight they invite me, with a three-line whip, to change my mind.
  But I have not changed my mind. Why should we change our minds compared with the position a year ago? Has the problem got better? On the contrary, it has got worse. Has the alternative policy, the solemn and binding undertaking, succeeded? It may have helped marginally, but it has certainly not begun to solve the problem. Or is the argument simply that since then we have become the Opposition and we can now take a different and more relaxed view of the national interest? That is not an argument which should weigh with us.
  I see no reasonable excuse for this change of front. It is not good enough to declare one year that the national interest imperatively demands all-out support for "In Place of Strife" and the next year that the national interest imperatively demands the destruction of the very similar Industrial Relations Bill. This is simply playing party games, and I think that the public is growing sick of it.
  Then there is the question of public opinion. We do not need public opinion polls to tell us that the great majority—
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell Mr. Sydney Bidwell(Southall) rose—
  Mr. Mayhew: —of the public, including the majority of members of trade unions, are deeply convinced, not only that unofficial strikes are wrong—that goes without saying—[Interruption.] Let me take the public opinion polls. If my hon. Friends say that the public is not overwhelmingly in favour of action to stop unofficial strikes, they are quite wrong. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong; I am talking about public opinion. I admit that public opinion polls can be 5 or 10 per cent. wrong, but anyone who studies the polls and gets outside Westminster and speaks in public in his constituency knows that the overwhelming majority of the public and the majority of members of trade unions are deeply disturbed by the excessive growth of power in the trade unions and the use made of that power from time to time, and want the law to be brought in

  1197
  to curb that power. I am not saying that the public is right; I am talking about the attitude which I feel it is wise for my party to adopt on the whole question of industrial relations. If we utterly ignore the public, we could get into great difficulties, and I urge my hon. Friends to take this argument seriously.
  Is the public wrong about the growth of power of the trade unions and its occasional misuse? The Labour Party must face this question. It is no good just remembering the good times when the partnership between the party and the unions was so easy. When the Labour Representation Committee was founded 70 years ago, and when the partnership between our party and the trade unions began, there were no problems, because the demands of the unions and the demands of the people were identical. The demand of the trade unions for a living wage was the major need of the people, and it was the partnership between our party and the trade union movement which was more responsible than anything else for the increase in the living standards and the welfare of the people.
  We must recognise that today it is different. The partnership is not, and cannot be, as straightforward and as easy as it was. The first change is that the demand of a trade union for higher wages is no longer automatically the need of the public as a whole. It used to be, but today the demand of a trade union for higher wages often conflicts with the need of the public for lower prices. Today the public think and act much less as producers earning wages and salaries, as they did in the old days, than as consumers, as people who are interested in prices, in the rates of mortgages, in rates and taxes. Of course this makes it different, because it is no longer true that those whom we represent are necessarily served by the demands of trade unions. It is no good just getting hot about this problem; we must face it and see what we can do about it.
  There is another change which is a great embarrassment to this partnership. The nature and effect of the strike have changed in the last 70 years. What used to be a simple action which hurt the employer, and, indeed, the employed, is now a quite different social phenomenon, as we have seen in recent days. It is unrecognisably different and full of peril
  1198
  for the political organisation which is affiliated to the union that takes this action. We cannot laugh this off.
  Miss Bernadette Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mayhew: I would prefer not to.
  Miss Devlin: May I make one simple proposition to the hon. Member? In drawing the differences between the existing party and party leadership and the unions, he is possibly missing the fundamental fact not that the unions do not represent and continue to represent the mass of the people but that the party leadership has sold out the masses of the working people, because still only 7 per cent. of the people own 84 per cent. of the private wealth of the country, and that is why there is not enough money to go round.
  Mr. Mayhew: I am not wholly on the same wavelength as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I remind her that the last time we spoke together in public we spoke on the same side, and won a notable victory in another place.
  There has been another change in the trade union movement which is almost as difficult for us as the two other changes. The political views—I am speaking very frankly—of trade union activities and some trade union leaders diverge a great deal more than they used to from the views of the party and the public. We are dealing in some instances with trade union leaders who have got to the job and keep themselves there thanks to extremist political support. I would hope that we were able to talk frankly about this, as it is of the greatest importance.
  Mr. Skinner: Who are these people? Name them.
  Mr. Mayhew: I will not name them.
  Mr. Skinner: Why not?
  Mr. Mayhew: I will state what is common knowledge, that a number of trade union leaders today are no longer the Ernest Bevin type, the Sam Watson type or the Tom Williamson type. They are people whose views diverge much more from our party's views, and therefore, they present us with a problem.
  To sum up, I maintain that although the Bill has shortcomings—and I agree

  1199
  with a number of complaints that have been made—there is great danger to the party if we simply react to the Bill as though nothing has happened between the trade unions and the Labour Party over the last 70 years, as though no problem faced us, as though we can go on un-discriminatingly backing a movement that has changed a great deal in the last 70 years.
  The attitude that my right hon. Friends have taken to the Bill is dangerously misleading. They should not be ashamed of the stand which they made last year on this issue. They should recognise that there is a serious problem here, about which something needs to be done, and about which the public expects something to be done, and that we do no good to the party by wild partisan denunciations of the Bill. We should have had a reasoned Amendment, and we should make a constructive attempt to improve the Bill in the national interest.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: For some hours I have been wondering which telling phrase 1 might start with if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Comments were made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with which I so profoundly disagreed that I hardly know how not to follow them. Then came the interesting and provocative speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who, if I may respectfully say so, raised some much more interesting points for discussion than had been raised before, and I was tempted to follow him. The one thing which I never expected was that 1 should be following a speech such as that made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) with which I so wholeheartedly agree. In these circumstances, the only thing I can do is to abandon my preconceived beginnings and to limit myself to a brief contribution in that one area of the matter in which I can claim to have a little experience.
  The reason I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate is that in the course of the discussions on this matter ever since the Consultative Document was published and, more particularly, since publication of the Bill, there has been too much huffing and
  1200
  puffing about the law and lawyers in general. Most of it has been grossly misconceived. It is time that a little straightening out was done by at least one lawyer. I am glad I have that opportunity because I think I can fairly claim to have had some special experience in the field of the reform of the law and in seeing whether such reform can assist in resolving some of the problems which have arisen in industrial relations in recent years.
  In 1965 I had the honour to form a committee under the chairmanship of the late Sir John Hobson, whom most people in the House will remember with affection as a colleague for whom we had great respect. That committee was set up by the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society and, contrary to what is said in this House about lawyers wishing to take over this whole matter, that committee's terms of reference were to consider whether any, and if so what, changes might be recommended in the law relating to industrial relations which might assist all the other possible methods for improving industrial relations.
  That committee, of which the then Solicitor-General was a member, produced a pamphlet called, "Trade Unions for Tomorrow", which was a print of written evidence submitted to the Donovan Commission. I had the privilege of attending, together with Sir John Hobson, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Alan Campbell Counsel to give oral evidence on that document to the Royal Commission. In passing, may I add that I am one of the few lawyers in this country who have been to the United States to see what happens there in the industrial courts. A great deal is said both inside and outside the House about what happens in the United States, but I have sat in the National Labour Relations Courts in the States to see what it all about.
  As a result of my experience, I am 100 per cent. with the Government in the objectives which they seek to achieve in this Bill.
  There is, of course, great room for difference in detail and as to methods. I have been pursuing some of those differences of methods with my right hon. Friend. There is room for difference of opinion and discussion on the meaning

  1201
  and effect of some parts of the Bill. The Bill is in parts technical and difficult to understand. There is plenty of scope for trying to work out between ourselves areas of doubt and in seeking to resolve them.
  I apprehend that, whatever political differences there may be across the Floor of the House, lawyers in the House will be united in the objective that, whatever Bill is enacted, we want to see it contain the minimum number of ambiguities. All lawyers in the House are tired of seeing legislation pass out of the House containing so many ambiguities that it brings the law into disrepute. The one thing for which there is no excuse is the sort of line that was frequently pursued in the debate yesterday, a line which has been pursued by other people in public, epitomised by the hon. Gentleman who said that the Bill means that negotiation will be replaced by litigation. There is no room for extravagant statements of that kind—for the fire and fury and froth of the kind we heard from the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) today—about the effect in law of the Bill. It is such nonsense that one looks for some kind of explanation of how people can say these things.
  I can only think that such statements must be based on one of two assumptions, each of which is as false as the other. It appears that some people feel that there is an unidentified group of lawyers who feel that they and the law can solve everybody's problems and want to take them over. I assure anybody who thinks in that way that no such body of lawyers is known to me, and I do not believe it exists.
  The attitude of the lawyers is typified in a passage which I shall quote from "Trade Unions for Tomorrow", which is as follows:
  "We recognise that the legal framework within which management and employees, trade unions and employers' associations, must work is only part of the problem. In the ultimate analysis, the spirit and good intentions, the vision and the effort, the failings and inadequacies, the stupidities and fears both of management and of employees and of their representative institutions, are infinitely more important than the legal framework within which they work, whatever it may be."
  This is one of the few public pronouncements I know which was made entirely
  1202
  by lawyers. They included the Solicitor-General, Sir John Hobson, Sir Lionel Heald and I myself. I believe that is far more representative of the attitude of lawyers to this problem, namely, to ask, "what contribution can the law make to supplement the efforts of everybody to bring sense into this field where there is so much nonsense at the moment?"
  Is it not as plain as a pikestaff that this is what the Bill sets out to do: to supplement all the other means which are already available, if people wish to use them, to avoid a conflict in a number of ways. Two of these reforms involve (a) making a long-overdue attempt to set out clearly the rights and obligations of the various parties who have a part to play in this matter and, (b) by way of last resort or long-stop, to provide means of resolving disputes if none of the other means available is effective.
  This will of course mean that in some respects people will need the assistance of lawyers, but surely there is nobody in this House who really believes that litigation and legal advice is to take the place of negotiation. Surely every single person must believe that everybody concerned to find settlements to the difficulties which arise will still seek to do so by every negotiating means that is available. There are so many other things which can and must contribute to restoring a more favourable climate. A return to a better sense of values than we saw last week might do more than all the legal framework can do. A clearer realisation that all sections of the community are so inter-dependent that one section cannot any longer hold another section to ransom would do as much as any framework of law could do.
  I am sure that all hon. Members here hope that such remedies provided by the Bill will not be taken as the last word and that everybody who is concerned will make the same sort of vigorous effort as is being made in the United States to make available more effective arbitration procedures. Arbitration procedures have the great benefit that they are carried out entirely by and with the agreement of the parties. In the United States I had unqualified admiration for the strides which have been made by the Association of Arbitrators and others in

  1203
  making available quick and effective means for resolving disputes by arbitration.
  I turn now to the second assumption which seems to be being made which I think is as false as the first. The belief seems to be that the minute the Bill has been passed there will be a flood of litigation arising out of and relating to industrial matters. I have not yet heard anybody who puts forward that argument condescend to any particulars of whence this flood is said to come.
  There may well be a great increase in litigation in one sphere. There may well be a large number of claims for alleged unfair dismissal. But what right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite would complain about that? The Bill is introducing into this country for the first time a remedy and compensation for the man who can fairly and rightly claim that he has been unfairly dismissed.
  Mr. Ray Carter Mr. Ray Carter(Birmingham, Northfield) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. It is impossible for an hon. Member to speak against a conversational background of noise. It is very unfair to hon. Members who have sat here for two whole days in the hope of speaking, many of whom I still hope it will be possible to call in the last hour of the debate. Mr. Percival.
  Mr. Carter: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises the subject of unfair dismissal. If this is such a new approach to industrial relations, if we are to get increased freedom for the worker, why cannot that principle be extended to approximately 5 million workers who work in establishments where four people or less are employed?
  Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman should not come into the House at the last moment and raise a technical point like that in the middle of a question of substance. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that in introducing a new procedure like this one must make sure that the procedures can be worked. I understand that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to make this remedy available in the first instance to a very wide area of people and then, as the system is got
  1204
  working, if there is a case for extending it more widely, to do so.
  I return to my general theme—
  Mr. Roy Hughes Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
  Mr. Percival: I will not give way. I ask those who say that the Bill will substitute litigation for negotiation and that it will be followed by a flood of litigation: who will indulge in all this litigation? I think that it is pie in the sky. All this huffing and puffing about the law and lawyers in general is in substitution for detailed consideration of the contents of the Bill. There is so much in it which calls for discussion. For instance, what a joy it will be when we get some serious discussion of this new concept of unfair industrial practice. There is much to discuss in those parts of the Bill which create this new cause of action, the way that it is to be dealt with, and the remedies available.
  There might even be grounds for discussing a new name in place of the present one which is 24 letters long. We might perhaps find a four-letter word for it like—[interruption.] I thought perhaps that hon. Gentlemen opposite might have some suggestions but that is not what I have in mind. I am thinking of a word like "tort", which simply means a wrongdoing, another nice, short word like that so easy to use.
  There are many points involved in those parts of the Bill which introduce this concept about which we could have a useful discussion, but about which we are not having a useful discussion because of all this huffing and puffing about the law and lawyers in general.
  I was glad that at least some hon. Members referred to the agency shop. I was surprised to hear such strictures as these were about that, because those who profess to know about the American system would, I thought, have known that in Canada and America the agency shop concept has been introduced fairly recently. They use the Rand formula in Canada, and it is giving some satisfaction there.
  I do not propose to go further into those matters partly because of the time, partly because we shall have ample opportunity to develop them in Committee, and partly because I want to trespass on the time of the House to make one other general point. I think that the drafting

  1205
  of the Bill is quite magnificent. The more one reads it—at the moment I am inclined to think that there are perhaps more opinions floating about than there are people who have read it—the more one is amazed—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Percival: Hon. Gentlemen may sneer. When they get down to reading the Bill, they may agree with my whole sentence. The more one reads the Bill the more one is amazed how the draftsman has married all the different parts into one another. It represents a complete, coherent, cohesive system for providing as long-stops remedies for resolving difficulties which at the moment seem so often to be intractable. To do that it is necessary to have some fairly complicated and technical law, and, of course, there will be a part for lawyers to play in that. But why is that such a bad thing? Would anybody thinking of building a bridge say, "We will not have any engineers to help in building it"?
  The lawyers will have a part to play in implementing the Bill. Parties will want to know their rights. Judges will need assistance. But let hon. Gentlemen not forget that lawyers are never employed unless their services are required and thought to be useful. No lawyer will come into this unless someone wishes his assistance. Surely it is plain commonsense.
  That is the keynote on which I want to end. Can we not all now start to approach the Bill with a little more commonsense and in a rather more workmanlike way than has been the case thus far? Is it not possible for those who have strong personal prejudices, whether they be anti-capitalist or anti-lawyer, to drop those prejudices? Is it not possible for the House at last to get down to a joint effort, pooling all the experience of hon. Members on both sides to produce the most workmanlike scheme than we can? That is what the public wants, without any doubt. Surely, there is nothing finer that we could do in this House than to serve it, the public, by making that joint effort.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I listened very intently to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I began to be interested in
  1206
  his second sentence, but by the time he finished he had me as confused as a cross-eyed kitten. I only hope that when I read his speech in the morning it will give me something more than I could get out of it tonight.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the more we read the Bill the more we became amazed. I agree with him. I have read it four or five times, and it is the biggest maze I know. We are having a two-day debate and there have been constant instances of differences of opinion between hon. and learned Members on both sides on the legal interpretation not just of Clauses but of subsections. We had a long and sustained argument last night involving four lawyers—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams). They all tried to give interpretations of Clauses 32 to 40, and we had four lawyers and four different opinions. That is one of our difficulties in examining a Bill like this.
  Even the language relating to the trade unions and the ordinary man in the factory and shop stewards is very imprecise, making it a lawyers' paradise. But I do not want to repeat all the arguments about the difficulties which everybody will get into, thus giving the lawyers additional remuneration.
  I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who I assume will reply—
  Mrs. Renee Short: We never get replies.
  Mr. Loughlin: I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to Clause 6(1) which says:
  "it shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person (including any trade union or other organisation of workers or any official of a trade union or of such an organisation)—

  (a) by calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so …"

  The Clause also refers to "inducing", which appears in Clause after Clause. Unless there is a clear definition relating to the actions of individuals in industry,

  1207
  every trade unionist and trade union official will be inhibited when considering his job in industry, because he will have no idea of the words which might be construed as constituting an offence under the Bill in certain circumstances.
  This is not what industrial relations are about. Industrial problems cannot be solved on the basis of legislation or creating a situation in which the people involved are so ignorant of what offence they might commit that they are completely inhibited in pursuing their side of industrial relations. The Bill will produce such a situation. I do not believe that it will make the slightest contribution to future industrial relations. The solution of industrial problems, whether we like it or not, requires a great deal of patience. We must create an atmosphere of confidence on both sides of industry and be prepared to settle our negotiations either on the shop floor or at the central negotiating table.
  The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) struck the right note when he talked about the place of the foreman on the factory floor. One of the biggest weaknesses in British industry—not in all parts, but in large sectors—is the failure of management to see the real significance of first- and second-line supervision. I have been fortunate; I have been on both sides of the negotiating table. I was in management before I became a trade union official.
  I have had experience of the appointment of chargehands in what I consider to be a key post in good industrial relations. A chargehand should have qualities of leadership that will enable him to solve some of the immediate problems as they arise. He must be trained, but large parts of British industry attach no importance to the leadership quality of chargehands or foremen. They get the fellow who will take the job as promotion, even though he may earn less money than he would on the benches. He will possibly be the fourth choice, anyway. We must remember the significance of individuals.
  The Bill will not work, and I am not particularly bothered about it. Being as charitable as I can, I believe that this is a naked attack upon the trade union movement. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can
  1208
  wrap it up as much as they like, but it reflects the Prime Minister's stated intention in his Carshalton speech many months ago to cut the unions down to size. I do not believe the intention is to deal with industrial relations at all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who has again left the Chamber—he has not been here very long either—talked about modern trade union officials as "wild men". If there are any wild men on the T.U.C., they will oppose the Bill; but the Bill is opposed by every trade union official who is a member of the T.U.C. I am a member of U.S.D.A.W., and no one in his right senses would accuse Alf Allen. who is a member of the T.U.C., of being a wild man, a Communist, a Maoist or any other "-ist" that people find under beds. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a Tory."] He is certainly not a Tory. He is a responsible trade union official and a man whose sole concern is defending the interests of his members. He opposes the Bill as strongly as any Leftist official. The Bill will not work: that is the nub of the issue.
  Hon. Members opposite have some weird ideas, in relation to the closed shop, about what goes on in industry. Does the Minister of State believe that he can stop the pre-entry closed shop? He will not. If there is a pre-entry closed shop, anyone who does not want to join will be told by a shop steward or someone else that he must. Then all the procedures will be put into effect against the man who challenged this paragon of virtue, whose sole virtue is that he does not want to pay his 1s. 2d. a week, and the shop steward might then have to pay a fine or compensation. The net effect is a fine. The man will be told that he does not have to join the union, and the employer, having invoked all the procedures, will be very happy. But does that man, having been given the right to work in that establishment, return? Of course not, because as soon as he did, someone else would tell him that he had to join the union. Having been put to the expense and difficulty in the first place the employer will not dare do it again.
  I have another question relating specifically to my union. We have membership in the co-operative societies, which are democratically controlled. Many of their boards of management agree at an annual

  1209
  meeting to recommend to the shareholders that a condition of employment shall be that the person concerned shall be a member of his appropriate trade union. The workpeople themselves agree on a closed shop. Will the Government then say that, despite the employer and the workpeople having decided democratically, there will be no closed shop?
  We have heard about the agency shop, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke yesterday about building sites. Having been at the Ministry of Public Building and Works for 18 months, I know something about this. On a £2 million project, the first site contractor could get 20 or 30 people together and say that he did not want a closed shop. Although 1,000 people might eventually be employed there, those 20 could determine the matter, which would mean that for two years there could be no agency shop there. In other words, the Bill would cripple the trade union movement in the building industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a responsibility for refusing to put into effect the legislation to which they agreed in four Committee meetings just before the General Election which would have dealt with those who tried to evade their responsibilities in that industry.
  The Bill is conceived in a spirit of vindictiveness, spite and ignorance. I do not believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite think it will make any difference to industrial relations. They are concerned primarily to smash the unions, and all their protestations to the contrary cut no ice with me.
  We will do whatever we possibly can to ensure that this Bill never gets on to the Statute Book. We are taking this action not because we think the Measure will work—indeed, we sincerely believe that it will not work at all—but because the importation of an American system into our industrial relations is not what we want to see in the circumstances which apply here. We will fight hon. Gentlemen opposite on the issue that they are concerned primarily with attacking the trade unions. We will defend the trade unions.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. David James: I trust that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will forgive
  1210
  me if I do not pursue the line which he followed. His suggestion that we are engaged in union-bashing is too peurile to warrant further argument or discussion.
  On the other hand, I am pleased to be speaking following the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) because he made a courageous speech. Many of his remarks came far more appropriately from the benches opposite than they would have come from these benches.
  I was also interested in, and pleased to hear, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). If he were in his place I am sure that he would welcome my saying that I will happily keep a seat warm on this side of the House, where he will always be welcome.
  I have listened to all but about five minutes of this debate. I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride). I was sorry, however, that he did not pay the customary tributes to the immediately preceding maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler). I am glad in a way that he did not because it gives me an opportunity to do so, and I will tell hon. Members why.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth is, of course, the son of the former Rab Butler, and my father was his P.P.S. for 13 years. There has been a long association between the Butler family and this House, and I am glad to see that our new hon. Friend has inherited many of his father's persuasive attributes.
  I take issue with the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) over one point. He said that he did not give a hoot about our views because he claimed that my hon. Friends were so self-evidently in bad faith that it was not worth considering what we had to say. I was surprised that anybody with his well know degree of tolerance and intelligence should be prepared to make that type of imputation against all hon. Members on one side of the House. It was similar to the suggestion made last night, rather incautiously, by an hon. Member who forgot that he was addressing the Chair, and asked Mr. Speaker whether he had ever worked in the construction industry, to which Mr. Speaker said that he had.

  1211
  The general implication on the part of many hon. Gentlemen opposite is that ail Conservative hon. Members are starry-eyed and steely-jawed industrialists—they claim that we are both things at the same time—who have never been outside the board room. In fact, I began work, and manual work, for 10s. a month and was a deck hand on a North Sea trawler for a considerable time. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite accept that I have had experience on both sides of the industrial fence.
  Indeed, to suggest that anybody could have gone through the last war and still lack human sympathy and be incapable of discussing these matters in a sympathetic manner is to insult the intelligence of the House. I will, therefore, assume that we are entitled to discuss this matter with hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in any event, do not have a monopoly on all good will and knowledge on this subject.
  I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite listened to Alistair Cooke's "Letter from America" on the radio on Saturday night. His letters are always worth hearing. He drew attention to the irony that when the 1935 Wagner Act was introduced it contained many of the provisions which we are proposing to introduce now. Indeed, that measure was held to be a triumph for the trade union movement.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: So it was.
  Mr. James: I agree, and in precisely the same way the measure which we are introducing will be a triumph. [Interruption.] I admit that in an intervention last night in the remarks of the hon. Member for Walton I was wrong. He was right to say that it was the Taft-Hartley legislation which subsequently permitted the American Government to end a crippling national strike within 24 hours. This only goes to prove that it is no good saying that legislation which has been successfully applied overseas cannot have an impact in this country.
  My main concern tonight over the Bill is not only with its content but with the way in which we discuss it in that this should be a vindication for democracy and for this House. I was struck by
  1212
  what Mr. Speaker said on the radio last Saturday morning. He said—I agree with him, though while he was referring to the last 20 years my experience is with the last 10—that this House has become more hard working, more democratic and, despite the deep differences between us, in many ways more friendly.
  In discussing the brute realities of the outside world—of the hijack, the kidnap, the demo and the unofficial industrial action—I am concerned to ensure that we maintain the democratic principle that legislation in this country is passed by the House of Commons and is not subject to external pressure. We have knowledge, on the authority of no less a person than the former Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, of a tightly-knit group of politically motivated men. We have had a similar confession by Lord Robens. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is common ground that the Communist Party of Great Britain and all the other associated extremist groups have been trying to make a dog's dinner of the Bill.
  Mr. Heffer: It has not needed them to do that.
  Mr. James: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not need any such assistance. In any event, it is not good enough, and I wish to expose what is happening because unless one does this sort of thing one is not doing one's job.
  I want to suggest what I believe is likely to happen. On 12th January there will be a mass meeting of the T.U.C. at the Albert Hall which will be addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. No human being could conceivably object to that as being a proper and reasonable democratic procedure.
  I wonder, however, whether many hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware that the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions, a totally Communist-inspired body, is proposing to try to call a one-day general strike on that same day, riding on the backs of a legitimate T.U.C. protest. If the hon. Gentleman has time to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, I hope he will persuade him to condemn this type of extra-parliamentary pressure here and now, and not even wait until he arrives at the Albert Hall before doing so.

  1213
  The next key date in the diary is the recall conference of the A.E.F. on 4th February in connection with the amalgamation of the spidermen and the draughtsmen. Hon. Members opposite may probably know that the general secretary of the spidermen, Ernie Marsden, has never made any bones of the fact that he is a Communist. This, once again, will be a Communist—
  Mr. Paul B. Rose Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley) rose—
  Mr. James: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) knows that if the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way he must resume his seat. He will also realise that time is getting very far advanced.
  Mr. James: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is because time is getting so far advanced that I am trying to be quick, and so will not give way.
  As I was saying, on 4th February there is to be this very explosive conference with considerable Communist influence, and the general objective at which those taking part are aiming is a general strike to try to deflect the will of Parliament.
  Finally, on 7th February in Manchester there will be the Young Communist conference which has been inspired by lobbying at the T.U.C. conference in September last, and at which, once again, an attempt will be made to bring out the country in a general strike in defiance of what may well prove to be the wishes of Parliament.
  Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a very honourable record, and I wish to pay tribute to that record, in successfully preventing the extreme Left from taking charge of these matters, but I suggest to them that if this type of provocation goes on there is a very real danger of a Right-wing backlash, which I would deplore every bit as much as I would Left-wing extremism, and which one might find equally difficult to control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I make no bones at all about this. That being so, it is in the interests of both sides of the House that we keep discussion of the Bill at a low temperature; that we
  1214
  insist on the principles and details being debated in the House, and do not permit any external pressure to be brought to bear from either the extreme Right or the extreme Left.
  Mr. Rose: We agree with this, but since the hon. Gentleman has quoted Lord Robens he should refer to what Lord Robens recently said of the Bill:
  "It could in the present climate cause the downfall, within the unions, of the very elements who presently are struggling to keep to the generally practised 'rules' of industrial relations. Once they have disappeared, the militants who take their place will be interested neither in legal sanctions, nor the 'give and take' tradition."
  It is precisely this Bill which will play into the hands of those militants.
  Mr. James: I fully accept that point. This is the risk one is bound to run. There is a very real danger that by bringing forward the Bill in the climate of present opinion we may antagonise those very trade unionists for whom we have the very greatest respect. In this connection, since no one has in my hearing mentioned his name tonight, I must say that I only wish that we still had the benefit of the advice of my very old personal friend, Les Cannon. He was a close friend of mine 12 years ago when he was trying to oust Mr. Haxell from the E.T.U. I am only sorry that in these admittedly difficult decisions we have been deprived, at the age of 50, of probably the ablest trade union leader the country has had for a couple of decades.
  The main burden of my plea is that it is encumbent on all of us on both sides who believe in parliamentary democracy not in any circumstances to countenance any illegitimate extra-parliamentary pressure. On both sides of the House we have a vested interest in seeing that the Bill is discussed here, and no doubt improved, because thereby, and thereby alone, lies the vindication of democracy.
  It has been suggested by that very distinguished American anthropologist, Robert Ardrey, whose books "Territorial Imperative" and "Social Contract" are almost essential reading, that the reason for the widespread internal dissension in every country is the lack of any external threat. No doubt zoologically this is true. But I for one will not countenance the possibility of having a war

  1215
  once every generation to maintain social cohesion.
  I believe that Britain may be the only country which is sufficiently mature to be able to put through this type of legislation in a fully parliamentary manner without the type of pressure groups to which I have referred. I have full confidence that Mr. Speaker's view of the future of Parliament will prevail and that the rowdies, the demos, the hijackers and the other pressure groups outside Parliament will fail. But I expect the cooperation of colleagues on both sides of the House in ensuring that this happens.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The intellectual force of the speech made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is backed by the moral force which only those of us who have come through the trade union movement can understand and appreciate. The trade union movement is a cornerstone of British democracy. Struggles which took place in the past long before trade unions were thought of led to the formation of unions and laid a basis of democracy in Britain. Our democracy is unique amongst countries in Western Europe and North America.
  In Britain working people can stand freely for Parliament and be elected because they have the support of a trade union and need not be backed by private finance, as must happen in many other countries.
  Because the British trade union movement has a political force and will it is powerful. I agree that in many instances this can make it controversial. However, when the movement acts in industrial matters it does so from an industrial view-point. When it operates in the political field it is operating in a different field.
  When the trade union movement evolved in Britain and the question of negotiations and agreements first arose, the concept of free collective bargaining was at the very basis of the movement's raison d'etre. The fact that the Bill will bring the law directly into the centre of collective bargaining on wages and on conditions in industry is what we are opposed to.
  1216
  The Prime Minister said today that the law, in the shape of the 1875 and 1906 Acts, was already involved in industrial relations. The law now allows trade unions to operate freely under the cover of the law, not outside it, whereas the proposals in the Bill will bring the law directly into the centre of industrial relations.
  Some of the lawyers' speeches make me fearful about what will happen in industrial relations. Yesterday the Minister was unable to answer a legal point and said that he would have to pass it to the lawyers. Does this mean that every one of the 185,000 shop stewards will have to be accompanied by a lawyer every time he goes to see the management? If so, a ludicrous situation will develop. It may lead to the parallel in this country of the American U.A.W., which is a formidable and powerful union; the building which houses its lawyers is larger than the building which houses the other union officials.
  In speaking of agreements I am thinking in particular of those in the engineering industry. I am a sponsored Member by the A.E.F. and have worked the whole of my life, with the exception of my war service, in the engineering industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned, we operate under an agreement called the York Memorandum. It is interesting to look at its history. It was imposed upon the engineering unions at the time of the 1922 lockout, when the engineering unions in effect were defeated by the employers. That agreement canonised for British industry up to this day the basic tenet of managerial function. But it also introduced a measure of collective bargaining and a method of operating which was terribly unsatisfactory from the engineering unions' point of view, but which has, nevertheless, survived from 1922 to 1970. The engineering unions have operated that agreement, so that one cannot talk about responsible unions not carrying out agreements.
  The engineering unions are now trying to negotiate a fresh agreement which they have almost reached. The president of the engineering employers gave his word to the negotiators six months ago that he did not wish this to become a legally binding agreement. But he has now gone back on his word and is insisting that a

  1217
  clause be put in to make it legally binding on both sides. The engineering unions say, "We are not having this. If we believe in free collective bargaining, it is free collective bargaining", and they have given notice that the current agreement, the York Memorandum, be finished within one month's time. If this is done, we shall be left with no agreement within the industry. After that agreement is abolished we shall see how much work shop stewards and officials now do to maintain industrial peace.
  When we consider the Bill we come to what the unions will do under such circumstances. We would have the unique position in British law where a contract which has not been agreed by both sides would be imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) made this point crystal clear last night when he dealt with Clause 39. So much for the freedom of action at the present time.
  Another central point is the question of non-unionists who are equated in the Bill with trade unionists. Many hon. Members opposite cannot understand how we are so incensed about non-unionists being equated with trade unionists. If they had worked on the shop floor and had combined to obtain better working conditions and wages, and had done this through persuasion and through an endeavour to get a strong organisation, they would often have seen some individual come along who wanted to accept all the benefits but not pay the subscriptions, and who, in many cases, through all sorts of means, had tried to break that organisation.
  One or two hon. Members in maiden speeches yesterday spoke about the right of the non-unionists to work and the right of people to work alongside them. I put the argument the other way round. If the Bill is passed and if Clause 5 is implemented, one will find many establishments with non-unionists working but not with trade unionists working because there is nothing to compel them to work alongside non-unionists. Trade unionists will not see their basic rights frittered away, the rights for which they fought in trade union organisation.
  When hon. Members talk about union and non-union shops, I am reminded of one very interesting distinction. Anyone
  1218
  who knows anything about industry realises when he enters a factory whether he is in a well-organised shop. He sees proper conditions, safety regulations being applied, clean shop, people working regular hours, proper canteen facilities and negotiations taking place. A non-union shop is dirty. People often work odd hours. There are all types of different wages. The foreman comes round at 4 o'clock and says to a man, "You will work tonight". If the man replies that he does not want to, he is simply told, "You will work tonight". There is no proper negotiation. To hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about trade unions, one would think that we lived in an ideal society. I am sorry to have to tell them that, in large parts of British industry, many workers are first-class citizens only outside the factory gates.
  I come now to the central issues of the agency shop and the closed shop or, as I prefer to put it, 100 per cent. trade unionism. I do not believe in anyone being denied the right of employment so long as he is prepared to accept the conditions operating in his work place. I am in favour of 100 per cent. trade unionism as opposed to the closed shoo. I quite understand why the closed shop works in certain industries. It is not always possible to organise workers in the way that I prefer.
  There is nothing undemocratic about trade unionists demonstrating actively and positively against this Bill. If demonstrations were right for farmers and for other sections of the community, they are right for trade unionists. The trade unions have fought for a century to establish their basic rights. The belief that they have unlimited power is a myth perpetrated in our society. During the 1940s and 1950s, trade unionists were very gentle with our society, at a time when they could have gained far more by using their powers with unlimited force. But they have never failed to consider the nation as a whole, because they are part of it.
  In the Division Lobby tonight, I believe that the Labour Party and the trade unions will be united. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) takes a different view, and he is entitled to express it in this House. I only wish that another

  1219
  right hon. Friend of mine would put his views as forcefully and frankly as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East does.
  My hon. Friend spoke of trade union leaders and militancy. However, if by some mischance this Measure becomes law and is implemented, and if the disruption occurs on the factory floor which its implementation can bring about, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend may look back with nostalgia to moderate trade union leaders of today like Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon. In their places, we may find a great deal more industrial unrest.
  The Bill will not solve the problem of industrial unrest. We shall achieve some form of industrial sanity in this country only when we have proper agreements, when employers are prepared to recognise trade unions—which many are not—when they are prepared to negotiate properly with trade unions and to recognise that trade unionists have a part to play in management as well as on the workshop floor. In this latter respect, perhaps I may add that I should like to see a change in the ownership of many of our basic industries, by which, I believe, we could achieve a great deal. However, that is a much deeper economic issue, and I shall not go into it now.
  If he wishes to see in 1970 the sort of sanity about which he speaks, I remind the Secretary of State of what was said today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). We are not dealing with the people of the 1920s or the 1930s. We are dealing with people in the 1970s, who are not necessarily prepared to accept past standards, who are not prepared to accept the impositions of law. We can see what is happening in Germany, in America and in Sweden. In Sweden, recently, there was an unofficial strike. Quite an unusual event. What happened?—600 workers were out. The shop steward was responsible, and he was brought before the industrial court. He was ordered to use his best endeavours to bring the workers back to work. What happened? The following morning, one man turned up at the factory, the shop steward. He said to the management, "I am here to work. I have used my best endeavours, and 599 have stayed outside". The British workers
  1220
  are second to none in ingenuity, so that is just a little example of what can and will happen.
  I shall conclude now, because I know that I am keeping my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition from addressing the House. Ministers do not understand the trade union movement. The Secretary of State is misreading the situation. He does not understand the tensions and pressures. He does not seem to appreciate that the trade unions will not co-operate with him and that what he is doing will create a divisive influence and difficult situations for everyone concerned.
  We must vote against the Bill tonight, and we must fight it every inch of the way until we see it repealed and off the Statute Book, because that is the only answer to the situation.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not intend to follow in full the line adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in parts of his speech today. I shall not follow him in what was, in the main, a philosophical, or quasi-philosophical, defence of the Bill, and I do not think it necessary at this stage of the debate to reply to those parts of his speech which seemed rather ad hominem, as far as I was concerned—or "ad feminem", as far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is concerned—including his recital of the well-worn Conservative legend about the events of June, 1969.
  I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the substantial part of his speech in which he appeared, I thought, to seize upon the Bill as the centrepiece of his economic strategy. On another occasion, I should have liked him to spell out the Government's economic strategy, which is some mystery to many of us, but, unfortunately, he did not choose to speak in the economic debate a month ago. But I welcome, as the whole House will, that the Prime Minister has, after nearly six months, intervened once again in our debates, and I do not need to tell him that we look forward to hearing from him again.
  The right hon. Gentleman went so wide of the Bill, and I intend to stick, on the whole, so close to it for most of what I have to say, that I hope to be

  1221
  in order if I remind the House—after all, it is nearly Christmas—that after the vote tonight the Prime Minister will not be in the House again, I think, before we adjourn, or, indeed, for some time after the House resumes. I am sure that the whole House will wish him an enjoyable—inevitably tiring though it will be—and, at the same time, productive visit to North America. In the New Year he will, of course, be at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and I am sure that when he gets there he will thank me for my original suggestion which led to its being in Singapore. I think he will find that that is all right. In offering him good wishes for that as well, I would say in relation to what must be the main subject of discussion in Singapore, the South African subject—I do it in the traditional words addressed to someone attending a Christmas party—"Don't do anything I wouldn't do".
  Rather than follow the right hon. Gentleman in some of his other comments this afternoon, I would like to use my time, with the help of the House, to give adequate time to the Solicitor-General whom we would all like to hear tonight, by trying to sum up our case against the Bill in the same manner as the Secretary of State did yesterday and on other occasions when he has put the Government's case forward. Yesterday he was certainly putting his case seriously and sincerely, even if we disagree fundamentally with his proposals and conclusions.
  Similarly, my purpose tonight is to summarise, from the main themes of this debate, the reasoned case which leads us to seek to reject the Bill as unworkable, provocative and, in our view, harmful to industrial relations in this country.
  This has been by common consent, I think, a constructive and serious debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) last night paid a tribute to five maiden speakers: the hon. Members for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry), Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney), Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith) and Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs). It is right that all of us should pay tribute to the other maiden speakers tonight, the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) and Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe). One of them is, I think, the
  1222
  son of an esteemed Parliamentarian, Lord Butler. How any son of his can support such a Bill I cannot understand.
  I want to deal first with the claim, repeatedly made, that this Bill is based in some sense on the Donovan Report. This claim has been made by the Government. It is not. It has been made clear in all the public comments on the Bill, including comments made by members of the Royal Commission itself, that this is not so. If the Government seriously want to maintain their argument about Donovan, and I do not think they would want to sustain it, I would suggest that they get Lord Donovan to prepare a commentary on the Bill, setting out where it follows and does not follow the Royal Commission's Report. Then I hope they will publish his comments as a White Paper.
  For my part, I will cite a few of the most serious departures, and this will be anything but an exhaustive list. Perhaps the Solicitor-General who is trying to establish a Donovanian paternity for his Measure, might comment upon or even seek to correct what I am saying. Donovan said that where conditions of registration of unions were involved they should not be worse than the 1871 Act. He refused specifically in terms to equate the right to join a union with the right not to join a union and said that they were not comparable. We referred to the fact that unions should have freedom to decide with whom they work; the Bill asserts the flat contrary.
  At least it asserts the flat contrary especially for manual workers but it does not assert it for the lawyers, with whom the British system of industrial relations will be increasingly infested if this Bill becomes law. This Bill, we are told—and the Government have claimed this—is "Fair Deal at Work" translated into action. It is not exactly "Fair Deal at Work", and I want to make one or two points about that later. In the main let us grant that this is "Fair Deal at Work" writ in legislative form. "Fair Deal at Work" was promulgated as I understand it, before Donovan reported. It was based on the evidence presented to Donovan by the Inns of Court Conservative Association, as it then styled itself, although I gather it is now operatig under a different alias. It failed at any rate to provide, in the work it did, for the lawyers' trade union

  1223
  having to admit anyone who sought entry. That is the biggest closed shop of all. Indeed, the lawyers whom the Bill inserts at every stage of industrial relations, at shop floor level and right up to the top courts of the land, are not only the biggest closed shop that we know in this country: they are even closed against other lawyers.
  I do not suppose that it is suggested that solicitors should be on the Court—I do not know—as judges. The barristers, however, who are exalted under this Measure, are a closed shop against that branch of the legal profession which, for some reason, in this House we do not call learned—namely, solicitors—although they are no less skilled than the barristers and are often more down to earth because they are much more in touch with ordinary human problems. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are busy safeguarding the restriction of entry in another piece of legislation to prevent solicitors sitting on the bench in county courts and elsewhere, even though there are not enough barristers to go round and we have to find lots more jobs for barristers in industry from now on.
  The fourth point about Donovan is that he proposed a direct right of appeal for trade union members dismissed by their employers and was much more positive, although it was agreed yesterday that this might be a Committee point, concerning reinstatement. Donovan never proposed what is a central feature of the Bill: the imposition by outside bodies of procedure agreements on industry and on trade unions.
  I think I am right in saying, although the Solicitor-General can correct me on this when he winds up, that "Fair Deal at Work" did not propose this. I do not think that "Fair Deal at Work", for which the Prime Minister claims—with some justice, I concede—an electoral mandate, provided for this imposition of a procedural agreement or an industrial agreement from outside through the mechanism of the courts or in any other way.
  While I readily concede to the Prime Minister that, according to the rules, he is entitled to claim an electoral mandate for the Bill, of course he did not win the election on this. He won it on the different mandate that he would bring
  1224
  down prices immediately. This mandate has followed the other one—it has been slipped in on the side—but the Prime Minister cannot maintain this new constitutional game of choosing one's mandate, rejecting the one on which he was not elected but which he slipped in on the side. Even though, according to every established rule, the Prime Minister has a mandate for the Bill—I grant him that—I would still like to hear from the Solicitor-General whether he believes that the Prime Minister had a mandate for the insertion or imposition of an agreement from outside.
  Again, Donovan rejected the enforceability of agreements by legislation. Donovan specifically rejected the enforcement of agreements. It is, however, a central feature of the Bill. Indeed, on this point, my reading of the Bill is that it goes far beyond a specific pledge made by the Prime Minister during the election. I will return to that later.
  Seventhly, Donovan rejected the doctrine of imposing heavy damages on a union for action against an extraneous party even if that party may be an associated party, whereas the Bill provides just for that. Perhaps, therefore, the Solicitor-General when he replies, despite what he said publicly about the Bill being based on Donovan, will be prepared to discuss Donovan from the Government's case and let the Government's case stand, if I may borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, on its own two feet. A lot of far more deserving cases will be required to stand on their own feet. Therefore, on the Government's arguments, there is no reason why this lame duck should not do so.
  I come now to a more fundamental argument against the Bill. This legislation is based primarily, I think, on United States experience. No one is likely easily to convince any hon. Member of this House that the Americans are more successful in conducting their industrial relations or avoiding and settling strikes than we are. The House has on many occasions been given the number of man-days lost in the United States and in this country over comparable periods—the last 10 years, the last five years or the last year. Even in 1969, which was by common consent a bad year for industrial relations in this country, per thousand employees the number of days

  1225
  lost in America, with all the legislation which we are now borrowing, was something like two and a half times what it is in this country, and over the five years as a whole, five times what it is in this country.
  Hon. Members will have seen comments on the Government's proposals—I am referring to the Consultative Document—by Mr. Theodore Kheel, who is known to many of us in the House personally. He is one of the leading, if not the leading, American industrial legal experts, the regular choice of successive American Presidents on arbitrations and conciliations in connection with nationwide disputes—rail roads, airlines, shipping, docks—and he is also, as many of us have good reason to know, Chairman of the New York State Commission on Public Service Employees.
  It is relevant to this Bill to point out that Mr. Kheel chaired a speech which I gave in New York earlier this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I wish that some hon. Members opposite had read it, in which case they would have cheered much louder. It is relevant to the Bill to say that in the audience on that occasion was the head of G.E.C. of America and the main union leaders involved in the G.E.C. strike which was going on at that time and which, with all America's laws, had lasted 11 weeks. It was a strike which, even by that time, had caused the loss of more man days than were lost in the whole of British industry in the whole of 1969. They got together that night to see whether they could settle the strike, which they did some little time afterwards. It was a very expensive strike, despite the laws.
  A few weeks ago we saw that what was bad for G.E.C. last winter was bad for General Motors this autumn, because General Motors had a strike of similar length—more than 11 weeks.
  We on this side of the House do not believe that we have anything very much to learn from the United States in industrial relations matters. Yet we are being asked to vote for a Bill which almost exclusively conveys into our law irrelevant and alien provisions from the United States.
  I referred just now to Mr. Theodore Kheel. I should like to quote what he wrote recently on the Government's pro-
  1226
  posals, having said that they had all been borrowed from American legislation:
  "We Americans should be flattered even though significant parts of our system have been omitted. Perhaps we would be"—
  that is, flattered—
  "if we were not in the middle of a strike"—
  that was the General Motors strike—
  "likely to break all records for time lost: it wage increases and living costs were not reaching astronomical heights; if rank and file rejection of negotiated contracts were not at their highest level: and if public employees' strikes—illegal in the United States—were not occurring with increasing frequency."
  There is a testimonial for you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kheel went on to say:
  "We probably could improve our system by borrowing some, but not all, of England's practices."
  He referred to "England's" practices. That was his ignorance. He meant, of course, Britain.
  As we have been reminded in the debate, the Bill is based partly on the Wagner Act of 1935, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947—and how much it reflects the views of those twin reactionaries—and the Landum Griffin Act of 1959. But it would be fair to say—and searching analysis will make it clear—that it reflects very largely the views of Taft-Hartley and Landum Griffin much more than the Wagner Act.
  But it will be noted that all the legislation in America was inflicted on the long-suffering United States at 12-year intervals—24 years in all. The Prime Minister's distillation of the worst features of all three is to be inflicted on Britain, not in 24 years, but in 12 months.
  When the Prime Minister claims the support of public opinion, as he did this afternoon, he rightly refers to public disquiet about some of the big strikes of the last two years which have occurred under successive Governments in this country—highly publicised strikes, rightly so, and damaging to exports and in many cases to employment and in some cases to thousands of workers not in any way parties to the dispute. The plain fact is that there has hardly been a big strike in recent months and years to which the Bill would be relevant.
  Let us take Pilkingtons. Pilkingtons was a damaging strike. I saw it at close quarters, as some hon. Gentlemen did. Many of my constituents work there, and

  1227
  part of the factory is in my constituency. The strike was very costly to employment in the car industry. This Bill would have been irrelevant in dealing with the Pilkington strike, and one of its provisions would actually have aggravated the situation. The 20 per cent. formula for the agency shop would create a situation in which there could be a strike at Pilkingtons time and time again. The problem at Pilkingtons was a militant break-away from the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the difficulty of getting the men back. The break-aways in the end and after a difficult struggle were repudiated by firm leadership by moderate union leaders and also by the firm action of Mr. Vic Feather of the T.U.C. Under the 20 per cent. system, the militants would have had it dead easy to overbid the moderate leadership. They could have chosen their moment. They could, for example, have become very popular in the last-ditch fight to prevent the return to work and the end of the strike.
  Some hon. Members, perhaps not in the House now, within my recollection have fought hard for the rights of breakaway unions in the past. By "breakaway unions" they mostly meant nice well-scrubbed, house-trained, well-behaved, mainly Conservative trade union break-away workers who could be relied on to be even more moderate than the union leadership. I think that that is what has been generally understood by "break-away union", but that is not symptomatic of the people who would be able to claim benefit from the 20 per cent. agency agreement.
  I have heard the Bill described in some respects as a blacklegs' charter. That is a matter which no doubt will be much debated in the House, but in the Pilkington strike which I have mentioned and many others, in respect of this 20 per cent. menace, the Bill might even be called a militants' charter or a "Trots'" charter, because it is the militants who will be encouraged.
  The Bill could not have dealt with the G.K.N. Sankey strike. The Bill could not have dealt with the two coal strikes, the one under the Labour Government in October 1969 and the one this year. Both
  1228
  those strikes related to the preparation of a new agreement. Instead of the sporadic strikes this year, damaging though they were, under the Bill there would have been an official strike covering the whole coalfield. Only the rules of the N.U.M. prevented this. In the ballot a majority of about 56 per cent. were in favour of an official strike, but the N.U.M. rules required a two-thirds majority, and the N.U.M. leadership insisted on observance of the constitution. Some of us on this side of the House, as well as Ministers, pressed for the observance of the N.U.M. constitution. Many of my hon. Friends did, and I did in South Wales.
  Compulsory ballots have another snag, and I am quoting this in relation to this strike. We considered compulsory ballots favourably 18 months to two years ago and decided not to press on with them — [Laughter.] — hon. Gentlemen might listen to the argument. This was before consultations began. Compulsory ballots can make it much harder to stop a strike than to start one. If there had been—[Interruption.] I want hon. Gentlemen to address themselves to the seriousness of the situation. We are to vote on a Bill providing for a compulsory ballot. Had there been a compulsory ballot in the recent coal dispute which showed a 56 per cent. majority in favour, the men would have been committed to a strike. That having once happened, it would have been extremely difficult, without having a second strike, for the leadership, even with a new offer, to pull out of that strike, because there would have been a ballot in its favour.
  Last week's electricity dispute was not a strike. Suppose it had been. There would have been a ballot, and I would have thought far more than 50 per cent. would have been in favour. It would then have been impossible for Mr. Frank Chapple this weekend, in the face of that ballot and without another ballot, to have shown the statesmanship to which both sides of the House pay tribute. This is an appealing and plausible proposal of which at one time I was in favour, but I hope hon. Gentlemen will consider whether this is not more likely to perpetuate strikes than to stop them.
  In regard to coal strikes, does anybody think that any conceivable National Coal

  1229
  Board Chairman would have sued the unofficial strikers when the strike came to an end? It has not happened this year and certainly did not happen last year—any more than the Betteshanger coal miners could have been sued, or the strike in the Yorkshire coalfield just over a month before D-day could have been the subject of legislation.
  Let me take another case with which the Bill could not deal, Port Talbot. That was one of the most difficult strikes that have ever taken place. Certainly in the end, after settlement by the intervention of Vic Feather, the Bill could not have touched it. Then again, the Ford strike would not have been dealt with by the Bill because it involved the negotiation of a new agreement.
  I referred a moment ago to the enforceability of contracts and made clear that it had no authority from Donovan. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and others claim that they have a mandate for the present form of the Bill on enforceable contracts. There is no such mandate on enforceable contracts in the form in which the Bill has been drafted.
  During the election on 2nd June I challenged the right hon. Gentleman, the then Leader of the Opposition. I asked whether under his proposals enforceability would require the assent of both parties, as was proposed in my right hon. Friend's Bill which was introduced into the House, or whether, for example, employers could withhold assent from the proposition that it was not to be enforceable.
  I then challenged the right hon. Gentleman directly and he was good enough to respond in his own Press conference an hour later at 11 a.m. on 2nd June. This is what he said, and it is on record.
  "The Conservatives would not give the right to enforce a contract against the wishes of the unions."
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain tonight how Clause 32 (1) can be reconciled with that pledge. But that is not all. Even if we were to accept that the present post-electoral Conservative mood move gave them the right to forget about those pledges, we must ask whether, in fact, enforceability is workable. I ask the
  1230
  House how many employers, having, after a long and costly strike, got their men back to work, would sue, embitter and poison the post-settlement atmosphere and would risk bringing them out again? How many? A few industrial Bourbons of the Arundel Roberts, B.S.R. type, yes, possibly.
  Let me take as an example the Leyland strike last winter, which lasted 11 weeks. The management went to extraordinary lengths to get the men back to work. It was the first time I had ever heard of Communist shop stewards being invited to lunch at the House of Lords on the occasion of the maiden speech of the chairman of their company. It was at that lunch that the return to work was effectively negotiated—the first settlement ever achieved in ermine. Does anybody think that the noble Lord, having gone to all that trouble, would then have instituted civil proceedings against the union when the strikers went back, especially as it was not an official strike? It is a dream world to be talking in this way. And it is also unthinkable that Lord Pilkington would have thought of taking such a step when at last the Pilkington dispute was settled.
  It is not merely that no responsible employer would invoke the clause after a settlement. In how many cases would this provision foul up negotiations for a new agreement, negotiations necessary to avert or end a strike, by insisting that the last-minute agreement reached should be enforceable in the courts? Hon. Members with industrial experience will know that in a difficult dispute there is frequently no settlement until the small hours. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who yesterday bravely struggled to make an important speech after a very late sitting on Sunday night, well knows this. It was true of a number of strikes that were settled in that way—some by my right hon. Friend. In the Ford dispute in 1969 one sitting lasted until 2 a.m. on Sunday.
  Take a settlement at any hour in the middle of the night: two o'clock, agreement near, after tempers have been badly frayed; agreement ready for signature and just a handshake—I am assuming no lawyers present—just men on both sides steeped in experience in industrial relations and in the point at issue at the factory or plant; drinks perhaps ready to

  1231
  pour out. Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen believe that in that situation—that fragile situation of a settlement ready to sign—the agreement would not be imperilled by an insistence on legal enforceability—imperilled not for a day, but perhaps for weeks? It is wholly unrealistic to suggest that they would.
  The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is not the point; that this situation need not arise; if nobody mentions it at two o'clock in the morning it will be enforceable unless both sides agree that it is not.
  Then let right hon. and hon. Gentlemen consider another way in which this can really muddy the waters of industrial relations. The unions might insist on a non-enforceability clause or, at their option, they might not, and the employer will buy it at a higher basic rate—more paid holidays, more earnings, more bonus, or whatever it is. That is a recipe for inflationary settlements if ever there was one.
  I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should be warned by my right hon. Friend's reference yesterday to the current negotiations on the engineering industry's procedural agreement. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman has many times said that it is atmosphere of industry, the ambience of industry, the procedural agreements, the machinery, the atmosphere, the training, and the good will which matters more than legislation.
  If there is one thing more important than any other in industry today it is to get an up-to-date engineering industry procedural agreement instead of one 50 years out of date. But this is held up—we could have it immediately, from what I am told—because of this issue of enforceability.
  Is it not a fact that going back almost to 1920 to get an agreement expressing the necessities of the 1970s would do more to improve industrial relations than insisting on legislation going back to the 1870s?
  Enforceability of contracts is an import from America. There is no time for me to set out tonight all the facts about how enforceability operates in America. I am sure that hon. Members will have read the report "Greener
  1232
  Grass" by Mr. Pat Lowry, at that time industrial relations director of the Engineering Employers' Federation, now industrial relations director of British Leyland, following his own authoritative survey on behalf of the Engineering Employers' Federation. I will briefly summarise it—no one who has read the report will regard this as an unfair summary—in these terms.
  Mr. Lowry reported that the making of contracts is becoming more difficult—that is because of enforceability—that unions have increasingly tended to refer contracts back to their members for final ratification—that is because of enforceability—that the number of contracts now being rejected by the membership after conclusion has recently been growing—this is because of enforceability—that even then the making of an agreement is not final, because many contracts now, and increasingly, include a list of items that may be reopened during the term of those contracts; all those supposedly sacrosanct contracts providing room for legal strikes over, for example, rates for new jobs, new jobs which emerge from factory reorganisation, production standards, or even, in some cases, providing that there can be re-negotiation of wages for jobs which were originally agreed in the enforceable contract.
  Surely right hon. Gentlemen must agree that the facts of industrial life in America are making a nonsense of enforceable agreements and that they will do so equally in this country.
  There is no time to go through certain other issues, though there will be time. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's feelings about it. He does not like having his Bill shown up for what it is. But I will, at any rate, quote this to please the right hon. Gentleman. At the end of the report by Mr. Lowry, when he was talking—[Interruption.]. We do not think that the right way to settle these things is by abrasiveness. We would like to hold on not to a pane of glass but to a mirror of what is happening in America. Mr. Lowry said:
  "… to the best of my knowledge"—
  and the whole thing depends on the employers suing afterwards—
  "none of the employers I met had ever allowed the law to take its full course to the extent that damages were collected from the union."

  1233
  He goes further and records that employers who had
  "been through it all"
  told him that
  "law suits and the need to live thereafter with the union concerned were quite impracticable."
  But that is the central part of the Bill.
  I regret that there is no time to quote two very important judgments on this legislation by the late Lord Justice Slesser. Perhaps it will be possible in Committee. He wrote two letters in The Times which perhaps most of us missed, because this was during the election campaign, when many of us were quite busy. There was no one more expert or learned in these matters both as a counsel for trade unions on industrial matters and as a judge. His letters gave his utter refutation of the system of law behind the consultative document and now behind the Bill.
  Dr. Tom Stuttaford Dr. Tom Stuttaford (Norwich, South) rose—
  Mr. Wilson: I shall not give way, the Prime Minister also had to take account of the lack of time. I want the Solicitor-General to rise on time.
  I think that there is worry about the effect of the Bill, on shop stewards and others in various positions in industry. There is worry that they can be held responsible in certain circumstances, that what they say in an informal situation can be quoted in court, when they may not have their lawyer present at the time they said it. Something may go wrong in industry. There may be some lack of consideration, the kind of thing described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) last night from his industrial experience, leaving a shop steward or someone else in authority saying, "We will not have this." Even that could be quoted in court. What many people wonder is, who will report on them? What kind of system will be set up for reporting? I do not believe that 99 out of a hundred employers would even want to do that. It will be the suspicion that they may be doing it that will embitter relations.
  The biggest indictment of the Bill is quite different. It is its irrelevance, its almost complacent irrelevance, to the most significant development any of us have seen in industrial relations in our
  1234
  lifetime. It is recent in this country, but is not confined to this country. Every advanced industrial country has it. It has extended even to countries such as Sweden, where the rule of law worked by a powerful trade union movement has operated for 30 years. I refer to the growth of shop floor power, industrial militancy, part of it spontaneous and part of it capable of being created by unscrupulous unofficial leaders. This is the central fact of the 1970s. The Bill, not least the 20 per cent. agency proposal, will encourage the militants to overbid the responsible trade union leadership. I have referred to Pilkington and the electricity dispute. It would have been impossible, I think, for Mr. Chapple to lead the return to normal working if the Bill had been in operation.
  I do not think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown much sign of recognising the importance of something I threw across the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade last Tuesday, when I referred—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. Any hon. Members who want to laugh can go out and miss the next bit of what I have to say. I referred then to the history of the Electrical Trades Union, as it was then called, in recent years, and I said that that history must have a warning. That was before the tragic death of Mr. Les Cannon, which the whole House mourns. That union is in an electoral situation. What do right hon. Gentlemen opposite want? What can be achieved by every irresponsible weekend speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, and every gloating reference in the House to humiliating moderate trade union leaders?
  Faced with this new and dangerous development, the most significant fact in industrial relations today, the Bill is totally irrelevant. It reflects a kind of Maginot mentality to what is really going on in British industry, and perhaps not even that. In a revolutionary situation—[Interruption.] I intend to finish this, so if hon. Gentlemen will let me finish my last two or three sentences, we can hear the Solicitor-General. If they are going to barrack, they will delay his getting up. If I am going to be interrupted I will say I do not intend to follow the precedent of the Prime Minister when, more than once, he insisted,

  1235
  having been interrupted, on cutting into Government time. I will now finish, if hon. Gentlemen will stop interrupting.
  It is, as I have been saying, a revolutionary situation, in which practically every weekend speech made by right hon. Gentleman, every action from the mini-Budget to the divisive speeches of the Prime Minister, is irrelevant. What we must face here is that in this Bill the court of right hon. Gentlemen opposite shows as much understanding in the revolutionary situation as the court of Louis XVI or Nicholas II, or even King Farouk. [Interruption.] I have plenty of time for this last sentence. For its basic and irrelevant approach, no less than for its provocation and its unworkability, I call on the House tonight to vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor-General.
  Mr. David James: On a point of order —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty; I must hear the point of order.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mr. James: I will be very brief—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a very good debate so far. It is my fate to hear the point of order.
  Mr. James: As I was called too late in the debate for a point that I addressed to the Leader of the Opposition to reach him, could I ask him, Mr. Speaker, through you, as a point of order, whether, when he addresses the perfectly legitimate mass meeting of trade unionists at the Albert Hall on 12th January he will take the opportunity to condemn—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has not addressed me so far on a point of order, will realise that he is taking the time of his hon. and learned Friend. [Interruption.] Order. Now that we have got back to the serious debate, I would point out that we have listened to both sides tolerantly, in spite of the deep divisions. I would ask the House to be fair to the winding-up speaker.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I begin on a non-controversial note by following the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the maiden speakers who have contributed to our debate, all three being my hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) struck, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, a note not uncharacteristic of his distinguished father when he called for some sort of order and reason to come into our affairs. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) both made human and clear contributions to our proceedings, and we look forward to hearing from all three of them again.
  I come at once to the point which the Leader of the Opposition made when he suggested that we were endeavouring to assert a Donovanian legitimacy for our proposals. We have never gone as far as that. What we have said—and I repeat tonight—is that a substantial part of the proposals to be found in the Bill are derived from Donovan. Many other parts go beyond that.
  The present Government were not alone in feeling the need to go beyond that because the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking in the House in July of last year, pointed out where his Government parted company from the Donovan recommendations. They did so
  "in the need for firm and specific action to deal with some of the most urgent problems of industrial relations, and particularly the problems of inter-union disputes and unconstitutional stoppages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 681.]
  It is along those lines that our proposals made in "Fair Deal at Work", and discussed and elaborated upon since then, have gone beyond the Donovan proposals, though there is large measure of common ground.
  I come to the second line of criticism made by the Leader of the Opposition; his suggestion that our proposals are derived from some unique transatlantic setting and are irrelevant to the needs of this country. The proposals contained in the Bill are as British as those contained in "In Place Of Strife". They are designed by Britons for Britain's

  1237
  needs and to meet the same problems as those identified in "In Place Of Strife".
  It does not follow, however, that we should not look at what other countries have done or compare the features of our industrial scene with theirs; and it was in "In Place Of Strife" that the Labour Government pointed out that
  "Compared with other countries, we have a large number of strikes in relation to our work force and in industries other than coal mining the number of strikes has gone up considerably in recent years"
  and they concluded on this:
  "The typical British strike is unofficial and usually in breach of agreed procedures."
  and it is for that reason that we have got our own proposals designed, as those submitted by the previous Administration, to meet our needs. If we look at the experience of other countries, which surely we are entitled to do, we find, as the Donovan Report noted,—and as, indeed, those comparisons made in "In Place Of Strife" acknowledged—that almost every other country in the Western industrialised world has a clear, modern framework of law to meet the problems for which this system is being brought forward.
  Whether one looks at Socialist Sweden on the one hand or capitalist North America on the other—or at our European competitors across the Channel—one sees that they all have a framework of law; and it is that deficiency which our proposals are being brought forward to try to meet.
  It is no good pointing, as though it were proof of the argument, to the fact that the General Motors strike in the United States lasted a long time, because at the end of it, as the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) pointed out—it was the first strike for 24 years—when the men were led by Mr. Walter Reuther, he brought them out on strike after at least three years' peace, without the contract having been broken by anybody, and it was known that when the men went back there would be another three years' peace. The dilemma of British industry is the continuous interruption of production lines. Nobody knows where a strike will take place next.
  There are, of course, differences in the patterns obtaining in the various countries and our problem, which is that to which I have referred, was pointed out in "In Place of Strife". Here we share
  1238
  common ground with Donovan in terms of the diagnosis that our problem arising from unofficial strikes is not only serious but it is urgent that we get to grips with it. It is to that end that our proposals are designed.
  It is no good suggesting that the American system does not work. The right hon. Gentleman in his earlier references to Pat Lowry's book, did not refer specifically to the passage which he quoted more than once during the General Election campaign. The sentence he quoted was:
  "As regards the law in relation to strikes, it is worth emphasising again that in spite of its entitlement to do so not a single company I have met has ever sued a union for damages as a result of wildcat strike action."
  The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the following sentence:
  "Virtually every company I met stressed that the threat of this sanction is a most potent weapon in securing effective intervention by a trade union …".
  The whole of that paragraph, if I were to weary the House by quoting it, supports the diagnosis underlined by an article to which, again, the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, in The Times—a few days after that of Mr. Theodore Kheel—by Mr. Jack Lee, last year's president of the Institute of Personnel Management, which pointed out that almost all ex-Colonial territories which inherited our system of law have hastened to change the framework of our law and are following the pattern set by other countries.
  The specific point, again, which the right hon. Gentleman sought to make, think by reference to Mr. Kheel's article and to American experience, was to suggest that proposals in the Bill for a pre-strike ballot are out of joint with what is needed. He sought to suggest that they were dropped because of second thoughts by himself and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). If we look at the first formal proposals for a pre-strike ballot in this country we find them in the document "In Place of Strife"—not a lightly considered document but one placed before the House with the full authority not just of the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady but the Government.
  We read in paragraph 3:
  "The Government"—

  1239
  The Government:
  "places the following proposals before Parliament and the nation convinced that they are justified …"
  We will come back to the grounds later on, but one of the proposals which they were convinced were justified was this very proposal for a pre-strike ballot in certain circumstances exactly in the form, and to meet the need, that is now laid down in the Bill. One reads:
  "The power will be used where the Secretary of State believes that the proposed strike would involve a serious threat to the economy or public interest, and there is doubt whether it commands the support of those concerned. The object will not be to place a prohibition on such strikes, but to help to ensure that before strikes of this importance take place the union members themselves are convinced that they are right to go on strike."
  That is the objective of the proposal contained in our Bill. Our proposal does not go beyond that. It does not make prestrike ballots compulsory. It is designed for the exceptional case; to meet the exceptional need rightly identified by the right hon. Gentleman's Government.
  It is not, as I understand the history, though the history of this matter is difficult to follow, right to say that the proposal was abandoned because the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends had second thoughts. It is true that it did not find a place in the interim Bill which the right hon. Lady was drafting in mid-April—one of the several industrial relations Bills for which she was responsible to various stages of gestation—but not because it was being cast away. The right hon. Lady said:
  "The reason for this omission is partly that the problem of official strikes is less acute than that of unconstitutional strikes and, therefore, the need for action is less immediate."
  The right hon. Lady went on:
  "But there are a number of unions which do not have any provision in their rules for conducting ballots, and it will take time for them to work out and incorporate the correct procedures in their rules."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1187.]
  So at least until 16th April of last year that proposal was more than a glint in the right hon. Lady's eye; and it is legitimised by its ancestry when it finds its place in our Bill.
  I come now to a rather more general line of criticism developed by a number
  1240
  of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. It is the suggestion that the Bill will provide a lawyers' paradise, an infestation of lawyers. Before I analyse a little more fully the objects and rôle that the law can play, I remind the House that the Bill runs to 150 Clauses and eight Schedules—a complex document, said the right hon. Lady yesterday, suggesting that it was long and likely to lead to difficulty.
  It was the right hon. Lady herself who told the House yesterday that she drafted an Industrial Relations Bill, and that even in her own Bill—I know not to which one she was referring—she knew of the complexity and that she had put towels round her head. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred to the right hon. Lady's published Bill yesterday as a miniscule, emaciated document. Emaciated it certainly was. Miniscule it certainly was not with 97 Clauses and eight Schedules. That was only the Bill that saw the light of day and that was designed to enact and place upon the Statute Book only 14 of the 25 proposals for legislation listed in the appendix to "In Place of Strife", of which proposals the previous Government had said that they were convinced that they were justified.
  How many further Clauses, how much further expansion of law and lawyers, were visualised? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not like what I am saying, but what I am saying is very relevant to the points made in the debate. One of the points made, and made not least by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), was that the Bill will introduce too much law and too many lawyers. It was he who in the last speech before the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke complained specifically of this. I am answering the point by reminding the hon. Gentleman and the House of the extent to which his own Government's legislation involved precisely the same commitment.
  The Bill published by the last Government—[Interruption.] The Bill published by the last Government—[Interruption.] The more often hon. Members interrupt the longer it will take me to finish my sentence. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting on very well. There is no need to disturb it.
  The Solicitor-General: The Bill published by the last Government—[Interruption.] I intend to finish the sentence and I have been given the opportunity of doing so—as well as that which the right hon. Lady did not publish, would have involved as extensive, as detailed and as complex—indeed more so—a framework of law. That legal framework—we can analyse it in a moment—was that which the right hon. Lady was convinced was justified and which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) now finds it difficult to understand as the subject of what he has described as the violent, unrestrained and partisan attacks made from the Opposition Front Bench upon the very proposals which were being advanced by right hon. and hon. Members opposite only 18 months ago.
  I will now say a few words about the rôle of law in the more general sense.
  Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose—
  The Solicitor-General: The rôle of law—
  Mr. Paget: Can I—
  Mr. Speaker: I am not sure, but I do not think that the Solicitor-General is giving way.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to give way.
  Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously is not giving way.
  The Solicitor-General: It is right that the law which is to be advanced must be a proper and a just law. But the law is about justice. The law contained in the Bill is designed to produce a framework for a civilised society in industry. Many of the troubles which the previous Administration sought to solve arose from what has been described as the deliberate abstention of the law, and it is the need for a new law which was identified and which is being sustained by the Government to create a proper framework. I welcome the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who made this very point about the value of a proper framework of law. It is strange to hear it suggested that the
  1242
  law can play no useful rôle in supporting sustained responsible voluntary action. It is also strange to hear it suggested that the important Part I of the Bill, and the code to be introduced under it, can play no useful part.
  The House may not have entirely forgotten what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said in a debate on another subject:
  "I attach great importance to the declaratory nature of the first part of the Bill. I believe that the very process of giving the law brings an instinctive response from the great majority of our citizens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 23rd April, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 55]
  That is the belief of hon. and right hon. Members on this side. If it was right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the context of the Race Relations Bill, then it is justifiable for us to assert the same respect for law on this side of the House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. James Callaghan: Does not the Solicitor-General appreciate that the difference is that in the case of the Race Relations Bill the declaratory nature of the law was accepted by and acceptable to the overwhelming proportion of the population of the country? As hon. Gentlemen should know by now, this Bill is unacceptable to millions of trade unionists.
  The Solicitor-General: What I know and what the House will know about the Bill is that the basic analysis upon which the Bill is rested was shared by the previous Administration, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. They were convinced that the proposals were justified. What is more important, in the context of the point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, is that the results of the last election are increasingly sustained by the figures produced in one and every public opinion poll in this country. Not only is it the majority of the public that wants this Measure but a majority of trade union members as well. [Interruption.] If there is anyone seeking to build upon and extend a consensus in support of this legislation, it is my right hon. Friend and the members of the Government. The consensus for which the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) asked is to be found in the analyses made by this Administration and the previous Administration, endorsed and supported

  1243
  by the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order, Mrs. Barbara Castle.
  Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is only right that he should give way, as he has persisted for the last quarter of an hour, instead of dealing with his own Bill, in misrepresenting the policy of my own—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: The House must leave it to the protagonists. Mrs. Castle.
  Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, and is he not honest enough to admit, that the White Paper "In Place of Strife" specifically—[Interruption.]
  An hon. Member: Stop reading.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mrs. Castle: —specifically set out and examined the proposals in this Government's Bill and rejected them in terms as undesirable and anti-trade union?
  The Solicitor-General: It is true that "In Place of Strife" considered a number of proposals. But the House and the country cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East put his finger on the point when he said that the basic diagnosis of her proposed legislation and the diagnosis underlying this legislation are exactly the same and directed to the same end.
  I turn now to one other point raised—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Only four minutes left.
  The Solicitor-General: I am dealing with points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  Mr. Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not got a case.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) must control himself.
  Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well recognised that many hon. Members have sat here during two days of debate and raised detailed
  1244
  points on the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to evade replying to the debate.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
  The Solicitor-General: If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had restrained themselves in the last few minutes, I could have got in a good many more useful arguments.
  I was about to deal with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the proposed enforcibility provisions. I say only that it is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, having heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister advancing the essential framework of these provisions up and down the country for five years, now to suggest that in respect of one subsection we have no mandate. [Interruption.] The proposal is directly in line with what my right hon. Friend said on 2nd June. What is more important, where did the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend begin to find the shadow of a mandate for what they sought to introduce in their proposals in "In Place of Strife"?
  As several right hon. and hon. Members opposite have pointed out, the truth is that the trade unions are a great estate of the Realm, and they are now at a state of maturity. It does not follow from that that they are the one estate which is to remain immune from any change in the law or the one estate whose responsibilities are to remain for ever undefined.
  The proposals in the Bill bring the law in this country regulating industrial relations up to date. They are advanced. They are justified. The nation is convinced that they are justified. The present Government are convinced that they are justified. We got a mandate for them at the last election. I believe that the House will share that conviction tonight.
  Mr. James Hamilton Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell) rose—
  Mr. Francis Pym (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)Mr. Francis Pym (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:—

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Eden, Sir John

  Jopling, Michael

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Astor, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Awdry, Daniel

  Emery, Peter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kilfedder, James

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kimball, Marcus

  Balniel, Lord

  Fidler, Michael

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Batsford, Brian

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bell, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Knox, David

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Foster, Sir John

  Lambton, Antony

  Benyon, W.

  Fowler, Norman

  Lane, David

  Berry, Hon. Anthony

  Fox, Marcus

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Biffen, John

  Fry, Peter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Blaker, Peter

  Gardner, Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Body, Richard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

  Boscawen, R. T.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Loveridge, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Goodhart, Philip

  MacArthur, Ian

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhew, Victor

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Bray, Ronald

  Gorst, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Brewis, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grieve, Percy

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Bryan, Paul

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Maddan, Martin

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

  Gryils, Michael

  Madel, David

  Buck, Antony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maginnis, John E.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Garden, Harold

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Marten, Neil

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mather, Carol

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maude, Angus

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hannan, John (Exeter)

  Mawby, Ray

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Channon, Paul

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Havers, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, William (Surrey, East)

  Hay, John

  Molyneaux, James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Money, Ernie

  Clegg, Walter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Cockeram, Eric

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Cooke, Robert

  Hicks, Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Coombs, Derek

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Cordle, John

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

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mudd, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holland, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Costain, A. P.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Critchley, Julian

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Neave, Airey

  Crouch, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Curran, Charles

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Normanton, Tom

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Nott, John

  Dance, James

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranky

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hunt, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Osborn, John

  Dean, Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Dixon, Piers

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pardoe, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 280.

  Peel, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Trew, Peter

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Sharpies, Richard

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Simeons, Charles

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Waddington, David

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

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

  W alder, David (Clitheroe)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Soref, Harold

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Speed, Keith

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Spence, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Raison, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Walters, Dennis

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stainton, Keith

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Redmond, Robert

  Steel, David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stokes, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Temple, John M.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Younger, Hn. George

  Rost, Peter

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Royle, Anthony

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mr. Jasper More and

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Tilney, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Garrett, W. E.

  Albu, Austen

  Grossman, Rt. Hu. Richard

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Ginsburg, David

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gourlay, Harry

  Ashley, Jack

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, John D. (Islington, East)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Hardy, Peter

  Baxter, William

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

  Harper, Joseph

  Beaney, Alan

  Deakins, Eric

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Henn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dempsey, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Hilton, W. S.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Doig, Peter

  Horam, John

  Booth, Albert

  Dormand, J. D.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bradley, Tom

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hunter, Adam

  Buchan, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Janner, Greville

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, West)

  English, Michael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Cant, R. B.

  Evans, Fred

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Faulds, Andrew

  John, Brynmor

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Coleman, Donald

  Foley, Maurice

  Jones, Barry (Flint, East)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Ford, Ben

  Judd, Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Forrester, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Cox, Thomts (Wandsworth, Central)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Kelley, Richard

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Freeson, Reginald

  Kerr, Russell

  Cronin, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Kinnock, Nell

  1248

  1249

  Lambie, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Small, William

  Latham, Arthur

  Murray, Ronald King

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)

  Lawson, George

  Ogden, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leadbirter, Ted

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stallard, A. W.

  Leonard, Dick

  Oram, Bert

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Orme, Stanley

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lipton, Marcus

  Padley, Walter

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Paget, R. T.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Loughlin, Charles

  Palmer, Arthur

  Swain, Thomas

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Taverne, Dick

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McBride, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  McCann, John

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tinn, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Pendry, Tom

  Tomney, Frank

  MacColl, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Torney, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Tuck, Raphael

  McGuire, Michael

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Prescott, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mackie, John

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Maclemtan, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rankin, John

  Wallace, George

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Watkins, David

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wellbeloved, James

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Marquand, David

  Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Whitlock, William

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Meacher, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Roper, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mendelson, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Millan, Bruce

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wilson, WHIiam (Coventry, S.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Woof, Robert

  Molloy, William

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morris, Alfred (Wythemhawe)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sillars, James

  Mr. John Golding.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Silverman, Julius

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means, on the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill and on the Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Pym.]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to employers and workers and to organisations of employers and organisations of workers, to provide for the establishment of a National Industrial Relations Court and for extending the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, to provide for the appointment of a Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and of assistant registrars, and for establishing a Commission on Industrial Relations as a statutory body, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (1) all expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the provisions of that Act;

  (2) any expenses incurred in consequence of those provisions by any other Minister of the Crown or government department, not

  1251
  being a Minister in or department of the Government of Northern Ireland;

  (3) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under that Act to, the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, any assistant registrar appointed under that Act and any other officers or servants of the Chief Registrar, and any expenses duly incurred by the Chief Registrar or any such assistant registrar in consequence of the provisions of that Act;

  (4) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Industrial Courts Act 1919 or the Industrial Training Act 1964.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

WAYS AND MEANS

  Industrial Relations
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to employers and workers and to organisations of employers and organisations of workers, to provide for the establishment of a National Industrial Relations Court and for extending the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals, to provide for the appointment of a Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and of assistant registrars, and for establishing a Commission on Industrial Relations as a statutory body, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any change attributable to that Act in the incidence of the exemption from income tax and corporation tax which is conferred on registered trade unions by section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 in respect of income or chargeable gains
  1252
  applied for the purpose of provident benefits within the meaning of that section;

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums required to be so paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkind.]

  10.16 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The Motion is necessary because the Bill has an effect on certain rights to exemption from income tax.
  Under section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, a registered trade union has a certain measure of exemption from tax in respect of income and chargeable gains applied for the purposes of provident benefit, and this will continue. But now the exemption will no longer apply to certain employers' associations which have hitherto been defined as trade unions but will now be separately defined. If it were decided to maintain the status quo and allow employers' associations to continue to enjoy the exemption, it would be necessary to extend the exemption by legislation to include employers' associations.
  We do not think that many employers' associations are affected but if we find on inquiry that there are and there is some difficulty, I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be prepared to look at the matter. A large number of trade unions avail themselves of the exemption and will be able to continue to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION (DECLARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Roy Mason: The Bill gives effect to the Government's doctrinal desire to force the Air Corporations, against their will, to surrender profitable routes to a private enterprise airline.
First, I should register objection that none of the Ministers responsible for the Bill from the Department for Trade and Industry or, in particular, the Minister of Aviation Supply is present. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain why the Minister for Trade is not here to introduce the Third Reading of his own Bill.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whifelaw): The Bill was moved; I moved it. I am Leader of the House and I am entitled to move it. The right hon. Gentleman is now speaking.
Mr. Mason: Do I take it that the Minister does not intend to turn up and that he did not intend to introduce the Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: There is no need to draw any conclusions other than what I have said.
Mr. Mason: Perhaps the Leader of the House would be good enough to give a fuller explanation of why no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry is present when a Bill of that Department is before the House and due to be finally debated. Secondly, it is incumbent on the Minister to be present and to move the Third Reading himself because a Motion is before the House. Where is he? Why is no Minister present?
Mr. Whitelaw: I moved the Third Reading of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. I will ensure that the Minister is here. Let the right hon. Gentleman continue to speak.
Mr. Mason: Do I take it that the Leader of the House is prepared to reply to the debate? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Trade is not here and will not be aware of my comments, but it is he whom I wish to reply to the debate. The Leader of the House has no knowledge of civil aviation.
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman will be here. If he is not, I will reply to the debate.
Mr. Mason: I think it is disgraceful that the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for the Bill, is not here. There are five Ministers in the Department for Trade and Industry; why is no Minister present? As no Minister is present, I suggest that the Leader of the House could be gentlemanly and move that the House be adjourned until the Minister is present.
Mr. William Molloy: On a point of order. Can you help us, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Is it possible for the House to conduct the business in hand when the responsible Minister is not here? It would seem to be a pointless endeavour.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Thomas Swain: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House gave a categorical assurance to the House five weeks ago that he would guarantee that the Minister responsible would be present when a debate was taking place, but the Minister was not present at the commencement of this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that also is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Mason: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived, but it has been disgraceful conduct on his part that, knowing full well that a debate for which he was responsible was imminent, neither he nor his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade was present at the outset of the debate. As I have begun, I intend to carry on.

1255
The Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Bill gives effect to the Government's doctrinal desire to force the Air corporations, against their will, to surrender profitable routes to a private enter-price airline. This is a disgraceful and shabby exercise which is indicative of the hate that the Tory Party has of successful nationalised industries, and it is typical of the pique of Tory Party philosophy.
The Bill, which gives the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the unprecedented power of determining which routes B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. shall operate, also empowers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen leaving the Chamber please do so as quietly as possible.
Mr. Mason: —them to pick off any flight or series of flights and, without any compensation to the corporations, give them away to any private enterprise airline. The Bill is designed to wound the corporations, especially at a time when their finances and indeed the finances of civil aviation as a whole, are on a cyclical decline.
The Bill is dangerous for three reasons. First, the Government recognising that it was doubtful whether they had the necessary powers under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, and the Air Corporations Act, 1967, and that these doubts were being challenged by the Corporations and, in particular, were to be tested in the court by the trade unions, have brought in the Bill to forestall litigation and stifle the normal legal processes. This is indicative of the lengths to which they will go to help their friends, the private speculators, and on this occasion it includes foreign speculators as well. Having obliterated any court action, they determined that no appeal is to be allowed against these route transfers. That in itself is a dangerous act.
Secondly, on the route transfer operations we are bound to question the impact of the Bill abroad. Some nations already fear a lessening of British interests overseas because the Bill gives the Government the right unilaterally to transfer routes from a State airline to a doubtful private enterprise venture. So far we do not know the routes or the nations
1256
involved. So far the Minister has not yet been able to reveal this to the House either during the Second Reading of the Bill or in Committee. Yet this information has been passed from B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to the Department of Trade and industry; it has been sent on to Caledonian and B.U.A. for them to choose the routes which they think the most profitable so that they can get their £6 million of annual route revenue from the corporations.
However, there have been "leaks" in the Press and it appears that the Paris routes, as well as flights to Portugal, West Africa, and Gibraltar, may all be affected. All these countries will assume that there is a lessening of British interest in their affairs, but particularly in civil aviation development. If these route transfers mentioned in the Bill are effected, is it not likely that the reaction of these nations will be to encourage another foreign national airline to develop routes within their nation and pooling operations in their countries? Consequently, there will be a loss to British civil aviation development, a loss of foreign exchange and stronger competition from foreign airlines.
All these transfers of routes will take place without payment of compensation. We are not just transferring a licence. There is the task involved in the development of a route, international advertising, the development of facilities en route and the growth of good will. There is all the effort that has been put into making a loss into a profit and there is the subsequent profitability growth in the route itself. All these are to be taken away without any compensation.
Do the Government realise what a dangerous precedent they are establishing? This matter will not be overlooked. They have started on the airlines. They may tinker with steel, coal, the Post Office Corporation. But in this Bill they are now setting a pattern of confiscation without compensation.
We have already warned all those concerned in this venture—all those who take these routes from B.O.A.C and B.E.A. without compensation and who during subsequent years will have profited thereby—that on returning to office we reserve the right to transfer them back without any compensation at all.

1257
This is the first of the hiving off operations. This Bill is only the beginning of this particular operation. It establishes beyond legal doubt the right of the Secretary of State to effect route transfers to the detriment of the corporations and for the benefit of private speculators.
Mr. Russell Kerr: It is a blank cheque.
Mr. Mason: We do not yet know how many routes will be involved, how many flights will be affected, or how many foreign nations will be concerned.
It is incumbent upon the Minister, before the Bill goes through—before giving it what my hon. Friend just called a "blank cheque"—to inform the House which routes making up the £6 million annual route revenue of both Corporations will go to this private venture airline.
But that will not be the end of the matter. The Orders still have to be laid, and the Minister will have to come back to the House. Because the principle embodied in this operation is so basically rotten and anti-democratic and creates a precedent of confiscation without compensation which future Governments can easily follow, we shall oppose those Orders throughout, just as I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight to reject the Bill absolutely.
10.30 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I rise with embarrassment. I think that the whole House knows that I should not want to be discourteous. I was only a few yards from the Chamber. I was not expecting the Bill to be called quite so quickly. I hope the House will accept that as a genuine apology. These things do occasionally happen, even when one is ready and prepared.
Third Reading tonight is the third debate that we have had on almost the same point, because this is a one Clause Bill. We discussed it on Second Reading, on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill in Committee, and now we are discussing it on Third Reading, Therefore, I should like to repeat two or three things which I have said before which cannot be changed in any way on the third occasion.
First, the Bill does not convey any new powers on anybody; it simply re-
1258
moves the possibility of delay. This may be objectional to those who perhaps wanted to use delay as a method of defeating the particular purpose of the Bill.
Secondly, the scale of transfers is comparatively modest. It is easy to talk about £6 million of route revenue. But when we realise that B.O.A.C. alone has an annual route revenue of over £200 million, and in normal times expects and plans for its route revenue to increase by 14 or 15 per cent., the whole matter is put in its proper proportions.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every major airline in the world is now revising its revenue expectation very seriously downwards, and that most of the major carriers are talking about as little as 5 per cent., and certainly less than 10 per cent.? For the right hon. Gentleman to talk of 14 per cent. tonight shows a gross ignorance of the facts of the situation.
Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. I said that that was what B.O.A.C. had been calculating in normal times. I accept that at the moment the situation is changing, that the route revenue is not rising as fast as was expected, but B.O.A.C. is still in the long term making its calculations on the same basis. Whatever calculation is made, even if one accepts the hon. Gentleman's 5 to 10 per cent., it is still a very small part of the revenue of one major British undertaking.
I promised the right hon. Gentleman that at the first possible moment I would give him and the House the information that was available on route transfers. It has been decided that a part of the route transfers will take place. I cannot yet give a complete answer, but 1 can say tonight that B.O.A.C. will cease after 31st March 1971 to serve Lagos and Kano in Nigeria and Accra in Ghana, with the intention that Caledonian-B.U.A. should serve them directly from London thereafter. The authorities of Nigeria and Ghana have been so informed.
There will be some other part of this transfer to be negotiated, and we are discussing it still with the airlines concerned. But I felt that it was right to tell the House at the first moment

1259
when a decision had been taken on part of it. It is right because there has been speculation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not believe all the stories he reads in the Press. Some of them are not even faintly founded on fact and some of them are certainly ideas which have been considered. That is the extent of the route transfers that has been agreed so far, and I am announcing them to the House on the first possible opportunity tonight.
Mr. Mason: What percentage of the £6 million of annual route revenue is represented by the right hon. Gentleman's announcement? What anxieties have Nigeria and Ghana expressed about private enterprise taking over from State airlines in the region?
Mr. Noble: Without breaking commercial confidences—a point that the right hon. Gentleman has made to me once or twice—I cannot say exactly what the route revenue on this line is, but I can say that the West African link is well below the figure I have given to the House, and there will therefore be some balance to be added on top.
We have informed the authorities in Nigeria and Ghana, and have had no expression of anxiety about the lessening of British interest to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
There may be other hon. Members who want to speak. The debate has taken place on three occasions, on roughly the same subjects, and I know that there is no reasonable opportunity of persuading hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a sensible policy. But I hope that the House will realise that this is not done with the sinister motives the right hon. Gentleman chooses to impute to us. A very distinguished Committee recommended it. The right hon. Gentleman and his friend did not dispute the broad principle, but they were rather unwilling to will the means to make it a success.
I commend this small Bill to the House and wish success to the new British second force which will be operating.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I oppose the Bill, because I see it as part of the Conservative policy of transferring money from the public purse
1260
to the rich. In the mini-Budget, we saw a transfer of money from the poor to the rich, and now we see a transfer of money from the public purse to the rich. That is precisely what the Bill will do. The Government are putting their hands into the public purse and taking out money which rightfully belongs to the British public. They will hand it over to a tiny fraction of the population, the financiers. Every hon. Member opposite realises, with great cynicism, that that is the purpose of this Bill and of this Government.
One important political commentator, a supporter in general of the Tory Party, wrote in The Times that he was not surprised. None of us should be surprised that a party supported by the City and by financiers should, on coming to office, reward its friends. We must accept, as a consequence of defeat, that the Government will take our money and give it to their friends.
The statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), that we "reserved the right" not to pay compensation, was not strong enough. There should be no compensation after confiscation of this sort. It is like letting someone steal one's wallet and then paying him compensation when one recovers it. Let us oppose compensation—but let us think further. Since 1945, many of us in the Labour Party have supported the idea of compensation, but I am having second thoughts about it. If it is right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to confiscate public goods, why should we consider the payment of compensation when we extend public ownership? They have opened up this whole question. When we extend public ownershop, we shall remember this night.
I will not be too long: I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have uneasy consciences and I would not want to make them too uncomfortable. But let them remember the consequences of their action tonight for the future. We will remember this terrible Bill for many years to come.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Eric Deakins: I too oppose the Bill. The Government's powers in Clause 1 are not borne out by what the Minister said about the transfer of certain routes. One of the

1261
purposes of the Bill is to promote competition, but the routes which are being transferred are international routes on which there is already a great deal of competition for our nationalised airlines from national airlines overseas. It is to be hoped that the Government will transfer some domestic routes as well and not leave the second force airline in a monopoly situation. That would be a negation of competition, though we suspect that that is what the Government have in mind.
We do not know how the figure of £6 million worth of routes was arrived at. As the right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee, it is difficult to forecast profitability, taking account of, for example, loading factors, distances, frequency and so on. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the assurance he gave in Committee that this is to be a once-for-all transfer. We must be certain that if the airline does not make a profit following this transfer, the Government will not say that more must be handed over. I say this because it seems doubtful whether this £6 million worth of routes will achieve what the airline and the Department expect.
I do not agree with my hon. Friends who say that this transfer represents a rape of this public corporation. Rather, it is a case of indecent assault. The Government are putting their hands into the pockets of a prosperous and profitable nationalised industry, and it is to be hoped that they do not repeat this crime.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one does not commit indecent assault by putting one's hands in someone's pockets? That is common robbery. The hon. Gentleman should be conversant with the facts of life.
Mr. Deakins: At least the hon. Gentleman agrees that a crime has been committed. We can agree to disagree about its exact nature.
Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member for Epping seems to be an authority on indecent assault and many other pernicious activities.
Mr. Deakins: I had better leave the matter there.
We have reason to believe that the Government do not have the courage of
1262
their convictions. I would be out of order in mentioning the clearing bank monopoly and so on. What they are proposing could lead to greater competition in the air, but we are afraid that it will merely mean the replacement of one monopoly situation with another, with in due course, the Government saying that as the second force has failed to make a profit, more must be transferred to it. May we be assured that this is a once-for-all assault on this prosperous and profitable nationalised industry?
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I will not delay the House, though certain points bear repetition. For example, if the Government wanted to do less damage to B.O.A.C., they could have legalised hijacking, for that is the situation being faced by this State-owned corporation under the Bill.
For the Government to be taking this step now is astonishing. For them to do it at a time of prosperity for airlines would be dangerous. But for them to be doing it at a time when every international carrier is facing financial tremendous difficulties is suicidal.
I have just returned from Los Angeles—[Interruption.] Why hon. Gentlemen opposite find that something to interrupt about I do not know. At least I try to find out what I am talking about. I saw some of the problems being faced by Pan-Am and T.W.A. with layoffs, attempts to sell aircraft and a general background of recession. In trying to fit this Measure into that sort of context, we see the complete and utter ignorance on the part of Her Majesty's Government in civil aviation matters.
It comes, too, at a time when one of our nationalised Corporations is doing sterling pioneering work in lowering fares, because at the recent Honolulu fares conference it was B.O.A.C. which was setting the pace and trying to reduce individual fares. Again, it is the public who will suffer.
I am now wondering whether we are starting to move towards the American situation in which, if an airline wants routes it must contribute to the presidential funds—[Interruption.] It is well known in the States that certain American airlines are Democrat and others are Republican. It has been made quite obvious to the House and the country

1263
that British United and Caledonian have not contributed to the coffers of the Labour Party, and we now have the situation where a contribution has been made to the coffers of the Tory Party. There is evidence of this on record, and gentlemen in the City expect to receive their pay-off too. I am wondering just what their campaign—
Mr. Cranley Onslow Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): rose—
Mr. Huckfield: No, I will give way when I have made my speech. This is information that is listed as a result of legislation passed by the previous Government, and I am wondering how big will be the campaign contribution of B.U.A. and Caledonian next time.
Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is doing himself justice as usual. I might remind him that if he wants to make party political points he should remember that Caledonian-B.U.A. have on its board a former Member who was a Government Whip in the last Administration.
Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that alters the fact that the British and Commonwealth made a substantial contribution to the Tory Party last time I cannot agree with him. But if we are not to have the kind of campaign situation in which airlines thus contribute and thereby get a substitution of routes, presumably we shall have the kind of situation in which there will be increased competition on certain routes; in fact, precisely the sort of policy which American, Australian and every other major aviation country is now rejecting. All over the world it is being proved that competition is the wrong way to do things.
I wonder how Ghana Airways, with one VC 10 and a few Viscounts, and Nigerian Airways with two 707s will fare? Those two airlines owe a great deal to B.O.A.C., and now they are to have that aid taken from them they will have to depend on Caledonian-B.U.A. I cannot think of any greater insult to any country.
The Government are now flying in the face of aviation policy all over the world. Every country is saying it will not have such competition, because competition does not work. The Government choose
1264
to ignore all international evidence and go completely against the grain. Perhaps as the Government are now showing what they really are we should not be amazed. I urge the total rejection of this very obnoxious Bill.
Sir John Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the absence of competition everywhere. Is there absence of competition in America?
10.54 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I intervene because many of my constituents are employees of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. and are deeply anxious about this step that the Government are taking to forestall legal objections which might come from the Corporations. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. workers are jealous of the conditions and traditions that they have built up over a long period. They are fearful that the result of this handing over of profitable routes of nationalised enterprises will be that their conditions will deteriorate and that profitability will suffer These anxieties are well understood by Ministers. Nothing that is occurring is likely to allay the deep anxieties my constituents have or still the coming opposition to this reduction in the activities of nationalised airways. Nor will it banish from their minds the thought that this is a continuation of doctrinaire politics.
If there were an abstract referendum about the incursion of law into industrial affairs, most people, not knowing much about it, would vote for the idea. If they were asked to say if they believed that an independent civil air force should be created at the expense of the nationalised sector, the answer would be a resounding "No", because B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are regarded as national assets of which the nation should be proud.
I will not become involved in the argument as to whether this is rape or an indecent assault. It reminds me of the maidservant who produced an illegitimate child and who, when taxed about it, said, "It is only a little bastard, after all". This is a small Measure, but it is what it portends that is important. This is why we shall vote against it. This is also why this and the other are of Measures that the Government are taking will lead to their downfall, because as time passes what tended to be obscure will become crystal clear: these

1265
are rewards for financial backing for the Tory Party.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I should not like it to be thought that my hon. Friends do anything but welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, wish success to the second force airline that springs from it, and see in this Measure a sensible and constructive action which is essential to the future strength and prosperity of British civil aviation. I do not want to provoke the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), so I will not go further than that. I will simply say that we know that we disagree on this.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) made it perfectly plain for the third time. He made the same speech with slightly different emphasis—the loud pedal, louder in some places, softer in others. Essentially it was the same speech, with the same misunderstandings and the same fundamental incomprehension of the real issues involved. It is clear that we shall never get them into his head. By all means let him oppose the Orders when they are laid before the House, but let him not make that speech again.
Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I well understand the anxiety of the Opposition Chief Whip to curtail debate on his side of the House, because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has ever favoured us with a more characteristically silly speech.
We congratulate my right hon. Friends on their good sense in introducing this Measure. We believe that it will succeed. We wish Calendonian-B.U.A. success.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: When hon. Members became aware that the Minister for Trade might have forgotten about this debate, some of us thought for a moment that at last the right hon. Gentleman's conscience had been awakened and that he did not wish to be part of a piece of legislation which is no more than legalised robbery. However, our hopes were dashed when the right hon. Gentleman came in and courageously apologised for his late arrival, which I am sure the House accepts.
1266
Earlier today, we were discussing the very important subject of industrial relations. There are many ordinary men and women who have spent their lives working for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and hundreds of them live in my constituency—[Interruption.] A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently find it funny that working men and women should be interested in a publicly-owned industry—
Mr. James Hill Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) rose—
Mr. Molloy: I advise the hon. Gentleman to sit down and continue with his laughter.
The employees of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. feel very strongly about these proposals. I do not ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with them, but they should acknowledge the strength of feeling among those working for the corporations, and one would expect the Ministers concerned to take it into account.
The quintessence of the argument is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to give away part of a publicly-owned industry to certain private interests, whereas we on this side of the House believe that this massive industry should be owned by the people, just as the railways and the extraction and coal mining industries are.
None of the people who have written to me have complained that they have not been offered a chunk of the assets which are to be given away, that they have been denied the chance to climb on the band wagon. They have written to me deploring the Government's proposals, which will upset two great organisations and, at the same time, rob the majority of the people and benefit a small minority.
It would be interesting to hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite explain how this Measure fits in with their aim of creating one nation. This is part of the supreme hypocrisy that we have experienced since the present Government came to office. They argue that they wish to unite the people. At the same time, they introduce this sort of Measure which is designed specifically to give financial advantage to a tiny minority who may be their political supporters, at

1267
the expense of the vast majority of ordinary people.
This is a crime which will stain the record of this Government for ever. If they have any sense, they will not try to make foolish capital out of running down ordinary men and women who work for our nationalised airlines. If they do, they will face an eruption which is far greater than anything that they anticipate.
Many working people have devoted their lives to B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. They believe in the principle of public ownership. They want only to enhance the status of our national airlines. They are responsible people with a point of view. If the Government fail to acknowledge these facts and behave like some hon. Members on the benches behind them, they will stir up a great deal of trouble for themselves.
This Bill is taking a large portion of publicly-owned property from the mass of the people and giving it to a few friends of the Conservative Party. If that is not the case, I hope that the Government will say so, and that this is merely an example of their philosophy of encouraging competition. Let them ensure also that, if this element of competition fails, as well it may, they do not then turn back to the nation which they have exploited and expect it to support financially the failure which they have created.
Even at this late hour, let the Government consider whether what they are doing is right and proper in the present industrial atmosphere. Let them think again about the Bill and withdraw it. If they do not, we on this side will register our protest by voting against it.
11.6 p.m.
Mr. James Hill: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) tried to give the impression that there is no one on this side with the slightest inkling of the work not only of B.O.A.C. but of the men on the ground at the various outposts of the Corporation. He ought to know that on this side of the House we are rich in former members of B.O.A.C. staff who fully understand the structure and the working of a major airline.
1268
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that a wagon of gold bars is being handed over to Caledonia-B.U.A. It is nothing of the sort. It is a series of licences, and it is up to CaledonianB.U.A., by its efficiency and skill in the market in which it has professional proficiency, to turn that series of licences into gold bars. Not until the airline does that will it be a source of revenue.
The hon. Gentleman suggested also that the B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. ground staff wanted a slice of the cake, as he put it. He ought to realise that what is now being done will produce more work and more prosperity in civil aviation. If only the hon. Gentleman will look at it like that, welcoming the prospect of additional work for members of the unions associated with civil aviation, he will, I am sure, wish to put an entirely different slant on his views in twelve month's time.
11.8 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: I have not taken part in any of the discussion on the Bill, and I shall not go into it now, but I have a couple of questions to put to the Government.
Caledonian-B.U.A. makes a great fuss of the Caledonian part of it. It parades its stewardesses in tartan, it has the thistle painted on its aircraft and all over the place, and, I believe—though I do not often travel by Caledonian—it makes a fuss of the haggis in certain circumstances. It even makes some fuss of Drambuie, a very good drink, I agree.
Since this is considered to be first and foremost a Scottish line—we are told of the great fellow Thomson, where he came from, and what he has done—I should like to know more about where the maintenance work of Caledonian-B.U.A. is carried out. Is it to be carried out in Scotland? My understanding is that under Caledonian a substantial amount of maintenance was carried out there and that it is being transferred south. I am not professing to be knowledgeable about this and I hope that I am wrong. I am asking for information.
I hope that a company which flouts—perhaps that is not the right word—which makes so much use of the thistle and the tartan and the bagpipes and such things, will ensure that this maintenance work is done in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is to

1269
happen and that he will not say that this is a matter entirely for the private concern. He must understand that this concern owes its existence to what is happening under this Government. Clearly there is a need to provide air services in various remote parts of the Highlands of Scotland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I do not think that the Highlands of Scotland has a great deal to do with the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep to the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Lawson: We are talking about Caledonian-B.U.A. and I understand that we are talking about routes and about growth. Surely the justification for what is happening here is that this is a company which will grow. It will not be satisfied with a couple of routes, it will take more and more, show its competency, and it is on this basis that I would like to know from the Minister, who knows so much about these things, whether this concern has indicated its desire to take over some of the routes in the highlands of Scotland and if so which routes. It is a reasonable proposition. Perhaps if it were to take over some of these routes they would become highly profitable and no one would be happier than I if that happened. This is not very much to ask.
11.13 p.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Perhaps I could tell the hon. Member for Mother-well (Mr. Lawson) that B.O.A.C. also makes a lot of haggis and bagpipes and such things on certain occasions and perhaps he should travel on that airline and know about it. It does very little maintenance at Prestwick. I was surprised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) who, if I caught his meaning correctly, and it is sometimes difficult to do so, said that there are people who want nothing from this, referring to the staff of the nationalised industries—have I got the hon. Member correctly?
Mr. Molloy: What I was trying to explain, and I realise that sometimes it needs a surgical operation to get something into the heads of hon. Members opposite, was simply this, that when the Government decided to carve up B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. many of the ordinary
1270
people in my constituency did not want to get in on the act of grabbing something for themselves. They believed that they were right in supporting the principles of public ownership.
Mr. Tebbit: I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had gone rather further and suggested that such was their loyalty that they would never ask for anything for themselves from the airlines. I wondered whether he was aware that there is a go-slow at London Airport because of a demand for extra money. I was deeply shocked by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who, I am glad to see, is on one of his periodic visits to us from Los Angeles, and who had such kindly words for Nigerian Airways. If he is not aware he should be aware that that airline in particular is in scandalous breach of contract by which it is still refusing, a year after the accident to its VC10, to pay compensation, which it admits that it is contractually liable to pay, to the dependants of the dead crew members. Hon. Members opposite may care to note that it is not a privately-owned airline.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not in the Bill. The hon. Member must keep to the terms of the Bill.
Mr. Tebbit: I return, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the point which I have raised three times and to which I have had no answer. If it is right to compensate when a route licence is taken from one airline to another—that is, when the right to operate on a particular sector of the market, which is defined territorially in this one case, is transferred—why did the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) not think it right to compensate the independent airlines when he unleashed on them B.E.A. Airtours into the sector of the market in which, to use his own words, there had been a cost of advertising, of investment and of making up with profits which they had lost before running into profits? If it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander. This is the third time of asking. Perhaps on this, the third time, we will have an answer to this problem.
We know full well that this Declaratory Provisions Bill is detested so much by right hon. and hon. Members opposite solely because it gives a fair

1271
crack of the whip to the sector of industry which they detest. That is all that is required of the Bill. It is all that ever has been required of it, and the right hon. Gentleman knew that full well when he agreed with the principle of the second-force airline. The only thing with which he does not agree is the principle of giving it enough business on which to live.
I have great faith in Caledonian and British United, and it is most welcome to have the opportunity of seeing this Declaratory Provisions Bill make up for a lot of lost ground in the air transport industry.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) will forgive me if I do not follow him into his argument, because I cannot believe that he himself believed everything that he was asking the House to believe.
I should like to make two points to the Minister for Trade. I think I am correct in assuming that when he came to the House, he said that he commended the Bill for Third reading even though, he thought, it might be construed by some as robbery, but that as it was only small-scale robbery we should let it go through this time and not worry too much about it.
Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that this was almost the third Second Reading of the Bill. It had a mercifully short Committee stage, because it rarely happens that a Bill can be so bad as this one is that it was impossible to improve it in Committee. In Committee, however, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there were three parts to Clause 1 and that the purpose of the Bill was simply these three purposes: to establish the second force on the basis of a transplant from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., to make sure that it was effectively impossible for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to make any appeals to the courts about the transfer of those routes and, by so doing, to make it possible to bring the second force into operation at least 12 months sooner than it would otherwise have been possible to bring it into operation.
A number of questions were put to the Minister in Committee about the kind
1272
of considerations that were engaging his mind about the type of routes. He may remember that I asked whether he was looking at only the profitable routes or only those routes which made a reasonable, practical operational basis, or whether he was looking at both profitable routes, marginal routes and those routes that were operationally linked and which could form a full package.
This morning the papers have been coming out with their leaks and have been talking of hiving off or transferring routes from B.E.A., and the routes being mentioned this morning were those from the United Kingdom to Paris. We have not before had a lot of talk about B.E.A. In the main, the emphasis has been on B.O.A.C., and no one can deny that the United Kingdom to Paris route should be very profitable. Whoever is to answer tonight will, I hope, give an indication and more information than before about the kind of package deal he is considering when he makes this transfer.
Time is now getting to the point where we could expect the Conservative Government to have an idea of what they want to do. It was reasonable to assume before that they had not worked out their ideas aright but had a number of things in mind. Maybe we are expected to wait another month for an announcement during the recess. Instead of deciding Third Reading on the basis of all the information, we are expected to decide it on the basis of a small part of the information.
The Minister has told us about Ghana and Nigeria. Will he repeat his guarantee that he is seriously considering operational routes: profitable, marginal and non-profitable routes, not just the profitable ones?
11.22 p.m.
Mr. Russell Kerr: I shall be brief because, as the Grand Old Man of British civil aviation the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, we have been round the course three times.
I should like to refer to a remark of the Minister who said, when referring to the routes to be transferred, that the £6 million of gross revenue was only a small part of the total B.A.O.C. revenue of something like £200 million. They are picking the plums out of the cake. These are not to be just any routes, but no

1273
doubt the most profitable routes from the point of view of the new airline.
On the repercussive effects of these proposals, I shall use the same example as I did on Second Reading. What happens now we know that the West African routes are to be transferred? American customers used to come by B.O.A.C. and transfer at Heathrow, going on to their destinations in West Africa. Some will still try the same route, and if they are foolhardy enough to want to travel British will have a messy transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick to get their West Africa-bound plane. This is the kind of consequence which this Government in their ignorance and greed have totally left out of account in their haste to pay their debts to their backers in the City and elsewhere. [Interruption.] I shall go on. I could go on all night.
I resist the temptation from hon. Gentlemen opposite because I prefer to touch finally on the effects of these proposals, of this grand larceny, on the people who have built up this British civil aviation industry into one of the great industries of this country and the premier civil aviation industry of the world. The workers at London Airport and elsewhere who work for the two great public corporations are, to put it mildly, aghast at what the Government are doing to them. For example, in the G.A.S. dispute, which still continues but which reached something of a climax last February, when 14,000 people turned up on a one-day protest at Brentford football stadium—
Mr. Tebbit Mr. Tebbit rose—
Mr. Kerr: I will not give way. It is late in the evening and I am deliberately being brief. The hon. Member and I will have a chat later.
If the Government imagine that they are helping the prosperity of British civil aviation by measures of this sort, they must think again. The people who will cause them trouble are the people who rightly feel that their job security is being imperilled by these proposals. Many of them have worked and slaved for 25 years to build these twin nationalised industries into what they are today. They will not stand by and watch the profit-hungry friends of hon. Members opposite dismantle the whole caboosh without a struggle.
1274
If it is the Government's objective—and it is up to them to say whether it is—to build a sound, prosperous civil aviation industry for this country, all I can say to them is, "Watch your step because the way you are going you will guarantee the hostility of the 60,000 people in the industry. You still have time to think again about this larceny on a grand scale. If you do not, then, speaking as one of the parliamentary spokesmen for airport workers at London Airport—
Mr. Tebbit: May I make it plain that the hon. Gentleman does not speak for all the workers at the airport by a very long chalk. [Interruption.] I am sorry for the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I am a member of one of the unions involved there which is not opposing this Bill nor did it take industrial action over the G.A.S. affair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interruptions, to be effective, should be brief.
Mr. Kerr: I will not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman to go further, except to say that I, too, am a member, an executive member, of an airline union, which represents a lot more members than his organisation.
There will be big trouble if right hon. and hon. Members opposite, in their ignorance of the industry and of its great traditions, are allowed to go ahead with their proposals. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will show their determination by voting against the Third Reading.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Noble: With permission, I should like to answer two or three of the points raised in the debate. I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who had not taken part in debates on the Bill before and therefore had not made the same speech on three separate occasions.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted to see a company which started in Scotland doing well. The question whether maintenance work will be done in Scotland is not clear. Caledonian having taken over B.U.A. has maintenance shops at Gatwick, which is at the moment its centre of operations. But, as the hon. Member may guess and as

1275
many people who know him realise, Mr. Thomson has built his success in Scotland, and if there are opportunities there I am sure that he will take them. He has not yet applied for any air routes in the Highlands. If he does, I am sure that we shall give him, through the normal processes, every possible consideration, and I hope that he makes some profit from them.
Most of the speeches have been made before. I should like simply to repeat the one or two assurances I have given before and which cannot be given too often. First, this is a once for all transfer by this Government for this particular purpose. I have said this probably four or five times, and, if it is any comfort to people, I will say it again.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is worried about competition in almost the same way as his hon. Friend is worried about the absence of it. I quite accept that there are difficulties both ways. Both Caledonian, B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. are at the moment jointly asking for lower fares in I.A.T.A. and are being opposed by foreign airlines.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. He will correct me if I am wrong, but Caledonian is not even a member of I.A.T.A.
Mr. Noble: All I was told was that Caledonian/B.U.A. are jointly seeking lower fares.
I will end by referring to the relevant point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), although I

Division No. 46.]

AYES

11.33 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Boscawen, H. T.

Clark, William (Surrey, East)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Bowden, Andrew

Clegg, Walter

Astor, John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Cockeram, Eric

Atkins, Humphrey

Braine, Bernard

Cooke, Robert

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Bray, Ronald

Coombs, Derek

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Brewis, John

Cooper, A. E.

Balniel, Lord

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Batsford. Brian

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Cormack, Patrick

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Costain, A. P.

Bell, Ronald

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Critchley, Julian

Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

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

Crouch, David

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Buck, Antony

Crowder, F. P.

Benyon, W.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Curran, Charles

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Biffen, John

Carlisle, Mark

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Biggs-Davison, John

Chapman, Sydney

Dean, Paul

Blaker, Peter

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Body, Richard

Churchill, W. S.

Dixon, Piers

think he got it seriously wrong. I have known many industries—for example, the railways—which were at one time in private enterprise and became nationalised and seemed to be moving backwards and forwards. It is vital for the success of any industry, whether private or nationalised, to have the loyalty and support of its staff. In all the months when we have been connected with Caledonian and B.U.A. I have seen nothing to indicate that the staff are not as likely to feel just as strongly about Caledonian/B.U.A. as B.O.A.C. staff feel about their airline. When this new operation starts I am certain that its success will be assured in direct relationship to the way in which the staff feel themselves to be part of the new airline. I am certain that this is also Mr. Thomson's view.
Mr. Ogden: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say whether there is any truth in reports that he is considering transferring or has already decided to transfer from B.E.A. to the new force United Kingdom to Paris routes? He is very good at saying that time and time again he has given certain assurances, and he is equally good at refusing to answer questions which have been asked time and time again.
Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well—and I have been perfectly frank with the House and in Committee—that we have looked at a number of routes of all descriptions. It is right to announce to the House what is decided and not what has been looked at.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 221.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kershaw, Anthony

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Kilfedder, James

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Drayson, G. B.

Kimball, Marcus

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Dykes, Hugh

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kinsey, J. R.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Elliot, Capt. Walter(Carshalton)

Kirk, Peter

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Emery, Peter

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Eyre, Reginald

Knox, David

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fell, Anthony

Lane, David

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fanner, Mrs. Peggy

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rost, Peter

Fidler, Michael

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Royle, Anthony

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Le Marchant, Spencer

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Fookes, Miss Janet

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

Scott, Nicholas

Fortescue, Tim

Longden, Gilbert

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fowler, Norman

Loveridge, John

Sharpies, Richard

Fox, Marcus

MacArthur, Ian

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

Fry, Peter

McCrindle, R. A.

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

McLaren, Martin

Simeons, Charles

Gibson-Watt, David

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Soref, Harold

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Speed, Keith

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Spence, John

Goodhart, Philip

Madel, David

Sproat, Iain

Gorst, John

Marten, Neil

Stainton, Keith

Gower, Raymond

Mather, Carol

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grant, Antony (Harrow, C.)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Steel, David

Gray, Hamish

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Green, Alan

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Grieve, Percy

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Miscampbell, Norman

Stokes, John

Gryils, Michael

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

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Gummer, Selwyn

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Tapsell, Peter

Gurden, Harold

Moate, Roger

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Molyneaux, James

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Money, Ernie

Tebbit, Norman

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Temple, John M.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Monro, Hector

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

More, Jasper

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Haselhurst, Alan

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Hastings, Stephen

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Tilney, John

Havers, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Hay, John

Mudd, David

Trew, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Murton, Oscar

Tugendhat, Christopher

Heseltine, Michael

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Hicks, Robert

Neave, Airey

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Higgins, Terence L.

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Vickers, Dame Joan

Hiley, Joseph

Normanton, Tom

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

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

Nott, John

Walters, Dennis

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Onslow, Cranley

Ward, Dame Irene

Holt, Miss Mary

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Warren, Kenneth

Hooson, Emlyn

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Weatherill, Bernard

Hordern, Peter

Osborn, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Howell, David (Guildford)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Wiggin, Jerry

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Percival, Ian

Wilkinson, John

Hunt, John

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pink, R. Bonner

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pounder, Rafton

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

James, David

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Woodnutt, Mark

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Worsley, Marcus

Jessel, Toby

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Younger, Hn. George

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Raison, Timothy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Jopling, Michael

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Redmond, Robert

Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Kellett. Mrs. Elaine

NOES

Abse, Leo

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Carmichael, Nell

Albu, Austen

Boardman, H. (Leith)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Booth, Albert

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Ashton, Joe

Bradley, Tom

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Atkinson, Norman

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

Cohen, Stanley

Barnes, Michael

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

Coleman, Donald

Barnett, Joel

Brown,Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)

Concannon, J. D.

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Buchan, Norman

Conlan, Bernard

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Bishop, E. S.

Cant, R. B.

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

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Dalyell, Tam

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

Pendry, Tom

Davidson, Arthur

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Pentland, Norman

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Prescott, John

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Judd, Frank

Probert, Arthur

Deakins, Eric

Kaufman, Gerald

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Kelley, Richard

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Kerr, Russell

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Dempsey, James

Kinnock, Neil

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Doig, Peter

Lambie, David

Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Dormand, J. D.

Lamond, James

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Latham, Arthur

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

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lawson, George

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Leadbitter, Ted

Roper, John

Dunn, James A.

Leonard, Dick

Rose, Paul B.

Dunnett, Jack

Lestor, Miss Joan

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Eadie, Alex

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Loughlin, Charles

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

Ellis, Tom

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

English, Michael

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Evans, Fred

Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson

Sillars, James

Fernyhough, E.

McBride, Neil

Silverman, Julius

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

McCann, John

Skinner, Dennis

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McCartney, Hugh

Small, William

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

McElhone, Frank

Spearing, Nigel

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

McGuire, Michael

Spriggs, Leslie

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Stallard, A. W.

Foley, Maurice

Mackie, John

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Foot, Michael

Mackintosh, John P.

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Ford, Ben

Maclennan, Robert

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Forrester, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Strang, Gavin

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Gilbert, Dr. John

Marquand, David

Swain, Thomas

Ginsburg, David

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Taverne, Dick

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Meacher, Michael

Tinn, James

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Tomney, Frank

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mendelson, John

Torney, Tom

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Mikardo, Ian

Tuck, Raphael

Hamling, William

Millan, Bruce

Urwin, T. W.

Hardy, Peter

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Varley, Eric G.

Harper, Joseph

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Molloy, William

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wallace, George

Hattersley, Roy

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Watkins, David

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Weitzman, David

Heffer, Eric S.

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Wellbeloved, James

Hilton, W. S.

Moyle, Roland

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Horam, John

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Murray, Ronald King

Whitehead, Philip

Huckfield, Leslie

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

O'Halloran, Michael

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

O'Malley, Brian

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Orme, Stanley

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Oswald, Thomas

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Hunter, Adam

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Woof, Robert

Janner, Greville

Palmer, Arthur

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

Parker, John (Dagenham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Mr. John Golding and

John, Brynmor

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFI- CATION OF MEMBERS) BILL (changed from LOCAL GOVERN- MENT (QUALIFICATION OF COUNCILLORS) BILL)
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFI- CATION OF MEMBERS) BILL (changed from LOCAL GOVERN- MENT (QUALIFICATION OF COUNCILLORS) BILL)
  New Clause 1

    RIGHT TO INSPECT NOMINATION PAPERS, ETC.
    (1) After rule 10 of the Local Elections Rules in Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be inserted the following rule:—
    '10A. Any person may, at all reasonable times after the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers and before the day of election, inspect and take copies of and extracts from nomination papers and consents to nomination.'.
    (2) After Rule 9 of the Scottish Local Election Rules in Schedule 3 to the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be inserted the following rule:
    'Right to inspect nomination papers
    9A. Any person may, at all reasonable times after the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers and before the day of election, inspect and take copies of and extracts from nomination papers.'.
    —[Mr. Carlisle.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.45 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The Clause results from a point raised by the Opposition in Committee, that electors might not know the basis on which someone standing for election to the local council was eligible.
    At present, when the basis of qualification is residence, the person's name would normally appear on the electoral roll. In those few cases where a person had a qualification of residence but his name did not appear on the electoral roll, the public would know the basis of the claim to be eligible to stand because of the requirement that his home address should be on his nomination paper and the details made public.
    The Bill adds two new grounds of qualification—occupation of property or having a principal place of work within the area of a local authority; and the
    1282
    names of people who claim the latter form of qualification would not appear on the electoral roll. Although the nomination paper and the statement of the persons nominated which have to be given by the returning officer would have to contain the home address of that person, it would not show the basis of qualification by which a person with a home address outside the area of the local authority claimed to be able to stand for the council. That information would have to be given to the returning officer by means of the consent to nomination form, which must contain a statement by the person wishing to stand that to the best of his belief he is qualified to stand for election to the council and give the particulars on which that qualification is based.
    Both sides in Committee agreed that it was reasonable that people should know, and have the opportunity to know, the basis on which a person standing for the council claimed to be qualified, and we undertook to see to that on Report. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) put forward a new Clause in Committee with that object.
    The purpose of this Clause is to give anyone the right, between the date when nominations are closed and the end of business on the day before the election, to see not only the nomination paper but also the consent to nomination form, so as to check on the basis of qualification claimed by the candidate. I think that this meets wholly the spirit of the new Clause moved in Committee by the Opposition. I do not criticise them for it in any way, but it was not correctly drafted.
    I think that it is a fair new Clause and that it will cause little practical difficulty to returning officers or anyone wishing to stand for a council. I believe that it will give the public who are asked to vote anyone to a council the knowledge to which they are entitled of the qualifications of that person.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting the point we made in Committee that there should be a right of inspection.
    There is no need for me to go over the ground again, but there is also the point raised later on in our Committee discussion by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen)

    1283
    that the borough address should appear on the form, because when postal districts were given it was possible to give the impression that a person lived in a borough even though, in fact, he lived outside. The hon. Gentleman even gave us suggestions on how this might be done, in c. 339 of the Committee HANSARD. Did this prove too difficult, or did he, on reflection, think that this should not be done?
    Mr. Carlisle: I still do not think that this would be justified—this was to go on the nomination form itself—since this further information will now be available. But since this has been raised again, before the Bill reaches another place we will consider again whether this is necessary.
    Mr. Rees: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. If he would look again at c. 339, we should be grateful.
    Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, North-field): I am sorry to have to detain the House at this time of night. I had two Amendments down which, unfortunately, were not called. I rise to relate my points to this Amendment, No. 12—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Not on this Clause.
    Mr. Kenneth Marks: The Government have Argued that the final choice was the electors' that they would know that candidates did not live in the area. But it was not a habit of those elected who had a business in the area to inform the electors that they lived outside. We sought in Committee to provide that information about place of residence was put on the polling notice outside the polling station, and suggested that in big city areas, where the postal area far exceeded the borough area, the district of residence should go on the notice. Does the Clause provide that the home address should go on the notice of poll? [Interruption.] I understand that that is being considered.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  Clause 1

    ALTERNATIVE QUALIFICATIONS FOR NOMINATION AND ELECTION TO, AND MEMBERSHIP OF, LOCAL AUTHORITIES
    Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 18.
    I hope that it will be convenient at the same time to discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4) since Amendment No. 1 is merely a paving Amendment.
    The Amendments would delete what was the interpretation provision, Clause 1(4), which would have defined "tenant" as including "statutory tenant", and "principal place of work" by reference to the time anyone had spent working in a particular local authority area as against any other such area. In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) put forward many different examples of people who were at various times in the areas of different local authorities, and his wisdom persuaded me that the attempt to define created more problems than it solved.
    I took the view, as did the Committee generally, that it would be better to delete the interpretation and leave it to the court to decide the interpretation from the simple commonsense point of view, should the matter ever go before a court. This would be on the basis that if asked where his place of work was, the average person—this would go for the vast majority of people—would have no difficulty in saying at once where it was, whereas there might be difficulty if one had to decide the point on the basis of the interpretation provision which was written into the Bill, with its reference to the amount of time spent at the place of work.
    As for Amendment No. 5, it has been decided that the first part of subsection (4), which said:
    " 'tenant' includes a statutory tenant"
    is unnecessary. The term "statutory tenant" is well known where domestic tenancies are concerned, and this term would not seem appropriate in connection with the 1954 Act when dealing with business tenancies. Again, this

    1285
    Amendment meets a point which was made in Committee.
    Mr. David Weitzman: I congratulate the Government on having had the wisdom to accept the arguments which my hon. Friends and I adduced in Committee. We are grateful for the Amendment, which makes the provision much more satisfactory in that the lawyers are left to see that things are properly done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'additional'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following Amendments: No. 14, in line 20, leave out 'additional'; No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'additional'; and No. 7, in line 39, leave out 'additional'.
    Mr. Carlisle: That is convenient, as the four Amendments taken together delete the word "additional" where it appears in the Bill. This is, therefore, a drafting Amendment. The word "additional" is wholly tautologous in that it refers to additional subsections being added to the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 14, in page 1, line 20. leave out 'additional'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
    12 midnight.
    Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert:
    '(bb) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert:
    '(ab) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.
    No. 8, in page 4, line 15, after principal', insert 'or only'.
    No. 9, in line 46, after 'principal', insert 'or only'.
    1286
    No. 10, in line 47, after 'resided";' insert 'the words "the whole of" shall be deleted;'.
    Mr. Carlisle: This concludes the Government Amendments. The purpose of this group is to rewrite subsection (2) (bb) in regard to the phrase "principal place of work". This meets a point made in Committee by hon. Members who argued that the use of the words "whole of" in the definition of place of work was unsuitable. On reflection the Government agree, and the Amendment merely replaces what was to have been the definition, that somebody was required to have spent
    "the whole of the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate".
    Instead, the provision will say
    "his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority".
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for having considered this point and for having come to the same conclusion as we did. Our joy is somewhat diminished by the fact that the Bill still refers to "a place of work" rather than "a place of employment." It would be proper for the House to be aware that it is possible for a person to qualify to stand as a candidate not because he is employed in a certain local authority area but because he is doing work which may amount to only an hour or two a day and which may be voluntary or little more than recreational activity. We consider that to be an unrealistic basis for giving a person a right to nomination. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concession.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 and insert:
    '(ab) his principal or only place of work in the twelve months preceding the day on which he is nominated as a candidate has been in the area of the local authority; or'.
    Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
    Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'additional'.
    Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'additional'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 8, at end insert:
    (8) A person shall not be disqualified under section 59 of the Local Government Act 1933 from being a member of any authority for which he is eligible to be a candidate—

    (a) by reason only of his being employed by a joint authority of local authorities and that the local authority for which he is eligible appoints delegates to that joint authority or

    (b) that he is an employee of a local authority which is an excepted district under the Education Act 1944.

    In Committee we dealt with the narrower point of teachers in this context, but we have broadened the matter now because we feel very strongly about it. It is related to what we said on Second Reading in relation to the Government's greatly increasing the number of people who would have the right of nomination even if they did not live in the local authority area but only worked there. We pointed to the lack of right to stand for election to local authorities because of the growth of joint local authority undertakings—boards, transport and other undertakings, colleges of technology and the like. This decreases the opportunity far beyond anything envisaged in Section 59 (2) of the 1933 Act.
    The Under-Secretary said in Committee that while he understood that our debates on the subject were in order and was not abrogating to himself the job of Chairman of the Committee, our side had not dealt with the matter in the past. To that we replied that we had not introduced a Measure which brought into qualification large numbers of people who did not live in the area concerned on the ground that there was need to bring fresh blood into local government.
    By our Amendment we seek again to deal with the situation where just because a number of authorities are joined together in a water undertaking or the like someone is effectively prevented from nomination for the council in the area in which he lives. In particular, we come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) about excepted districts.
    1288
    In the debate on 7th May, 1958, the then Mr. Chuter Ede referred to the 1944 Education Act, and said:
    "We contended that we had left the teachers who were serving on the council which became an excepted district council free for election to that body."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1278.]
    That was the intention in the 1944 Act.
    This point has been returned to again and again, and we ask it of the hon. Gentleman again at this late stage. He has greatly increased the number of people who can be nominated for a local authority. Yet there are people of great ability who the Government say, because of the fortuitous arrangements which are made for education, water, and so on, cannot be dealt with now but must be left for some later occasion. That is not a valid argument when the Government have dealt with so many people in the Bill. I hope that we shall hear words of reason from the Under-Secretary. It was an excellent Committee. Surely on this one point, at this pitch of the night, the hon. Gentleman will undertake to meet us.
    Mr. Weitzman: I greatly regret that this important Amendment has to be discussed at this late hour. In Committee we on this side put forward a strong case for teachers and employees of a council qualifying to be elected to the council. The Under-Secretary did not resist our argument, but he pointed out that it was a serious matter which should be discussed. It was pointed out to him that Sir Edward Boyle made this statement in 1958:
    "I can give the House an undertaking that the Government will consider the position of all local government employees and if, as a result of further review, it seems that a change in the law ought to be made, no doubt a suitable occasion could be found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1297.]
    It was suggested from this side that as this was a Bill dealing with the qualification of persons to be elected to councils it was an ideal vehicle in which the promise made by Sir Edward Boyle could be fulfilled. The way in which the Under-Secretary resisted the inclusion of the Amendment was by saying that it was not the proper way in which it should be done. A promise was made as long ago as 1958. Nothing has been done about it by either a Tory Government or a Labour Government. The Tory Government now have a good opportunity of

    1289
    carrying through something which cannot be resisted on the merits.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has restricted the Amendment to excepted districts under the Education Act and in the words used in paragraph (a) of the Amendment. I rather object to my hon. Friend's not having gone the whole hog. However, this is something. I hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he repents of the argument that he has put forward and will do his duty and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Carter: I apologise for my earlier intervention [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because I think it is necessary to apologise.
    A constituent of mine is vitally affected by the Clause. I ask that not only teachers but other officers in local government should be considered. My constituent has been selected to fight for the Labour Party in the municipal elections in Birmingham next year. He is the dental officer for the Warley Borough Council, which is Conservative-controlled. He has been told by the authority that if he is elected he will be sacked.
    I ask the Government to extend to this man the same privileges as are being extended to others by the Bill, most of whom are employers. If the Under-Secretary accepts the Amendment to grant exemptions to teachers, I ask him to grant them to other local authority employees and, if he does so, to circularise local authorities, particularly the Warley Borough Council, asking them to make it possible for their employees to stand as and perform their services as members of local authorities.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: In Committee on 1st December, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) raised a point to which he received no specific answer.
    A constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Giles, is a member of the staff of the Newport and Monmouthshire College of Technology. He is a resident of the county borough of Newport and is included in the town's electoral roll. Is he permitted to stand for the council in the Newport borough? It appears that the town clerk has some doubt about whether the gentleman is eligible. I hope that the Minister can clear up this point.
    Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: At this hour it is wrong that such an important matter should be brought before the House. It is a disgrace that the Government cannot organise their business so that we can discuss it at a reasonable hour.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the honeyed words coming from the benches opposite. It would be a pity to breach a long-established principle for the sake of these hard cases. It is a much wider issue. Hon. Members will recall the perturbation caused when the previous Administration gave permission for certain polytechnic staff to stand for election to their employing authorities.
    The words quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) do not commit anyone to do more than consider at the appropriate time. The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly castigated his own party for not dealing with this matter when it took away certain rights of people to stand for election. This Bill restores the position, with a slight addition resulting from the first Maud Report.
    If there is a case for examination of the two cases raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), this is not the vehicle for that sort of change. We would be merely tinkering with the matter if we allowed employees of two—
    Mr. Weitzman: Would not the hon. Gentleman castigate his Government for not taking the earliset opportunity to correct an injustice.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am tempted to say what a pity it was that they did not restore the business vote as well. However, I am content for that to come in its Own good time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    There are some grounds for arguing that employees should be eligible to stand for any kind of authority, but it should not be tacked on to this small Measure. The ideal time will be when we come to deal with the major questions of local Government reform, and that will be done in the context of the White Paper that we have been promised.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Present on the Treasury Bench are representatives of the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Department of the Civil Service. In a matter which is particularly relevant to local government reform, and in view of its implications for local government reform, I cannot understand why there is no representative of the Department of the Environment, which has to consider these matters.
    Recently I had occasion to table a Question on regional policy to the Department of Trade and Industry, only to find that the Department of the Environment insisted on horning in on it and giving me an answer which I did not wish to have on regional policy in relation to the environment.
    The Under-Secretary of State, a very courteous man, is helping us as much as he can. I hope that he will now tell us why, on an important matter of this kind closely relevant to the reform of local government into which the Department of the Environment purports to be inquiring, we do not have present the Secretary of State or one of the many junior Ministers in his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) put it to the Prime Minister today that there were too many of them, and the right hon. Gentleman said that there were enough. May we be told why one is not here now to keep a watching brief on a matter so closely related to the reform of local government? Inevitably, when local government is reformed the Department of the Environment will have to take account of the various aspects of the matter which are being discussed tonight.
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Carlisle: I have a certain sympathy with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) when he asked why we should be debating a matter of this importance at this hour of the morning. With respect, I take that point, and I then lead on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). This issue raises wide and important considerations. We discussed them in detail in Committee on their merits. I said then, and I must repeat now, that it is the Government's view that, important
    1292
    and wide-ranging as these questions of disqualification are, the present Bill is not the right vehicle for that broader debate or for the proposed change.
    We cannot attempt to make amendments piecemeal in relation to the difficult problems of disqualification for standing for election to local councils. These matters, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Environment, and they are, I submit, matters which must be looked at in a far wider context than an attempt piecemeal to amend Section 59 of the Act.
    Mr. Weitzman: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter is of such importance, and the view which he is putting is of such significance, that the House should have an opportunity to discuss whether he is right or wrong, or whether the change should be made now?
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we have been overtaken by events, by the growth of such bodies as joint water boards? It is possible that a member of staff of a water authority in a county constituency lives in a city constituency, and, by virtue of his residential qualification, he would be able to stand for his city authority, though because of the growth of joint water boards he is disqualified, having been overtaken by events. Is not that an injustice which should be put right?
    Mr. Carlisle: With respect, that is the point on which the Amendment is mainly based. It refers in particular to joint authorities. I must resist the Amendment. It raises the whole question of disqualification for standing for local councils, which, as I say, is a matter for the Department of the Environment, not for the Home Office, and not one which can be dealt with by piecemeal Amendment of this kind.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) raised a constituency matter. There is no legislation at present requiring employers to permit members of their staff to have time to attend council meetings. This was considered by the Maud Committee on the Management of Local Government,

    1293
    which concluded that it would be impracticable to compel employers to release staff or to legislate in this field. We have no evidence to suggest that employers generally are being unhelpful about the release of staff, and we do not believe that this is a situation which legislation would help.
    As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), he is right when he says that I did not answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say that on that day he was trying to serve on two separate Committees and, having raised that point, he unfortunately had to leave when I was speaking and that was probably why I failed to deal with it. My answer would not necessarily have been helpful. All I can say is that it is an extremely difficult question whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent is or is not entitled to stand for this local authority. All I can suggest is that he should write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Under-Secretary is, as always, particularly courteous to the House. He has referred to the Department of the Environment. Can we be informed why the Department is not represented on the Front Bench on this Bill which is totally relevant to the Department? I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House is here, another courteous hon. Gentleman. Cannot someone from the Department be sent for so that this can be taken up?
    Mr. Carlisle: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is a Home Office Bill covering England and Scotland. I am here representing the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is here representing the Scottish Office. He cannot, with respect, ask that every Minister should be represented throughout any Bill in case at any time any point is raised affecting his Department. He must accept that the people in the Department of the Environment are capable of reading HANSARD.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Could I point out the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is, as I understand it, responsible for local government in Wales but—
    1294
    [Interruption.]—there is no one present from his Department?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am afraid that in the noise I did not catch that point. The only Amendment being considered, and all the discussion, despite the presence of some Welsh Members, is related to Scotland and England. Anyone who was on the Committee knows that Welsh matters were adequately dealt with.
    Having said that this is not a matter which the Government believe to be capable of being dealt with in this way, I must also say that I am advised that this Amendment is based on a misunderstanding of what the law is with regard to disqualification on joint authorities. I am told that a person employed by a joint authority of local authorities such as a joint water board is not disqualified by virtue of Section 59 from being elected a member of a constituent authority of the board. I gather that he would be disqualified from being appointed a member of the committee but he is apparently not disqualified by Section 59 from being a member of any one of the constituent local authorities.
    What I understand normally happens is that it is the practice to provide in the Instrument setting up the water board that the person shall not stand. Section 59 with which this Amendment attempts to deal is not a Section on which a person's disqualification from being a member of that joint authority is based.
    As to the second part of the Amendment, in Committee I conceded that this raised a difficulty. It appears that the teacher is caught by the excepted district as well as the main employing authority and it may be that a teacher in the area of a county council is able to stand neither for the county council nor for the district council of the area in which he lives if the district council is an excepted district for education purposes under the county council.
    I have never disputed that there is a considerable point in what the hon. Member said with regard to this double disqualification. I can only repeat, and urge on the House, that these matters are extremely complex. They should be looked at in the whole matter of disqualification. They raise matters on which, as we heard in Committee, people have many arguments on the merits on

    1295
    both sides. I must, therefore, ask the House to resist the Amendment at this stage.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: At the seventh and last Sitting of the Committee, when we dealt with this matter, the Under-Secretary courteously promised, at col. 334, to discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I would like to know, and I am sure that the House would like

    Division No. 47.]

    AYES

    [12.25 a.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Golding, John

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, East)

    Molloy, William

    Ashton, Joe

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Barnes, Michael

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Barnett, Joel

    Hamling, William

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Hardy, Peter

    Moyle, Roland

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Bishop, E, S.

    Hattersley, Roy

    Murray, Ronald King

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Booth, Albert

    Heffer, Eric S.

    O'Malley, Brian

    Bradley, Tom

    Hilton, W. S.

    Orme, Stanley

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

    Horam, John

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Palmer, Arthur

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Pendry, Tom

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Hunter, Adam

    Pentland, Norman

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Janner, Greville

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

    Prescott, John

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Probert, Arthur

    Cohen, Stanley

    John, Brynmor

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Coleman, Donald

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

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jones, Barry, Flint, E.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Judd, Frank

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roper, John

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kerr, Russell

    Rose, Paul B.

    Davits, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lambie, David

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Lamond, James

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

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

    Latham Arthur

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Deakins, Eric

    Lawson, George

    Sillars, James

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Leonard, Dick

    Silverman, Julius

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dempsey, James

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Small, William

    Doig, Peter

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Dormand, J. D.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Dunn, James A.

    McBride, Neil

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Dunnett, Jack

    McCann, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Eadie, Alex

    McCartney, Hugh

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McElhone, Frank

    Swain, Thomas

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McGuire, Michael

    Taverne, Dick

    Ellis, Tom

    Mackie, John

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

    English, Michael

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Tinn, James

    Evans, Fred

    Maclennan, Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Torney, Tom

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

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Urwin, T. W.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Marquand, David

    Varley, Eric G.

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Foot, Michael

    Meacher, Michael

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Ford, Ben

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Wallace, George

    Forrester, John

    Mendelson, John

    Watkins, David

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Millan, Bruce

    Weitzman, David

    to know, whether that conversation has yet taken place and, if so, with what result.
    Mr. Carlisle: Obviously, what I said in Committee has been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 229.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Woof, Robert

    Mr. Kenneth Marks.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Normanton, Tom

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Nott, John

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Gurden, Harold

    Onslow, Cranley

    Astor, John

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Osborn, John

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bell, Ronald

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Percival, Ian

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Havers, Michael

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Biffen, John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hay, John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Blaker, Peter

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Hicks, Robert

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Body, Richard

    Higgine, Terence L.

    Raison, Timothy

    Boscawen, Robert

    Hiley, Joseph

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Bossom, Sir Clive

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

    Redmond, Robert

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Bray, Ronald

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Brewis, John

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hunt, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Buck, Antony

    James, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rost, Peter

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Jessel, Toby

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Carlisle, Mark

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Jopling, Michael

    Sharples, Richard

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

    Churchill, W. S.

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Simeons, Charles

    Clegg, Walter

    Kilfedder, James

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

    Cockeram, Eric

    Kimball, Marcus

    Soref, Harold

    Cooke, Robert

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Spence, John

    Coombs, Derek

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Sproat, Iain

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kirk, Peter

    Stainton, Keith

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Knox, David

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Critchley, Julian

    Lane, David

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Crouch, David

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Stokes, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Curran, Charles

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Tapsell, Peter

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Dean, Paul

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Loveridge, John

    Tebbit, Norman

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    MacArthur, Ian

    Temple, John M.

    Dixon, Piers

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Drayson, G. B.

    McLaren, Martin

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Tilney, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Madel, David

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Emery, Peter

    Mather, Carol

    Trew, Peter

    Eyre, Reginald

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Fell, Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Fidler, Michael

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Walters, Dennis

    Fookes, Miss Janet

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

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fowler, Norman

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Fox, Marcus

    Moate, Roger

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Molyneaux, James

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Monro, Hector

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Goodhart, Philip

    More, Jasper

    Wilkinson, John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Gorst, John

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Gower, Raymond

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Murton, Oscar

    Gray, Hamish

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Green, Alan

    Neave, Airey

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Grieve, Percy

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Mr. Keith Speed.

  Schedule

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 3 TO THE REPRESENTA TION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (SCOTTISH LOCAL ELECTIONS RULES)
    Amendments made: No. 8, in page 4, line 15, after 'principle', insert 'or only'.
    No. 9, in page 4, line 46, after 'principal', insert 'or only'.
    No. 10, in page 4, line 47, after 'resided";' insert 'the words
    "the whole of" shall be deleted;'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
    12.38 a.m.
    Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I propose to be very brief, as I think that anyone who knows that there were seven full sittings on a one-Clause Bill will appreciate that the Bill was debated fairly thoroughly in Committee.
    I will restate the Bill's purpose, which is to provide two new qualifications for people who wish to stand for election to local authorities: first, if they occupy property within the area of a local authority, and, second, if they have their place of work within the area of that local authority.
    The Bill widens the field from which candidates for election can be chosen. It recognises that a person can have an interest in the area in which he works just as much as an interest in the area in which he lives, and it will give those who wish to serve their fellow citizens in the capacity of councillor the opportunity to do so. The Bill, when implemented, will enable many people serving on local councils who have given many years' service to their localities to continue to provide that service.
    We have been told throughout that this is a controversial Bill. I cannot see why the Opposition should take that view. I should have thought that a Bill which aimed to enable people who work in an area and have an interest in it to stand in that area for election to the council would have been welcomed by everybody. I am surprised that the Opposition are apparently determined to express their objection to the Bill, and to argue that we should prevent such people from standing as councillors.
    12.40 a.m.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Bill was born out of two ideas. The first was to end the Representation of the People Act, 1969, which itself ended the property qualification for membership of local authorities. This is a retrograde step, but I note that the Government at least have not brought back the property qualification franchise. The second idea was that the Redcliffe-Maud Report argued that people should have an interest in the area in which they work, and thus the Bill extends the franchise to the local government area in which people work.
    It is odd that the Minister should think it wrong that we should object to the extension of the qualifications to people who are now debarred by the 1933 Act and subsequent legislation from standing for election to local authorities. It may be that one reason why the Government did not give the vote to the property-qualified person was that those who work in the area would also have to be given the vote, which would raise great problems.
    We have lost on the main point of "one man, one vote", but we believe that even in local government it will come back to this. We can only regret that the Government have sought to widen the field of candidature for local authorities in this way when they have not been prepared to widen the field by dealing with disqualifications under the 1933 Act. It only reinforces my view that the extension to those who work is only window-dressing to cover the need of the Government to bring back the property qualification by the use of a new word "occupation".
    The Bill was born of incompatible parentage and cannot deal with the problems of local government. The Bill will continue after local government reform, when the areas will be very much larger, which would have solved many of the problems of people who, because of suburban development, live just outside the borough in which they formerly lived. It is a bad Bill, it tinkers for party advantage, and that is why we shall vote against it.
    12.43 a.m.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: The Bill applies to Scotland, and it should not do so. A

    1301
    Scottish Minister is sitting on the Government Benches and he has said nothing about Scotland. In answer to previous questions about Amendments, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department misled the House on the Scottish issue. He referred to water hoards in England and Wales. So far as his answer related to England and Wales it was accurate, but so far as it related to Scotland it was inaccurate.
    People who are employed in water boards in Scotland are statutorily prohibited from standing for election to local authorities which are covered by the 13 water boards in Scotland. The Scottish Minister can contradict or substantiate what I say. The Bill as applied to Scotland is construed to the Tory Party's advantage to relate not to the whole of Scotland but to a few local authorities.
    Mr. Carlisle: I would point out that the Amendment moved by the Opposition deliberately limited itself to England and Wales and did not refer to Scotland.
    Mr. Douglas: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but there was an indication that it would not apply to water boards and it looked as if it would apply comprehensively.
    The Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench might argue that the Government have a mandate in Scotland for the Bill. They certainly have no moral mandate in Scotland. The legislation applies to a few local authorities and to a few Tory councillors who wish to maintain an advantage.
    There is a spurious attachment in the Bill to the matter of employment, but the real matter to which the Bill relates is ownership of property or business. That is what we object to. We argue that if there is to be comprehensive reform of local government, legislation such as this has no place in this House.
    12.46 a.m.
    Mr. Marks: The Bill in no way increases the number of people eligible to become councillors. Every single person affected by its provisions already has the right to stand for the council in the area in which he or she lives. Our Amendment which sought to give a right to those people who cannot stand for any council has been defeated by the Government. The Bill gives people with property or
    1302
    occupational interests the right to stand for council. The Bill is bad because this area is so difficult to define. The only people who will not benefit from the Bill are the housewives who do not go out to work and the people who live and work in the same borough. The Bill has been brought in for political reasons, and we shall vote against it.
    12.48 a.m.
    Mr. Alec Jones: I am sorry to intervene at this late stage—
    Hon. Members: Why bother?
    Mr. Jones: It seems to meet with the disapproval of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should be kept here until 10 minutes to one o'clock to discuss a Bill which is of some importance for a large number of people.
    I would not have intervened had the hon. Gentleman in moving the Third Reading not said that the Bill was intended to enable people with an interest in a particular area to serve the local authority in that area. I suggest that that is only partially true. What the Bill really does is to give to certain people the opportunity to serve on two local authorities, either the local authority in whose area they live or the local authority in whose area they work.
    This is a very bad Bill. Local authority employees are excluded from serving on local authorities by which they are employed. But there is an even stronger case when we come to look at the excepted districts in the matter of education. I represent such a district and was for 13 years a school teacher in such an area. School teachers not only could not serve on that local authority but were denied the right to serve on the county council. That means that whilst the Bill gives some people the opportunity to serve on two local authorities, many thousands of people—school teachers—who have a part to play in the civic life of this country are denied the right to serve on either the local borough authority or the county authority. If the Minister believes that that is right or reasonable, then he must live in a different world from that in which I live.
    12.50 a.m.
    Sir G. de Freitas: It is difficult for this House to deal with these important

    1303
    problems when they are brought before it at this hour of the morning. I very much hope that the Government will not return to this practice.

    Division No. 48.]

    AYES

    [12.51 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Grieve, Percy

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Murton, Oscar

    Astor, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Neave, Airey

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Normanton, Tom

    Balniel, Lord

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Nott, John

    Bell, Ronald

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Berry, Hon. Anthony

    Hastings, Stephen

    Osborn, John

    Biffen, John

    Havers, Michael

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Blaker, Peter

    Hay, John

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Percival, Ian

    Body, Richard

    Hicks, Robert

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Boscawen, R. T.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hiley, Joseph

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Bowden, Andrew

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

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bray, Ronald

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Brewis, John

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Raison, Timothy

    Brocklefoank-Fowler, Christopher

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Redmond, Robert

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

    Hunt, John

    Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

    Buck, Antony

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    James, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Carlisle, Mark

    Jessel, Toby

    Robert, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jopling, Michael

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Rost, Peter

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Clegg, Walter

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Cockeram, Eric

    Kilfedder, James

    Scott, Nicholas

    Cooke, Robert

    Kimball, Marcus

    Sharples, Richard

    Coombs, Derek

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

    Corfield, F. V.

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kirk, Peter

    Simeons, Charles

    Critchley, Julian

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

    Crouch, David

    Knox, David

    Soref, Harold

    Crowder, F. P.

    Lane, David

    Spence, John

    Curran, Charles

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Sproat, Iain

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stainton, Keith

    Dean, Paul

    Le Merchant, Spencer

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Dixon, Piers

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Loveridge, John

    Stokes, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McLaren, Martin

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Eyre, Reginald

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Fell, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Tebbit, Norman

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Madel, David

    Temple, John M.

    Fidler, Michael

    Mather, Carol

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Fowler, Norman

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tilney, John

    Fox, Marcus

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Fry, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Trew, Peter

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Mitchell,Lt.-Co1.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Moate, Roger

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Goodhart, Philip

    Molyneaux, James

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Money, Ernie

    Walters, Dennis

    Gorst, John

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Gower, Raymond

    Monro, Hector

    Warren, Kenneth

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Gray, Hamish

    More, Jasper

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Green, Alan

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Question Put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 196.

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Worsley, Marcus

    Mr. Keith Speed and

    Wilkinson, John

    Younger, Hn. George

    Mr. Jim Fortescue.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hamling, William

    Murray, Ronald King

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Hardy, Peter

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefletd)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Atkinson, Norman

    Hattersley, Roy

    Orme, Stanley

    Barnes, Michael

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Oswald, Thomas

    Barnett, Joel

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Hilton, W. S.

    Palmer, Arthur

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Horam, John

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Booth, Albert

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pendry, Tom

    Bradley, Tom

    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Prescott, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Hunter, Adam

    Probert, Arthur

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Janner, Greville

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Cant, R. B.

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

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    John, Brynmor

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Roper, John

    Coleman, Donald

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Concannon, J. D.

    Judd, Frank

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Kerr, Russell

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

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

    Kinnock, Neil

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Lamble, David

    Sillars, James

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lamond, James

    Silverman, Julius

    Davidson, Arthur

    Latham, Arthur

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Lawson, George

    Small, William

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Spearing, Nigel

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Leonard, Dick

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Stallard, A. W.

    Deakins, Eric

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Loughlin, Charles

    Strang, Gavin

    Dempsey, James

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Doig, Peter

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Swain, Thomas

    Dormand, J. D.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Taverne, Dick

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    McBride, Neil

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

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    McCann, John

    Tinn, James

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McCartney, Hugh

    Tomney, Frank

    Dunn, James A.

    McElhone, Frank

    Torney, Tom

    Dunnett, Jack

    McGuire, Michael

    Urwin, T. W.

    Eadie, Alex

    Mackie, John

    Varley, Eric G.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    Ellis, Tom

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    English, Michael

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Wallace, George

    Evans, Fred

    Marquand, David

    Watkins, David

    Fernyhough, E.

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Weitzman, David

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

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Meacher, Michael

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mendelson, John

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Foot, Michael

    Millan, Bruce

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Ford, Ben

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Forrester, John

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Molloy, William

    Woof, Robert

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Golding, John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grant, John D. (Islingon, E.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Mr. Kenneth Marks.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwetl)

    Moyle, Roland

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEME
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  1.0 a.m.
  Mr. Joseph Hiley: You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the case that I have to state relies entirely on facts, and will not require any embroidery from me.
  Unfortunately, over the last few years, many wool textile mills have closed down because of shortage of demand or rationalisation and mergers. The story that I have to tell is sad and almost incredible. One of my constituents had been an executive director in a worsted spinning mill for about 17 years, and became redundant as a result of a merger in the group. He registered at the local office of the Department of Employment, but soon realised that that was unlikely to find him a suitable job, partly because he was unemployed.
  Because of his graduated pension and his children, he was entitled to benefit of £17-plus a week, but, as an industrious Yorkshireman, he was not content to wait for something to turn up. Learning that there was on the market an old-established export business in Bradford engaged in the sale of woollen and worsted yarns, he considered acquiring it. It would have meant a job for him, and would have saved the taxpayer £17-plus every week. To complete his investigations, he thought it wise to go abroad to investigate the conditions in which the firm operated and what the prospects were for the export of yarns to the Continent.
  He reported his intentions to the manager of the local office of the Department, who told him, promptly and correctly, that if he were absent from Great Britain he could not continue to receive the benefit which he had enjoyed for a few weeks after he became redundant in May. This regulation is one of the original ones concerning unemployment problems and was intended for a category of unskilled labour. It said that those who continued to enjoy the benefit must be capable of and available for work.
  Conditions have changed, as it was made clear to me when I considered this
  1308
  case. Had this man gone to the North of Scotland or the West of England, where there are considerable wool textile interests, it would have taken him longer to return to Yorkshire than from Copenhagen or wherever he went on the Continent to investigate the possibility of making a go of this exporting business.
  In the knowledge that he would be deprived of his £17 or more a week, my constituent decided to go to Scandinavia to look into this matter. He spent 14 days there, and I imagine that that cost him about £280, at £20 a day—plus, of course, the £34 or so he lost by leaving the country. He also decided to visit prospective customers in Germany, where he was involved in a similar expense.
  Instead of being deprived of benefit, this man should have been encouraged to help himself, particularly at a time when he was suffering financial hardship. I doubt whether the countries he visited treat their nationals in the same way.
  I sought an explanation of the attitude that was adopted towards my constituent, and I was told that the strict rules governing people being absent where necessary because of the number of people who were ready to abuse the system. But in this case one could not possibly imagine that my constituent wanted to go abroad to, say, enjoy the winter sports. In any event, if that had been his intention, there are ample ways of getting round the regulations.
  In the old days a man, particularly if unskilled, was asked to explain what steps he had taken to secure employment, what firms he had visited and to whom he had applied for a job. A man in the position of my constituent could similarly be invited to explain where he had been, and in this case there would have been ample evidence from the names of the firms he visited and his passport. If necessary, the Department could always call on our resident consul in the country concerned.
  I have thought a lot about this case and I am ashamed that a Tory Minister should have been prepared to stand by and see a man of this excellent type being discouraged from helping himself. He should not have needed to make additional sacrifices while many are prepared to wait for something to turn up. I submit that it is not in the national

  1309
  interest that a regulation such as the one I have described should be allowed to operate, taking account of the changed circumstances.
  Apart from the national interest, there is clearly a human problem here. I urge my hon. Friend to assist in order to sustain ambitious and industrious individuals. I feel very deeply about this case because I fear that in the present state of the wool textile industry this problem may arise again and again. Our entry into the Common Market may or may not come about, but increasingly one can see opportunities for our own people in various parts of the Continent. For these reasons, I urge a more sympathetic consideration of the problem of my hon. Friend.
  11 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) for raising this important point in regard to the administration of our National Insurance Scheme. It enables me to say to him at once that this Government certainly do intend in every possible way to encourage initiative—to encourage people who wish to stand on their own feet—and that applies as much to social policy as to economic policy. But there are difficulties with regard to the case my hon. Friend has mentioned with which I shall briefly deal.
  My hon Friend said that here was the case of an industrious Yorkshireman—and there are many such in that great county, as I know from personal experience—who, unfortunately, lost his job after a comparatively long period of activity and, therefore, looked round for possibilities of continuing in the type of work to which he was used—wool textiles. Finding no possibilities of similar employment here, he decided to look abroad. I fully understand my hon. Friend when he says that while at home his constituent was able to draw unemployment benefit at the rate of £17 plus, whereas when he went abroad seeking opportunities there he was not able to draw it. I fully understand how my hon. Friend feels about that, but I must remind him and the House of the way in which the regulations, which are all we can now discuss, operate, and the reasons for the control mechanism.
  1310
  My hon. Friend is concerned about the effects of Section 49(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1965, which lays down, among other things, that, except where regulations otherwise provide, a person shall be disqualified from receiving any benefit for any period during which that person is absent from Great Britain. No exceptions have been made for unemployment benefit, and disqualification is absolute for periods spent abroad. General exceptions have been made in regard to long-term benefits—as, for example, widows' benefit and retirement pension—and certain limited exemptions in the case of sickness benefit if the absence is for a specific period and for treatment of the incapacity.
  Let me now tell my hon. Friend and the House how the system works in regard to unemployment benefit and why these restrictions exist at present. First, let me make it clear that all claims are decided by independent adjudicating authorities in strict accordance with the Act and the regulations. The first of these authorities is the insurance officer, and there is right of appeal to the local tribunal and, finally, to the National Insurance Commissioner. Neither the Secretary of State nor anyone else has power to vary their decisions in any way, and the benefit decisions are based on insurance principles and apply equally to all claimants within broad categories of contributors.
  Unemployment benefit is payable only to people with a recent record of work for an employer. Self-employed people are not covered against the risk of unemployment, partly because of the difficulty of control of claims, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and they do not qualify for unemployment benefit.
  A key condition for getting benefit is availability for suitable employment on each day for which benefit is claimed. Availability means more than just being without a job and hence available in the physical sense. The condition calls for a subjective assessment of the claimant's attitude of mind and is difficult to administer even when claimants are in this country and can be contacted quickly should a suitable vacancy occur. The disqualification in Section 49(1) is based on the fact that while abroad a claimant cannot in any real sense be available for employment in this country, because he is not on the spot to take advantage

  1311
  of jobs that may be notified to the employment exchange, attend interviews or otherwise further his employment prospects. The essence of the present system is being available for work and for interview in this country.
  The system is administered through the local offices of the Department of Employment. My hon. Friend said that it is quicker nowadays to get to France than it is to the South-West of England or the North of England. I accept that. I also accept that conditions have changed. Equally, we have even in the remoter parts of these islands our local employment exchanges which are available to do the policing work and to ensure that benefit goes only to those who are entitled to it, whereas we do not have this type of machinery in other countries. This is one of the main reasons why the regulations are as they are.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the question of abuse and made some suggestions which he thought would enable us to ensure that changed regulations would prevent abuse. I assure my hon. Friend that I will carefully consider his suggestions, but he will agree that we should be careful in these days when there is natural concern about the abuse and
  1312
  misuse of social security benefits that we do not introduce changes which, however right they may appear in individual cases, would be either very difficult to police or could be policed only at the price of substantial additional cost and substantial additional staff. We must be very careful that any changes have adequate checks against abuse and misuse.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will think that those are very sound reasons why the receipt of unemployment benefit under present arrangements is restricted to those who are readily available for work and, therefore, are in this country.
  However, I accept that conditions have changed since this provision was introduced. The Government are engaged in examining the whole of the National Insurance arrangements. Although I cannot hold out any firm commitment that it will be possible to make changes in this direction, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that this will be one of the aspects of the arrangements which we shall be examining. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question and for the suggestions that he has made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Republic of Ireland Coinage
  Republic of Ireland Coinage
  Capital Gains
  Capital Gains
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Schoolchildren (Allowances)
  Schoolchildren (Allowances)
  Development Areas (Incentives)
  Development Areas (Incentives)
  Tax-haven countries
  Tax-haven countries
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Overseas Debt
  Overseas Debt
  Single Person's Allowance
  Single Person's Allowance
  Books and Periodicals (Tax Concessions)
  Books and Periodicals (Tax Concessions)
  Deserted Wives (Tax Reliefs)
  Deserted Wives (Tax Reliefs)
  Pay Increases (Policy)
  Pay Increases (Policy)
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Fuel Oil Duty
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Smoking (Advertising Revenue)
  Smoking (Advertising Revenue)
  Gross National Product (International Comparisons)
  Gross National Product (International Comparisons)
  Public Expenditure Projections
  Public Expenditure Projections
  Rating Valuations
  Rating Valuations
  Housing Repairs and Maintenance (Tax Allowance)
  Housing Repairs and Maintenance (Tax Allowance)
  Decimalisation
  Decimalisation
  Overseas Investments
  Overseas Investments
  Selective Employment Tax (Food Sales)
  Selective Employment Tax (Food Sales)
  Whisky (Customs and Excise Credit Terms)
  Whisky (Customs and Excise Credit Terms)
  Saving and Tax Reductions
  Saving and Tax Reductions
  Negative Income Tax
  Negative Income Tax
  Earned Income (Tax Allowances)
  Earned Income (Tax Allowances)
  Cabora Bassa Dam (Finance)
  Cabora Bassa Dam (Finance)
  Gaming, Racing and Taxation Laws
  Gaming, Racing and Taxation Laws
  Nationalised Industries (Government Policy)
  Nationalised Industries (Government Policy)
  Banks (Advances and Overdrafts)
  Banks (Advances and Overdrafts)
  National Saving Certificates (Purchasing Power)
  National Saving Certificates (Purchasing Power)
  Hire-Purchase and Credit-Sale Controls
  Hire-Purchase and Credit-Sale Controls
  Welfare Charges, Fares and Food Prices
  Welfare Charges, Fares and Food Prices
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Electricity Supply Industry (Dispute)
  Electricity Supply Industry (Dispute)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Pay-Roll Tax
  Pay-Roll Tax
  South-West Region
  South-West Region
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Government Spending (Cuts)
  Government Spending (Cuts)
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Ex-Cabinet Ministers (Memoirs)
  Ex-Cabinet Ministers (Memoirs)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Harold Wood Hospital, Havering (Casualty Ward)
  Harold Wood Hospital, Havering (Casualty Ward)
  National Health Service Hospitals (Staff)
  National Health Service Hospitals (Staff)
  West Cumberland
  West Cumberland
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Persons Over 80 (Pensions)
  Persons Over 80 (Pensions)
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Statutory Director of Social Services, Greenwich
  Statutory Director of Social Services, Greenwich
  Supplementary Benefits Offices (Lavatories)
  Supplementary Benefits Offices (Lavatories)
  Hospital, Peterlee
  Hospital, Peterlee
  Whittingham Hospital, Preston
  Whittingham Hospital, Preston
  Directors of Social Services
  Directors of Social Services
  Disablement Benefit Claims (Cumnock)
  Disablement Benefit Claims (Cumnock)
  Medicinal Preparations
  Medicinal Preparations
  Restaurants, Hotels and Snack Bars
  Restaurants, Hotels and Snack Bars
  Patients Medical Records
  Patients Medical Records
  Social Welfare Benefits
  Social Welfare Benefits
  National Health Service (Alcohol)
  National Health Service (Alcohol)
  Hospital Management Committees (Fire Safety Officers)
  Hospital Management Committees (Fire Safety Officers)
  Hospitals (Casualty Wards)
  Hospitals (Casualty Wards)
  Smoking Hazards (Report)
  Smoking Hazards (Report)
  Leeds Regional Hospital Board (Expenditure)
  Leeds Regional Hospital Board (Expenditure)
  Retirement Pensioners, Hamilton
  Retirement Pensioners, Hamilton
  Dental Estimates Board
  Dental Estimates Board
  Supplementary Benefit Offices (Police Action)
  Supplementary Benefit Offices (Police Action)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Supplementary Allowances
  Supplementary Allowances
  Re-establishment Centres
  Re-establishment Centres
  Pensions (Transferability)
  Pensions (Transferability)
  Persons and Dependants (Maintenance)
  Persons and Dependants (Maintenance)
  Royal Free Hospital, London
  Royal Free Hospital, London
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Chemicals (Labelling)
  Chemicals (Labelling)
  Cucumbers
  Cucumbers
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Offshore Gravel Dredging
  Offshore Gravel Dredging
ENVIRONMENT
  British Rail (Finance)
  British Rail (Finance)
  Inter-city Rail Services (Radio Telephones)
  Inter-city Rail Services (Radio Telephones)
  Restaurants, Hotels and Snack Bars
  Restaurants, Hotels and Snack Bars
  Bus Accidents
  Bus Accidents
  Minibus Companies
  Minibus Companies
  Zinc-contaminated Nitric Acid (Dumping)
  Zinc-contaminated Nitric Acid (Dumping)
  Road Programme, Northumberland and Durham
  Road Programme, Northumberland and Durham
  Roads, South-West
  Roads, South-West
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
WALES
  Industrial Waste
  Industrial Waste
  Hospital Beds (Private Patients)
  Hospital Beds (Private Patients)
  Welsh Council (Reports)
  Welsh Council (Reports)
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Development Corporation (Grant)
  Development Corporation (Grant)
  Deaf Children
  Deaf Children
  Children (Dyslexia)
  Children (Dyslexia)
  Roads, Cardiganshire
  Roads, Cardiganshire
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Fee-paying Schools
  Fee-paying Schools
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Farm Units
  Farm Units
  Dulas Valley
  Dulas Valley
  Bus Services, North Wales
  Bus Services, North Wales
  Disabled Persons (Amenities)
  Disabled Persons (Amenities)
  Primary Schools (Building Programme)
  Primary Schools (Building Programme)
  Elderly Persons (Welfare Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Welfare Homes)
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  Small Work Forces
  Small Work Forces
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Cardiganshire
  Cardiganshire
  Disabled Persons (Home Work)
  Disabled Persons (Home Work)
  Wales
  Wales
  Hamilton and Larkhall
  Hamilton and Larkhall
  Local Authorities, Scotland (Employees)
  Local Authorities, Scotland (Employees)
  East Midlands Region
  East Midlands Region
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Prices (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Prices (Ministerial Broadcast)
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Regional Industrial Development
  Regional Industrial Development
  Fuel Supplies (Distribution)
  Fuel Supplies (Distribution)
  Airports (Location)
  Airports (Location)
  National Coal Board (Pit Closures)
  National Coal Board (Pit Closures)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Offshore Tidal Gauges
  Offshore Tidal Gauges
  Oil Slicks
  Oil Slicks
  Oil Refining Capacity
  Oil Refining Capacity
  Consumers' Association
  Consumers' Association
  Noise
  Noise
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia House (Rates)
  Rhodesia House (Rates)
  British Petroleum Oil Exploration (Namibia)
  British Petroleum Oil Exploration (Namibia)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Namibian Nationals (Detention)
  Namibian Nationals (Detention)
  Cambodia (Aid)
  Cambodia (Aid)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Local Authorities (Lotteries)
  Local Authorities (Lotteries)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Petrol Bomb Throwing (Convictions)
  Petrol Bomb Throwing (Convictions)
  Children's Residential Homes, West Riding
  Children's Residential Homes, West Riding
  Children (Legal Age of Responsibility)
  Children (Legal Age of Responsibility)
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Lorries (Overnight Parking)
  Lorries (Overnight Parking)
  United Kingdom Representative, Stormont
  United Kingdom Representative, Stormont
  Legal Aid (Solicitors' Car Allowances)
  Legal Aid (Solicitors' Car Allowances)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Travel Allowances
  Travel Allowances
  PENSIONS (LETTER)
  PENSIONS (LETTER)
  DUBLIN (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS)
  DUBLIN (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS)
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  COUNTY FERMANAGH (VISIT)
  COUNTY FERMANAGH (VISIT)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  SECRETARY OF STAE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STAE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (SPEECH)
  MINISTERS (PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES)
  MINISTERS (PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (SPEECH)
  DIEGO GARCIA ATOLL (NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY)
  DIEGO GARCIA ATOLL (NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY)
  COMPUTERISED DATA BANKS
  COMPUTERISED DATA BANKS
  MEMBERS' LETTERS (REPLIES)
  MEMBERS' LETTERS (REPLIES)
  WORLD DISASTER STOCKPILE
  WORLD DISASTER STOCKPILE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committee (European Economic Community)
  Select Committee (European Economic Community)
  Oral Answers to Questions
  Oral Answers to Questions
  Order Papers
  Order Papers
DEFENCE
  Royal Navy (Strength)
  Royal Navy (Strength)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupils (Annual Cost)
  Pupils (Annual Cost)
  Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education
  Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education
  University Graduates (Employment)
  University Graduates (Employment)
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Netball Association
  Scottish Netball Association
  Economic Development (Ministerial Television Broadcast)
  Economic Development (Ministerial Television Broadcast)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Shaftesbury—Took the Oath.

BRUCELLOSIS TESTS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many diagnostic centres for brucellosis are in operation, and how many diagnoses they carry out per week.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, in all, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Agricultural Colleges operate 30 centres for brucellosis tests. Last month those centres carried out, in total, an average of 69,240 tests per week. This was in addition to tests carried out by organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board and in private veterinary practices, and the laboratory work on the human health aspects of brucellosis.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that the results of these tests reach the farmers in the minimum possible time? Is he aware that a test need take only one hour, but that many farmers are complaining that a period of something like three weeks elapses before they hear the result?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have to be rather careful in answering these questions on brucellosis because, as your Lordships are aware, there are two Questions down on the Order Paper to-day and two on Thursday, and it is rather difficult not to encroach, so to speak, on the ground of other Questions. The noble
1272
Baroness is aware that there are a number of different tests on brucellosis, and although some take a comparatively short time, others take longer. Very often, when you get a positive result on the first test you have to re-check with more sophisticated tests; and sometimes when you get a negative result on the first test, you then have to wait a further period before checking again.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that all the farmer needs is some confirmation of the condition of his cow, which he has kept in isolation all that time, can the noble Lord tell me what is, after all this checking and re-checking, the average time taken for the farmer to learn whether the cow is diseased or not?
LORD DENHAM: Nine days, my Lords.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord ensure that the farmer is given at least as much information as the doctor normally gives his patient?
LORD DENHAM: I think that is probably done, my Lords.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, my information is that there are still very many cases in which a period of three weeks elapses between the time when the sample is taken and the time when the farmer is told the result of the test. I think it is very important—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, could the noble Lord frame his supplementary as a question?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, is not the noble Lord's last answer to my noble friend Lady Summerskill clear evidence that there are not sufficient diagnostic centres at present? Will the Government give an assurance that they will try to increase the number as rapidly as possible?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I can give the assurance that the number of diagnostic centres is being kept under review, and if it is shown that there are not enough Her Majesty's Government will certainly do what they can to increase the number. But I cannot accept the fact,

1273
either that three weeks is the average time that it takes—
LORD KILBRACKEN: The maximum time.
LORD DENHAM: —or that this is due to the fact that there are not enough facilities. The reason why it sometimes takes three weeks is that a second test, and sometimes a third, is necessary before a definite result can be achieved.

BRUCELLOSIS: CONTROL OF INFECTION
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the importance of removing animals infected by brucellosis immediately, to avoid the spread of infection and the disturbance to farm practice by the isolation of the animals concerned.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, once brucellosis has been diagnosed this is an essential precaution on the part of any owner who is concerned to clear his herd. However, as the noble Baroness will know, protracted tests may be needed to establish freedom from brucellosis. It would be wrong either to slaughter a suspect animal or to allow it to rejoin the herd without first completing the precise range of tests needed to determine the presence or absence of this most complex disease.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for that Answer, may I ask him at what time the new scheme is going to come in, so that this great complication of isolation may be avoided?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the compulsory scheme, then I can tell her that in the spring of next year the first areas in which the compulsory scheme will take place will be announced, but the compulsory scheme itself will not start before the autumn.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, do the Government realise that the sooner the compulsory scheme is put into operation the better, both for financial reasons and to avoid the further spread of the disease? Further, can the noble Lord give us any reason why the compulsory scheme should not be put into operation at least by June 1?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords, I can give the noble Lord reasons why. The first is that it is very important to let the voluntary scheme go forward and gain as much impetus as possible before the compulsory scheme comes into being. It is also very important to give the farmers in areas to be covered by the compulsory scheme as much warning as possible—and I think that six months' warning will not be any too long—that their area will be designated as a compulsory area.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory reply, because one of the great difficulties with the voluntary scheme is that there is this long-drawn-out delay before the compulsory scheme comes in, and the people who have entered into the voluntary scheme do not think that they are having a fair crack of the whip?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that people with clean or relatively clean herds who take part in the voluntary scheme will be in a more advantageous position than if they wait for the compulsory scheme.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider the possibility of giving an alternative to the owner of an animal which shows a doubtful reaction, so that that animal can be removed from the farm and slaughtered if the owner so wishes? If, on a post mortem, the result is negative, then full compensation should be paid for the slaughtered animal. If, on the other hand, the result is positive, then the owner will have the satisfaction of knowing that he has removed a source of infection.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am aware of this suggestion, which has been made before, but there are two objections to it. The first objection is that one has to be absolutely certain, before

1275
there is a lot of slaughter, that there are enough free beasts available to replace those slaughtered; and the second is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in trying to eliminate this very unpleasant disease is to place greater emphasis on giving an incentive to farmers in respect of their fit animals rather than compensation for slaughtering reactors.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, if an animal is a possible source of infection, is it not rather a "dog in the manger" attitude to compel a man to keep it on his farm, with all the very great inconvenience involved, as well as the danger of infecting a valuable free herd? Surely, that is a bad position for the Government to adopt.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it would not be practicable at the moment to encourage the slaughter of all animals which react to brucellosis.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the brucella organism was discovered about 1878, does not the noble Lord think that voluntary effort has had a fair chance?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord correctly? Did he say that he did not think it was necessary or desirable at present that all animals which reacted to this disease should be slaughtered? If so, what action does he think should be taken with animals which react to the disease?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, what would be desirable is that all herds that are free, or comparatively free, of brucellosis should take part in the voluntary scheme. For herds that are badly infected, the best thing would be to try with vaccination to cure the herd and to make sure that the disease does not spread.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that a main reactor must be slaughtered; that there is no question of curing it; that the policy of vaccination is one for preventing the spread of the disease and is something quite different?
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, the Government have said that six months' notice should be given to farmers in the designated areas. In view of that can the noble Lord say why
1276
the scheme should not be started on July 1?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, what I said was that it would be fair to let farmers in a particular area know in good time that their area was going to be designated as an area for compulsory eradication of brucellosis so that if they wanted to take part in a voluntary scheme they could do so. So far as the whole question of how brucellosis should be dealt with is concerned, I know that many noble Lords are very concerned about the subject and that a number of them are meeting my right honourable friend early in the New Year to discuss the progress of the voluntary scheme after it has gone on long enough to give some idea of the results. I think that over the future wide policy field it would be best for the moment to leave the matter until this meeting with my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm one thing which he said which sounded to people like me who do not know too much about this subject to be slightly lacking in common sense? He seemed to be saying that where a herd was not seriously infected there was a policy of slaughter; but that where it was seriously infected the policy should be to try to save them.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think that I said that.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the longer the time taken to eradicate the disease the greater is the ultimate cost of eradication?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; but, on the other hand, one must make sure that all the steps taken to eradicate this very serious disease are steps in the right direction.

SHOT-GUN CERTIFICATES
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the use of shot-guns, sawn-off or otherwise, by criminals, to consider asking for the following additional information on application forms

1277
for shot-gun certificates issued under the Firearms Act 1968—

(1) The maker's registered number stamped on each shot-gun; and

(2) The number of shot-guns in the holder's possession.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, to be fully effective, these suggestions would have to be accompanied by changes in the present law, which imposes a control based on the holders of shot-guns rather than on individual weapons. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has asked H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales to review the present arrangements for the control of all kinds of firearms, in consultation with chief officers of police; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be associated with this arrangement. The noble Lord's suggestion will be examined as part of the review.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. In view of the fact that this particular Act was tagged on to the end of the 1937, out-dated Order, does he not think that the whole of this question should, from the Parliamentary point of view, be re-examined?
LORD WENDLESHAM: My Lords, I think it is a very technical question. The Home Office have published some statisstics recently in the paper, Firearms in Crime; but it has been only one full year since shot-guns were brought under the firearms certificate procedure, initially under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which has now been consolidated in the Firearms Act 1968. A review of the type my noble friend has in mind is a first step.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government consider that their present system of Class 1—rifles and other smooth-bore weapons—is really a complete anachronism? As these weapons are used in crime, do not Her Majesty's Government realise that one of the more powerful pistols has an impact energy of about 400 foot-pounds
1278
over a diameter of half an inch; whereas a shot-gun at point-blank range has an impact energy somewhere in the region of 2 foot-tons over about a one-inch diameter? Is it not now an anachronism to try to draw a distinction between small pistols which may have rifled barrels and shot-guns which are smooth-bore and the ammunition for which can be purchased at any ironmongers?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these are considerations which might be borne in mind and which will be included in the review. The difficulty is—and this point was debated at length during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1967—the very widespread use of shotguns. There are something like two million shot-guns in use. The number of rifles and pistols is much smaller.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, would the Government report the results of this review—at any rate to Parliament?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to take note of that suggestion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will take careful note of the points made? Is he aware that clearly there is a great deal of anxiety in the House? Will be consider making a statement on this matter as soon as possible?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly take note of that. My right honourable friend has received representations on this subject and it is for that reason that he has asked, initially, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to make a review in consultation with the chief officers of police. These are the people who have the responsibility for enforcing control. We think that the correct step is to see what the practical implications have been in the couple of years since the law was changed.

RHODESIA: RELEASE OF BLOCKED BANK ACCOUNTS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many blocked Rhodesian bank accounts have been released on information from South African banks that the Rhodesian holders are now resident in South Africa; and what information the Bank of England requires in proof of actual, as distinct from nominal, residence outside Rhodesia.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Bank of England has not kept statistics on the number of blocked Rhodesian bank accounts that have been released in this way since the illegal declaration of independence, but at present it receives about three applications a week for release of assets from people who have changed their residence from Rhodesia. Roughly two-thirds of the applicants have moved to South Africa. In these cases, the Bank of England requires confirmation from a local bank that the South African exchange control authorities regard the applicant as resident there for exchange control purposes.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether this is not a loophole by which many Rhodesians are avoiding the sanctions which are now applied? Is the noble Earl aware that I have evidence of Rhodesians who have blocked accounts in London and who go temporarily to South Africa and open bank accounts there; and then the London banks free their accounts and they return to Rhodesia enjoying those accounts? Could not the Minister insist that no blocked accounts shall be released without proof of at least six months' continuous residence outside Rhodesia?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord may have such facts in his possession. All I can say is that the Bank of England have no evidence that any of the applications they have received are fraudulent, or that any South African institution would assist to operate a device to release blocked funds; for example, by issuing a false statement. If the noble Lord has evidence in his possession which suggests that these regulations are being got round, he should either send the facts in his possession to me, and I will pass them on to my right honourable friend the Chancellor, or he should send them direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, again I thank the Minister. May I ask whether he is aware that I shall be very glad to send him the evidence I have?

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which are no longer of practical utility. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 10), Bill read 3a and passed.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS MEASURE
2.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. This is a very modest little Measure but one of considerable importance to the Church Commissioners. Basically it provides for up to two additional members of the General Purposes Committee and of the Assets Committee of the Church Commissioners. The reason for the change is that experience has shown that a committee of five, which is the present size of the Assets Committee,

1281
is too small to handle the very considerable and increasing volume of work which is connected with the assets of the Church Commissioners. As to the General Purposes Committee, although that is larger—it contains some eleven members—nevertheless, its work also is increasing and it seemed appropriate to ask for the addition at this time.
We have to put this proposal in the form of a Measure requiring legislation, because both these Committees are statutory bodies and no change can be made in their constitution without an amending Measure. The Measure was prepared by the Church Commissioners; it has passed through all its stages in the Church Assembly without a division and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported on it that it is expedient and should proceed. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY) BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 10), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ARMED FORCES BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 29 [Scandalous conduct by Officers]:
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY, moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("with or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not detain the House by rehearsing the number of arguments which we had on Committee stage, even though there are now present a number of noble Lords who were not present on that occasion. Basically speaking, we were talking about the whole area of scandalous conduct as a cause for dismissal from the Armed Services, and I think we all agreed at that stage that the matters with which Military, Naval and Air Force law should deal could be divided into three categories: those that would be civil crimes under civil law; those that are military crimes, because they have an effect on something which is specifically to do with the Services—such as sleeping on guard or cowardice in the face of the enemy; and thirdly, those matters which pertain to the morale and discipline of the Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, accepted, I think, that I felt as strongly as they did about the need for this third category; that the Services are a very special case and that there should be some way of getting rid from the Services of those who offend against the ethos of the Services in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on the last occasion talked particularly on this Amendment, or the Amendment of which this is a variation, about the necessity for dealing with scandalous conduct,

1283
and on re-reading his speech, I entirely agree with everything he then said. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said of that Amendment that he saw there were difficulties in laying down a borderline of scandalous conduct, because it is difficult to know where to draw the line when the ethos of behaviour of members of the Armed Forces differs from that of an ordinary citizen.
My Amendment on the Committee stage would have sought to make scandalous behaviour—that is, behaviour which does not fall into either of the two categories of civilian and military crimes but merely offends against the ethos of the Services—subject only to dismissal without disgrace. I still hold to what I said on Committee stage. I think it is wrong that such a widely drawn clause, such a blanket offence, should be punished with a penal punishment, which dismissal with disgrace really involves.
I realise that the acceptance of my Amendment would mean that certain offences which are dealt with under this clause would have to be dealt with under other clauses, but I do not think that that is too big a price to pay for this particular point. As the noble Lord knows, I accept that the administration of this Service law is extremely good and very careful, and so far as I can see one cannot pick out any case of any serious or even minor injustice over a long period of time. Nevertheless, I think that there is something to be said for getting our law right, so that justice is not only done but (to use a cliché) totally seen to be done, and this Amendment of mine would have that effect. I think that we should take these cases, which are not crimes and which would not be crimes in civilian life, and which in terms of the special needs of the Services would merely by offences against the ethos and good order of the Services, out of the criminal category altogether and make them subject only to dismissal without disgrace, and not to dismissal with disgrace. I beg to move.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I construe this Amendment aright, and I think I do, its effect would be to require a court-martial which has convicted an officer of scandalous conduct not only
1284
to dismiss him from Her Majesty's Service but expressly to state that his dismissal is without disgrace. There is no such punishment at present in the Service Acts and the noble Lord's Amendment would require it to be written as a new item in the table of punishments. But there is a very great difference between passing a sentence of simple dismissal, which is not specifically with disgrace, and going out of one's way to specify in the sentence itself that the dismissal is without disgrace.
Your Lordships may take the view that it would be inappropriate to require a court-martial by law to add such a rider to any sentence of dismissal, and indeed that this would be especially inappropriate where the court, by definition, has just found an officer guilty of scandalous conduct unbecoming an officer. Having said that, I am not sure that the noble Lord meant his Amendment to have that effect. I do not think he thought, when he put it down, that it was in point of fact specifically ensuring that a court would say it was dismissal without disgrace. If I may answer the Amendment which I think he meant—that is, dismissal tout court, without any disgrace or anything added to it—may I just explain the purpose of the section?
The present Naval section allows a court-martial to award a sentence of dismissal or of dismissal with disgrace. The Army and Air Force Acts, on the other hand, make cashiering, which is the Army and Air Force equivalent of the Naval dismissal with disgrace, a mandatory punishment. Clause 29 seeks to extend the flexibility of the Naval Discipline Act to the other Acts and adopts dismissal with disgrace as a common punishment in all three Acts and replaces cashiering. Dismissal with disgrace will stand in the same relation to dismissal as a severe reprimand stands to a reprimand, and it is intended to be available in cases where the court finds that the behaviour in question is so reprehensible that plain dismissal is an inadequate expression of the serious view they have taken of it.
I am also not entirely sure that the noble Lord understands that dismissal with disgrace is not a punishment which is peculiar to the offence of scandalous behaviour by an officer. It is a punishment which any Service man, officer or otherwise, convicted of any offence in the

1285
Acts which are now before us, is liable to suffer. Were the noble Lord's Amendment to be adopted, the offence of scandalous conduct would be the only offence in the Acts where a court-martial could not decide to award dismissal with disgrace, no matter how serious a view they took of the case. In these circumstances, I think it would be better if we left the matter as it is and for the noble Lord to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is quite right in his construction of the Amendment and that he is right in turning his efforts in the direction in which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, intended. The simplest Amendment would be to delete "with or without disgrace" and leave it as just dismissal. But, granting that that is the noble Lord's intention, I think that there are some considerations to be borne in mind.
I believe that what the Government are doing is an improvement on the past, and to that extent we are advancing. But I have been somewhat uncertain as to whether we ought to get rid of the conception of disgrace. The noble Lord took the analogy of reprimand and severe reprimand. With respect, I do not think that is an analogy. The important factor here is the act of dismissal following a court-martial, which appears to me again contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said—though he may be wrong—that it is a penalty inflicted by the court. Perhaps it is not a penalty. The difficulty is in construing the word "disgrace". There was a civilian case, which I may use to illustrate the difficulty, of a certain dentist who was brought before whatever tribunal the dentists come before on the ground that he had some improper relations with a patient—actually, it was a patient whom he had never attended. He was found guilty of infamous but not disgraceful conduct and was not struck off the roll. I find it difficult to distinguish between "infamous" and "disgraceful". And I am wondering whether the time has not come when we should be rid of this point.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that personal honour is something to which importance is attached in the Services.
1286
Also, there is the possibility that in certain cases—because, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State said, this applies to other offences than scandalous conduct—a court-martial might not be inclined to inflict some other, stronger penalty and would prefer instead to add the words "with disgrace". So I would say that there are arguments on both sides. For my part, rather reluctantly I would be inclined to leave it in the way the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has suggested. It is possible that personal judgments of this sort might be dispensed with. I hope that the noble Lord and those who are responsible in the Services will continue to watch this side—and I sometimes wonder whether there is any coherent review of the results of courts-martial—to see how this procedure goes and to consider the next time round (I forget whether this Bill is for five years or is now for ever) whether this particular addendum should be dispensed with.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that when the attachment is given of dismissal with disgrace it carries with it something which is nauseating, especially when a man has to return to civil life and seek to take up employment? This young man, or whoever it is, having been dismissed, may seek to find employment but be denied the type of employment that he desires because of this particular attachment. The word "disgrace" in itself is most serious, and it is very hard for any member of society to have it attached to him. Will the noble Lord have another look at this?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, my only qualification for intervening is that I spent several years at the War Office as Minister of Defence, and occasionally cases of what were described as scandalous behaviour were reported to my section of the Defence Department. Cases of that sort were either referred to a court-martial or sometimes dealt with summarily without going to court-martial. I think that everything depends on the definition of the term "scandalous behaviour". What does it denote? Some of the cases that came before me for review were cases that had been tried by court-martial and a decision had been given; and, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence is now well

1287
aware, because of his occupation of that office, these matters often come up for confirmation.
The power of deciding whether the decision of the court-martial should be accepted or rejected is vested either in the Secretary of State for War or any other Service Minister, or in the present situation in the Minister of Defence. What is meant by scandalous behaviour? I can only say, from such experience as I occasionally had, that scandalous behaviour more or less relates to indecent behaviour, homosexual behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, dissents, and perhaps it would be useful to have his definition of scandalous behaviour.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been here for the Committee stage or had read Hansard, he would know that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, furnished me with a complete list of all the offences for which anyone had been convicted of scandalous behaviour over the last 15 years, and only a small number were homosexual offences.
LORD SHINWELL: All I can say is that there were cases (and I regret to say this) of high-ranking officers. In a situation of that kind, if dismissal was decided upon, obviously it denoted dismissal because of scandalous behaviour.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer—and perhaps the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will be good enough to reply to it. Is there not a distinction drawn in this Amendment (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong) as between the treatment to be meted out to an officer and the treatment meted out to other ranks? Of course, it is well-known as regards other ranks that frequently they are dismissed with disgrace, and hardly any objection is taken, unless it comes up for confirmation before the appropriate Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord will say whether he dissents from what I suggest, or agrees with it, because I personally could not agree to any kind of Amendment which would distinguish as between an officer and one of the other ranks.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I may, with respect, remind your Lordships that this is the Report stage. I am allowed to speak only once and I
1288
can only speak again with leave of the House, for which I now ask. I made a point of not getting up immediately after the Amendment was moved so that your Lordships could say what you had to say on the Amendment before I wound up. I may say that on this occasion I agree with the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he has skilfully informed the House that none of us can speak twice—it is very necessary to remind the House of that—and if that was the object, that is fine. But there are occasions when it is most helpful to have the Minister's reaction. Whereas I am all against a Report stage becoming too ragged, none the less, I think we entirely agree to the noble Lord speaking again, and he need not feel any embarrassment about asking for the leave of the House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has very skilfully spoken twice without the leave of the House. May I ask leave of the House to speak for a third time? I was saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I do not think this Amendment will do, not only because it does not really carry out the intention which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has in mind, but also because it suffers from the great disadvantage—and I think it would have a curious effect—of removing dismissal with disgrace as a punishment for the offence of scandalous conduct, and yet leaving it for everything else. This, it seems to me, would be a very odd thing for the Government to accept.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Slater, really argued against dismissal with disgrace as a punishment at all. But this is not what the Amendment seeks to achieve. I think one can argue that dismissal with disgrace is not a suitable punishment, although I personally do not entirely agree with that. One only has to look at the list that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to see how infrequent are the cases in which this has happened: and I do not think one need be too sorry for the people who were the recipients of this punishment.
I think one also has to remember that the Services are proud of the standard of conduct which they believe it to be necessary

1289
for members of the Armed Forces to have. If somebody breaks what they think is the proper code of conduct, then they feel—and I feel with them—that there should be, in the circumstances, a punishment which makes it abundantly clear that the man has fallen from those high standards.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I entirely accept that the Amendment that I have put forward does not achieve what I had hoped it would. The second thing that I should like completely to concede is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—although it is not entirely the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—about what other offences, if this Amendment were accepted, should come into the same category. I am not trying to remove dismissal with disgrace from Service discipline altogether. I am trying to remove it from blanket clauses. Therefore, I accept what I think is the corollary put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that if I am removing it for scandalous conduct, then I should remove it for the other blanket clause, which is conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. I accept that that would have been a corollary and that I ought, if putting forward this Amendment, to put forward that one at the same time. I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this point. I am a little disappointed in that I do not think that the noble Lord the Secretary of State has really come to grips with the argument behind the Amendment that I am putting forward, when he so sympathetically examined my arguments at a previous stage.
I hope that we have said enough on the Report stage to show that there are some people who have genuine doubts about the penalty of dismissal with disgrace for these blanket offences, which would not be crimes, either in terms of civil law or strict military security. Therefore, in asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment, I hope that the noble Lord the Secretary of State will do as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, and have another look at this in the course of the next year, or whatever the appropriate period may be. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.21 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
". The following section shall be inserted after section 8 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968—
"8A. A civilian convicted of an offence by a court-martial may appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction and sentence and for the purposes of such an appeal his conviction shall be treated as if it had been a conviction on indictment and his sentence as a sentence passed on his conviction of an offence on indictment; and the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall apply"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. At the Committee stage I moved an Amendment, dealing with the same subject, which received general support in the sense that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, gave support to the principle, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was most forthcoming. He said that if I would withdraw my Amendment I would do so in the knowledge that he would seek at the next stage to put into effect what I had in mind. Owing to the speed with which this Bill is being hurried through this House, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been given no time at all to do anything. I find it—and I am sure the noble Lord, with his experience as a former Leader of the Opposition will understand my position—rather objectionable that at this period in the Session a Bill of this importance, introduced in your Lordships' House, should not be given the time for the consideration necessary; even enough time for the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself to consider properly what was said on Committee.
I am sure he will agree that if he were in my place he would say that if we have a role in this House we ought to have the necessary time available. I fully acknowledge that when I was Leader of the House, and leading for the Government, there were occasions when we asked the House to do things and to "swallow" speeds, which were, to put it mildly, pretty undesirable. The House and the noble Lord were always very co-operative when there was a particular timetable to be met, to get something through by a particular date, when it had

1291
to be got through, or towards the end of the Session. But I cannot see the reason for the haste with this Bill, other than the fact that we know the Commons are going to be tied up on the Floor of their House with the Industrial Relations Bill. We shall not necessarily be as accommodating in the future. I am also conscious that this Bill is going to a Select Committee in another place. Having said that, I can only express my sympathy with the noble Lord at finding himself in this position.
I have put this Amendment down for two reasons. One is so that he can tell us how it is that he has been unable, as yet, to produce an Amendment. He need not go into too much detail, because we know that the answer is that he has not had time. The second reason is to give him an opportunity at least to give a progress report on his thinking in the matter. The noble Lord has been helpful and has shown an initiative in this matter, so I would not wish to twit him too much on this.
I have put down this Amendment, not in the form of my original Amendment, which we have agreed was not satisfactory, but in the form that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne (who I know would have liked to be here, but is perhaps engaged elsewhere in his capacity as a Lord of Appeal), argued rather forcefully. I do not necessarily stand by his point, but I think it is worth making: that once a civilian has been convicted by a court-martial—and we are all agreed that in certain circumstances it is right that civilians should be tried by courts-martial, for their own protection—thereafter, so far as possible, the procedures which should be followed should be those that would apply in the case of a civilian convicted in a civil court. There should be a right of appeal, both against conviction and against sentence, to the Court of Appeal, and not necessarily to the Courts-Martial Appeal Tribunal. A particular argument in favour of this procedure (although I am not clear on the law with regard to it) is that it might in certain circumstances be possible to make use of the probation procedures, which cannot be used under a court-martial.
The noble and learned Viscount had very considerable force in his argument that there may well be reasons of which
1292
I am not aware (I am not an expert on this) as to why this is inappropriate. For that reason I should not wish to press this if an Amendment along the lines of my original Amendment were more acceptable. There will be time in another place to deal with this, and I think it is a pity that we cannot make the Amendment in our House; but there is something to be said for taking some time about this. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that he might consider consulting the Law Officers on this matter. It seems to me to be a delicate issue, one on which the Service authorities, admirably advised as they may be by the Judge Advocate General, or the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (who I think is the Naval equivalent), might find it helpful if the benefit of the advice of Sir Peter Rawlinson, or of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, were obtained as to the most appropriate way to proceed. Despite the shortage of time we have to deal with this matter—though I acquit the noble Lord of any discourtesy to the House, and I am grateful for his sympathetic approach—I shall be interested to hear any further assurances he can give, and whether he may like to consider the rather different approach which I know was in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I beg to move.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, when we discussed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, at the Committee stage I said that I was in sympathy with the broad objectives that he had in mind. I promised to see whether I could find ways to do what he asked. This was—if I may remind your Lordships—that arrangements for review, petition and appeal by civilians convicted by courts-martial should be left as they are at present, but that the civilian should be given an additional option which the Serviceman would not have to appeal against sentence to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. Subsequently, as the noble Lord has said, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, intervened and came forward with another suggestion which was that a civilian who wished to appeal against sentence should do so not to the Court-Martial Appeal Court, but rather to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. I said that I would examine that suggestion.

1293
As I recall it, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said he was anxious that I should not use whatever difficulties we discovered in Lord Dilhorne's Amendment proposals as an excuse to demolish his own proposals. Now he tables an Amendment which is exactly the same as the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. I suppose I may take it that he has not so much abandoned his earlier proposal—indeed, he has said so—but rather is backing two horses each way, in the hope that one of them will arrive at the finishing post in some sort of condition—
LORD SHACKLETON: Absolutely right, my Lords.
LORD CARRINGTON: —and I understand that.
To take the Amendment he has put down for to-day, I would say that it goes much further than anything that has been put forward explicitly up to now. It would have the effect of transferring appeals by a civilian against conviction, as well as against sentence, to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division of the Appeal Court. As the Courts-Martial Appeal Court already has jurisdiction to hear appeals by civilians against conviction, this would mean withdrawing that jurisdiction from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. I must say that I see difficulties, both of principle and of practicability, in this new proposal, which of course would make a very much greater change in the present arrangements than would the original proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
I said last time that I was a little nervous about some of the effects of this change. One question was whether it would be fair to a Serviceman if a civilian with whom he had been jointly charged had an additional right of appeal against sentence after the Serviceman had exhausted his remedies by petitioning the Defence Council. This difficulty looms even larger in relation to the Amendment we are now considering. I really do doubt whether it would be right for two separate Appeal Courts to sit and consider the convictions of two men who had been involved in the same crime.
Your Lordships will see that in transferring appeals against conviction away from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to the Criminal Division of the Court of
1294
Appeal the Amendment makes them subject to the provisions of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968. These provisions are geared to trial by jury—indeed, the first ground of appeal under that Act is that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unsafe or unsatisfactory. There are no juries in courts-martial and no division of responsibility as to law and fact.
Similarly—and I mention this only to show the complexity of this matter—we could not properly take jurisdiction away from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and leave the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act as it now is. There is no reason to suppose that the present system of review and appeal under the Service Acts and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court is unsatisfactory in regard to appeals by civilians against convictions. Indeed, in the twenty years that the Court has been in existence only one civilian has carried his appeal to it. That was in 1960; and the appeal succeeded, not on the grounds of any irregularity in the trial, but because the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, on careful analysis, took the view that on the evidence the conviction was unsafe.
For all these reasons, I would ask the noble Lord not to persist in this Amendment. But I do of course stand by the earlier commitment I made to the noble Lord. I accept that civilians should have this additional right to appeal against sentence, but such appeals should, in my opinion, be to the court that Parliament has expressly set up to review courts-martial decisions. I also regret that I have not yet tabled an Amendment in your Lordships' House—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in a very good-humoured way, made a perfectly valid and fair point. I meant no discourtesy to the House, but the fact is that the matter is rather difficult and has proved to be technically more difficult than I had thought.
I also accept the fact that we have not had a very long interval between the Committee stage and Report stage. These are responsibilities of the Government, and although, of course, any member of the Government has a collective responsibility, some decisions are more collective than others; and I would say (since my noble friend the Chief Whip is not here) that for my part I think that this is one

1295
such case. I must apologise to the noble Lord if this matter has been hurried, but what I should like to do, if your Lordships will permit me, is to ensure that an Amendment is laid in another place which satisfies the original point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; and when we have our own Amendment ready for introduction I will gladly have a word with him and consult him about it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think there was advantage in having the argument set forth with regard to my second Amendment, because the noble Lord was not in a position to deal with the point of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the last occasion. We have now heard these arguments. I feel that I am getting slightly out of my depths on this subject, but the Cross-Benches are well filled in the legal sense at the moment, and therefore I will not seek to comment on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, except to say this. The fact that there was only one appeal against conviction by a civilian to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court does not provide to me satisfactory statistical evidence that the review of sentences with regard to civilians was satisfactorily carried out. I gave details of a particular case which caused me great concern at the time and in which, even now, I do not know whether we arrived at the right sentence.
However, the noble Lord has given a positive assurance. I am grateful to him for saying that he will consult me on the Amendment. I am content to leave it to him, because if he succeeds in moving it into the Bill in another place it will in due course come back to us here and we shall have another opportunity to look at this point. In those circumstances, I ask for the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws, may I make this remark? It occurred to me that two or three years ago an article about this subject of civilians under courts-martial, by Professor Borrie of the University of Birmingham Law School, appeared in the Modern Law Review, and it showed that there are certainly a number of real com
1296
plaints. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his advisers have had the opportunity of studying this article, because I think it would be of some value to them.
While I am on my feet I might perhaps say one other thing. The point that when a civilian and a soldier are jointly charged the civilian is given greater rights than the soldier is not, I think, a very sound one. After all, a man who joins the Armed Forces knows perfectly well that he is coming under a system of military law, and he enters the Service on that basis—that his rights under the ordinary Common Law are to a large extent sacrificed. The civilian who is involved in this connection knows nothing of the kind, and on the face of it it seems altogether wrong that he should find himself deprived of the rights he would have under the ordinary law of the land.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Charley. I will certainly look at this article. I am afraid that he has different tastes in bedside reading from mine, and I did not know that this article existed. But I will certainly look it up and benefit from it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to be asked again not to withdraw my Amendment. I fully accept that the noble Lord had a point to make, and it is always difficult to judge when a discussion is finished, but I do now ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.38 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 2A:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:—
". Sub-paragraph 10(a) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which provides that certain action taken in respect of appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters in relation to service in the armed forces are matters not subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner) is hereby repealed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the manuscript Amendment No. 2A. I want sincerely to apologise for moving this Amendment in manuscript form. It arose from the fact that my Amendments were drafted by a legal friend, and in this Amendment he referred

1297
only to the Act of 1967 without giving its name, which naturally puzzled the Clerks to the House. It was only late last night that, thanks to their assistance and the asistance of the Ministry, we were able to identify the Act as the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, and that is the reason why I am now moving the Amendment in manuscript form rather than having it on the Order Paper.
The purpose of the Amendment is quite simple. It is to place the men who are in the Armed Forces in the same position as civilians, with the right, through a Member of Parliament, to appeal to the Parliamentary Commissioner when they think they have a genuine grievance. It will be accepted that the distinction between the Armed Forces and civilian life is now becoming less marked and that we are seeking to secure for the men who are in the Forces the same rights which generally apply to civilians. There used to be a very distinct demarcation. The man in the Armed Forces had to obey orders, had to obey commands; and if he disobeyed those commands he was subject to court-martial and to punishment. The Nuremberg trial destroyed that distinction. The Nuremberg trial laid it down that if a man in the Forces commits an inhuman act, even if that act has been ordered by his superiors, he can still be regarded as guilty, and a trial is now proceeding in America (to which I will not refer further) which raises this same issue.
The purpose of this Amendment is to say that just as a civilian, over the very broad field of legislation which has now been carried by the two Houses of Parliament, has the right, if he feels there is a grievance, to appeal through his Member of Parliament to the Parliamentary Commissioner, that right should also be attached to members of the Forces. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I shall be moving a second Amendment which will refer particularly to boy soldiers, but if there is a case for saying that the adult who joins the Armed Forces shall have this right, that argument is still stronger for boys who are taken into the Forces at only 15 years of age. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment in theory, though I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord
1298
Brockway, did not come and support me when I put down a practically identical Amendment at Committee stage.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I was not here.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It was discussed at Committee stage and, as the House will know, I entirely agree that the Armed Forces should become subject either to the Parliamentary Commissioner or to a special Parliamentary Commissioner for the Forces, which I think is possibly the better solution. On the Committee stage I had the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this matter was being looked at by the Government, and probably we cannot go further with it to-day.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has no reason to apologise for having put down the manuscript Amendment, because I know he had originally put down another Amendment which was a little obscure but which had the same effect. The present Amendment goes a good deal further than that moved by the noble Lord, Lord 13eaumont, on the Committee stage. I need not go into the arguments all over again, and I am sure the noble Lord, although he was not able to be here at the Committee stage, has read what I said then about the Amendment moved by Lord Beaumont. The present Amendment goes much wider, in that it brings in such matters as discipline, and of course the Parliamentary Commissioner is concerned only with maladministration, so I do not think this Amendment would do in any case. But may I remind the noble Lord of what I said on the Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont? I think it will make the point clearer. I said then that the Select Committee of another place has reported on this matter and the Government are considering that report, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement about it. In that event I do not think it would be appropriate to put it in this Bill.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask him one question? In answer to a previous Amendment he has said that there will be consideration in another place; can he give the same promise in respect of this issue?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. What I said was that the Government were examining the Report of the Select Committee, and that Committee made some recommendations about an extension of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That is what I said the Government were examining.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.48 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
". The following subsection shall be inserted after section 2(5) of the Army Act 1955 and section 2(5) of the Air Force Act 1955:—
(6) Where a person below the appropriate minimum age has been entered for service in accordance with this section he shall, on attaining that age become entitled to claim to determine his full time service at any time before the expiration of a period of three months beginning with his so attaining that age and any such claim shall be made in accordance with regulations made under section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a reference particularly to boy soldiers. Later we shall be having a debate on the Report by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and therefore I do not wish to enter into the issue in detail. However, I think we should be in error if we allowed this Bill to pass without seeking to amend it in a way that will not prejudice further decisions arising from the Donaldson Report. The purpose of the Amendment is again quite simple. We were all delighted to hear the noble Lord the Secretary of State say that Her Majesty's Government would accept the recommendation of the Donaldson Report by which boy soldiers, when they reach the age of 18, would have the right to decide that they should leave the Armed Forces at 21, and we welcome that. This Amendment suggests that the Government could go a little further. It proposes that these boys, when they reach the age of 18, should not have to wait three years before their discharge at 21, but should be able, within the first three months after attaining their adulthood, to seek—and indeed to receive—discharge.
These boys join often at fifteen years of age, it may be from unhappy family circumstances, it may be by the pressure of a father, it may be as a sense of release from an orphanage in which they have been kept. They joined the Armed Forces at fifteen and, under the old regulations unless they make an application within their first six months they had to remain in the Forces until they were thirty. Now at eighteen years of age they are to be allowed to make application to leave the Forces at twenty-one. My Lords, even so, it means that a boy of fifteen joining in that way may have to be six years in the Forces before he can be discharged, growing up, perhaps becoming engaged to be married, in all kinds of different circumstances. I submit to this House that it would be much more just if these boys, when they reach the age of manhood, could come to a decision which would not mean that they would have to wait for three years but that, if they did not desire to remain in the Forces as a career, should be able at eighteen years of age to leave. That is the purpose of the Amendment and I hope that it will be supported by your Lordships. I beg to move.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Amendment, without much hope, I am afraid, that it will get very much further. I welcome the Report of the Donaldson Committee. As I said when the Government made a Statement on that Report in your Lordships' House, I think it has made a considerable step forward. But I think it is right that this matter should be raised at this moment on this Bill, because I do not think that the Donaldson Committee went far enough—or perhaps it went as far as it could but the Government should go further. The Donaldson Committee actually recommended that at the age of eighteen apprentices should be able to opt to leave the Forces immediately, and that others should not be able to leave till three years later. The Government decided that this was an anomaly, which indeed it was, but instead of levelling down, which I said at the time I thought they should do, and saying that everyone should have the option to leave at

1301
eighteen, they levelled up so that everyone would be able to leave at twenty-one.
Both the recommendation of the Donaldson Committee and the decision of the Government were decisions of expediency. How can we see that the Forces are kept at the proper level while doing the best that we can for the people who want to get out? And I entirely accept that the Forces must be kept at a proper level. But I do not think that we have looked enough at the whole question of civil rights involved. As your Lordships will know, the National Council for Civil Liberties have just started, not a campaign, but a talking point about civil rights for children. Leaving aside the wilder remarks of those who have commented on it—there were not very many wild remarks from the National Council for Civil Liberties themselves—it is, I think, important that we should draw a fairly clear line as to when someone else is responsible for a child, when the Government are responsible for him, and when he becomes entirely responsible for himself. Now that we have taken a definite step forward and made the coming of age eighteen, I believe we should regard it very seriously indeed and say that in almost every field this is the moment when a person becomes responsible for his own future, whereas before he was not entirely so. I do not believe that this question of the right of a person to opt out at eighteen has yet been looked at closely enough.
If I am asked, as no doubt I shall be, how I would look after the level of recruitment for the Services, I should like, because I know this question will arise, to give my personal answer. Because civil rights are very important, I would have an incomes policy—which, of course, the Government would not have at any price—and within that incomes policy I would make the Services one of the very highest priorities, making them attractive to people coming in. That is why, unlike a number of noble Lords on this side of the House, I am not nearly as worried about Generals getting rises in pay as they appear to be. I think the Services need an even better deal than they have at the moment and should be given the highest priority. I mention that point because this question of recruitment is a counter-argument; I
1302
think the Services should have very high priority.
I believe that on coming of age a person who has entered into an engagement while he was not of age should be allowed to leave. This is a question of basic rights, and I am quite certain that we shall get round to it in time. I hope the Government will look at this matter again, if not to-day at least over the next year or two.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is trying it on, and he knows that I know that he is trying it on. He is perfectly entitled to do so, perfectly entitled to raise this matter on this Bill, but I would remind him of this. The Government of noble Lords opposite appointed the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, to inquire into this, and they reported not so long ago. One of the things that they expressly reported on was the suggestion which is contained in the noble Lord's Amendment, and they rejected it specifically. They said:
"We thought that the costs in men and money of introducing this system across the board was so high that it was incumbent upon us to think again."
The Committee, which was a very high-powered one, went into the whole question of boys' engagements very thoroughly, and I think the House will and should accept that their views carry great authority. They took enormous trouble. The Government examined their Report and I announced that with one comparatively minor Amendment we accepted the recommendations of this Committee. I announced it to your Lordships' House three weeks ago. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, or even the ingenious noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—who brought an incomes policy into an Amendment on boys' service—or indeed the House, would expect the Government to upset a decision taken only three weeks ago. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment and comfort himself with the thought that he has an Unstarred Question down on this matter after the Christmas Recess and can have another go.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, it is that thought that influences me now. In view of the fact that we shall be having a debate on the Donaldson Report in the

1303
New Year, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Complaints by persons subject to Naval Discipline Act 1957]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 54, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) Section 181 of the Army Act 1955 and section 181 of the Air Force Act 1955 (complaints by warrant officers and below) shall each be amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (2) (under which a person who has complained to his commanding officer and has not received satisfactory redress, or who thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer for any other reason, may complain to a superior officer under whom he is serving), for all the words from "he may make a complaint with respect thereto" to the end there shall be substituted the words "he may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Queen's Regulations, make a complaint with respect thereto to the Defence Council", and

(b) in subsection (3) (duty of a commanding or other officer to have any complaint received by him investigated, and to give any redress appearing to him to be necessary), for the words "a commanding or other officer" there shall be substituted the words "a commanding officer or, as the case may be, the Defence Council", and the words "or them" shall be inserted after the words "by him" and after the words "to him"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage I gave notice of my intention to put down an Amendment which would give soldiers and airmen a statutory right to take complaints to the Defence Council. At present only ratings of the Royal Navy have such a right, though airmen have in fact been permitted for some years by Queen's Regulations to pursue their complaints to the Council. The right of officers to complain to Her Majesty is established by Clause 66, which your Lordships have approved, and the further Amendment I have now moved will bring the Services completely into line. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resoluion of December 10):
4.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the
1304
purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place her interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time and in doing so I would say just a few words more. This is a long and complicated Bill, and it does four main things. First, it renews the Army and Air Force Acts. Second, it seeks to place the Naval Discipline Act upon the same constitutional basis as the other two Acts, the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955. Thirdly, it enacts for the first time a common code of offences and punishment which will apply to all Servicemen under any of the Acts. Fourthly, it makes a number of valuable changes in the procedural parts of the Acts, all of which have the effect of bringing them some-what closer together in various respects.
I am sure that this Bill is a good Bill and will be of benefit to the Services. I should like to add that I have been most appreciative of the constructive interest which so many of your Lordships have shown during the passage of the Bill. I think it represents a substantial step forward in bringing closer together the Statutes governing the Services, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before we send this Bill to another place I should like to make one or two short points. When the Secretary of State started his speech he seemed to feel it necessary to justify the fact that the Bill started in this House. I, for one, felt that this was the correct place for it to start, having regard to the position of the Secretary of State as a Member of this House, and I think that the discussion that we have had here has been extremely useful. The Bill is not controversial, but it affects the rights of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. I am certain that the administration of justice within the Armed Forces, which is of a very high standard, will nevertheless benefit from this Bill. I am sure that the House will agree with me in saying that the clarity with which the Secretary of State has put forward the various points of

1305
view of the Government and the courtesy with which he has treated certain Amendments are appreciated by us all.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, at a previous stage the Secretary of State most handsomely apologised for the speed with which the Bill has had to proceed through your Lordships' House. We all accept the difficulties, but I suspect that at the beginning of the production of the Bill, in addition to the pressures from the Commons there was a certain lack of realisation of the important issues involved and the interest that the Bill would raise in your Lordships' House, as indeed elsewhere. I should like to make it clear that in spite of the fact that I have put down several Amendments and obviously am not entirely happy that they have all been rejected, I think that the Bill is an extremely good one. I feel very strongly that, with the possible exception of boy Servicemen, the whole area of the rights of Servicemen is extremely well guarded by the present authorities, and that immense trouble is taken to see that injustice does not occur. But it is absolutely right that both your Lordships' House and another place should keep constantly under review this rather difficult area of where Servicemen's rights and civil rights meet. So long as we keep that subject under review and go on looking at it from time to time, I do not think that we shall come to very much harm.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the employers of certain teachers to deduct from their salaries the fees which have to be paid for registration into the General Teaching Council. These regulations would first of all apply to teachers holding permanent employment in education authority and grant-aided schools—those teachers whose conditions of employment
1306
require them to register with the Teaching Council. As your Lordships will know, the Bill was introduced into another place by the previous Government, but because of certain events before June 18 it did not reach the Statute Book. The present Government revived the Bill, and it passed through the various stages in another place without amendment or vote.
The reason for the Bill is that, while registration is already a requirement for permanent employment in the schools, the procedure to secure renewal of registration is not effective; and this Bill provides a remedy. Legislation on the lines of this Bill was suggested in a Memorandum called Review of The Constitution and Functions of the General Teaching Council which was published last year as a consultative document. Since 1968, registration with the General Teaching Council, at an annual fee of £1, has been the mark of recognition of the qualified teacher. Formerly a teacher held the Secretary of State's certificate proving competence to teach. Now, in order to comply with the Schools (Scotland) Code, education authorities have to be satisfied that teachers are registered.
Under the present system it is the individual teacher's responsibility to renew registration with the Council each year by paying the fee. This has led to a number of difficulties. For various reasons, a number of teachers have been reluctant to register, or remiss about renewal of their registration, and their employers were naturally reluctant to dismiss unregistered teachers immediately after the date when they had to be registered—that is, April 1 of each year, with the saving grace of one month. The result is a situation in which every year the process of registration has lengthened far beyond this date. This has caused considerable inconvenience both to the Council and to the employers. This Bill is designed to overcome these problems.
May I now deal with its main provisions? Under Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the employers of these teachers to deduct from their salary the fee for the renewal of their registration. Your Lordships will note that the powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1) relate solely to fees for renewal of registration. They do not apply to fees payable either on

1307
first registration by a new teacher, or for restoration to the register of a teacher who returns to teaching after an interval. The payment of these fees will remain the responsibility of the individual teacher.
Under Clause 1(2) the regulations will apply to all registered teachers in the employment of education authorities or other managers who are required to be registered with the General Teaching Council. As your Lordships will know, two groups of teachers register with the Council: those employed in education authority and grant-aided schools, and others—for example married women who are not at the moment teaching, and lecturers in colleges of education and in further education, who are not required to register but may do so if they wish. There are in Scotland to-day about 56,000 registered teachers. Some 42,000 of these are in employment where registration is required. The 14,000 teachers in the other categories will, as at present, be left to make their own arrangements about payment of the registration fee, and are not affected by this Bill.
Under Clause 1(3) the regulations will describe the procedure for deduction and remittance of the renewal fee. The registration period extends over one year, from April 1 to March 31, and we expect that in practice renewal fees will be deducted from the April salaries of teachers; also, that their employers will send such fees to the Council as soon as possible, with sufficient details to enable the Council to identify the teachers on their register. The Council will then write to those teachers who are not required to register but do so voluntarily, inviting them to re-register. The details of this procedure will be set out in the Council's registration rules.
Under Clause 1(4) the Secretary of State will have power to vary or revoke these rules. However, as your Lordships will realise, this power will be exercised only where it is necessary to secure consistency between the Council's rules and the regulations made by the Secretary of State. Clause 2(2) and Part I of the Schedule provide for consultation between the Secretary of State and
1308
the Council on the making of both the regulations and the Council's rules. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this power will ever need to be used.
My Lords, this Bill is a useful measure that will improve the registration procedures and reduce the administrative work of both education authorities and the Council. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has made it abundantly clear that once again she is acting as executrix on the legislative Scottish estate of the late Government. Accordingly, it will be no surprise to your Lordships that I am in enthusiastic agreement with her in support of this measure. I looked up the Report of proceedings in another place and I see that it took them barely half an hour to go through all the proceedings on the Bill. I have no desire that anything that I say will put us in the position of having taken longer to handle the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
BUSINESS: MUSEUM CHARGES DEBATE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that in view of the number of speakers in to-morow's debate on museum charges, dinners will be available.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
House in Committee (on Recommitment):
House resumed: Bill reported without further Amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 10):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As the House will have seen, the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills—and may I, in passing, say how much we are indebted to them for the painstaking work that they undertake on Bills of this sort—have drawn to the attention of Parliament the desirability of modernising the law relating to the powers of guardians in so far as it stems from Section 9 of the Tenures Abolition Act 1660. I am most grateful to the Joint Committee for drawing this to the attention of Parliament, and I should like to inform the House that I am now considering whether we could not do away with Section 9 of the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 as presently enacted in its ancient and cumbrous language. In particular, I suspect that the Statute Law Repeals Bill, which I introduced earlier this afternoon, might be a suitable Bill in which to do it if, after further consideration, I am able to recommend it to the attention of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I agree with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. With regard to the subject matter of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Report, it would have been my hope that the Law Commission, if they could do so, would take an early opportunity of considering the matter.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON TRANSPORT (COMPENSA TION TO EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 1970
4.16 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandford I beg to move that the London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before Parliament on November 24, 1970, be approved.
These Regulations provide full compensation for any employee who might have suffered any loss owing to their employer changing as a result of the re-organisation of London Transport in accordance with the Transport (London) Act 1969. This laid a duty on the G.L.C. to develop policies and measures for the promotion of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services for Greater London. The Act provided for the setting up of the London Transport Executive and the transfer to it of the property, rights and liabilities of the former London Transport Board.
Section 37 of the Transport (London) Act 1969 required the Minister, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, to make compensation to those persons described in Regulation 3. The sort of compensation to which they are entitled is set out in Parts 3, 4 and 5. The Regulations would take effect from October 22, 1969, the date on which the first of the relevant sections of the parent Act was brought into force. With your permission, my Lords, I do not propose to burden you with details which are both long and complex. The form and contents are well precedented and non-controversial, and of course are only made after full consultation with all interested parties. Section 37 (Part 5) of the Act requires that a draft of these Regulations, having been laid before Parliament should be approved by a Resolution of each House. I accordingly ask the House to approve the draft Regulations.
Moved, That the Draft London Transport (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on 24th November last, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this appears to be an Order which is wholly

1311
acceptable to Her Majesty's Opposition. It is, as the noble Lord said, in common form, and one which we expected to be laid. As such, I am sure the House will give it unanimous approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEST MIDLANDS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1970
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this Order has been reported on by the Special Orders Committee of the House, and my judgment is that what is said there will suffice for your Lordships. Therefore, if no noble Lord objects, I will move formally that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the West Midlands (Amendment) Order 1970, be approved.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMIS SION LEVY (VARIATION) SCHEME (CONFIRMATION) ORDER 1970
4.19 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM rose to move, That the Draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 25 last, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, I beg to move that this Order be approved. The formidable array of agricultural and food Orders that appear on the Order Paper I should like, with your permission, to deal with in the following way. I should like to speak first on the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970—which is before the House at this moment. Secondly, I should like to take together the Farm Capital Grant Scheme 1970, the farm Capital Grant (Scotland) Scheme 1970, the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Scheme 1970, and the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme 1970. I should then like to speak to the Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1970 by itself, and, finally, to speak to the last two Orders—the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, and the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1970—together. I hope
1312
that this will be convenient to your Lordships.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we shall be happy to accept that arrangement, which appears to be an eminently suitable one.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
The Draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970 is very narrow in scope. As the House will know, the Meat and Livestock Commission is financed mainly by the proceeds of a levy on the meat and livestock industry, in accordance with Section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1967. Subsection (5) of that section requires that no charges under a levy scheme shall be made in respect of livestock slaughtered under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. Earlier this year Parliament passed the Agriculture Act 1970. Subsection (6) of Section 106 of that Act provides that the exemption from the Commission's levy must be extended to include animals slaughtered in accordance with any scheme made under Section 106 for the eradication of brucellosis in cattle. The Brucellosis Incentive Scheme was, in fact, made under Section 106 in July of this year, so the House will see that this Order is very much a technicality and the need for it arises automatically out of the 1970 Act. All the Order does is to confirm the necessary exemption from the levy. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 25 last, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, who has explained this Order to us in suitably brief terms, that this is almost a formal matter. Indeed, it arises under the Act of 1970 and the Brucellosis Order to which he has referred. But when the Order was debated in another place, the honourable Member for Derbyshire, West asked the Minister a question to this effect. A voluntary eradication scheme was introduced under the Act in July of this year, and animals have been slaughtered under that scheme. The honourable

1313
Member asked the Minister whether, in those cases where animals had been so slaughtered, any money paid would be returned to the farmer concerned. The question I am asking is: has money been paid in respect of animals slaughtered under that voluntary scheme; and, if so, will it be repaid? When the honourable Member for Derbyshire, West put that question, the Minister replied that he would write to the honourable Member and tell him all about the matter. We do not know what he told him, so I shall be extremely grateful if the noble Lord will tell us exactly what has happened.
I know that it is rather wide of the Order before us, but I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us anything about the voluntary eradication scheme: whether it has been reasonably successful: whether it looks as though it is a useful sort of introduction to the compulsory scheme that will begin in 1971. I am sure that the Department will know something about this, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell the House exactly how this whole matter is now working out.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this Order. I should like to reply, first, to his point about the question which the Member for Derbyshire, West asked in another place. The noble Lord asked whether money would be returned to any farmer who had paid in respect of slaughtered animals. I am informed that the purpose of this Order is only to confirm a practice which is already in existence, and that up till now no payment has been requested on a reactor. Therefore no farmer has suffered, and the Order merely puts into proper form a practice which has been going on.
The noble Lord also asked about the incentive scheme, and how it had been working since it started on July 13 this year. Although it is perhaps early days to draw any firm conclusion, I can say that so far it has been very encouraging. For example, in the time between the start of the scheme in July and the end of October, we have received more than 8,000 applications in Great Britain. Obviously, this compares favourably with the 6,800 applications received during the whole of 1969 for the old brucellosis
1314
accredited herd scheme. Also, of those in the old scheme eligible to transfer to the incentive scheme, more than 80 pet cent. have elected to do so. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, this voluntary scheme will certainly serve as an extremely good way of preparing the ground for the compulsory scheme when it comes into force next year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM CAPITAL GRANT SCHEME 1970
  FARM CAPITAL GRANT (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1970
    PLOUGHING GRANTS (VARIATION) SCHEME 1970

      PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) (VARIATION) SCHEME 1970
      4.27 p.m.
      LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Farm Capital Grant Scheme 1970, which was laid before this House on December 1, be approved. It may be convenient to noble Lords if with this Scheme I move also the Farm Capital Grant (Scotland) Scheme 1970, the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Scheme 1970 and the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme 1970, since they are all closely related.
      The most important of the four Schemes are the two Farm Capital Grant Schemes, for these replace most of the existing capital grants. The existing grants have been introduced over a long period in which there have been many changes in the agricutural industry. We are now recasting the grants in a form which is more suited to present-day farming and which will make more effective use of available funds. We are also replacing the differing requirements of the present schemes with fewer and uniform conditions in a single Scheme, and this will reduce paperwork and be simpler for everyone. There are only minor differences between the Scheme for Scotland and that for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These differences arise because the provisions in paragraph 3 of the main Scheme, relating to smallholdings authorities, do not apply to Scotland; there is different legislation relating to drainage in Scotland; and claying and marling and hop-growing are not

      1315
      practised there and therefore do not need to be covered by the Scheme.
      Apart from these differences the Schemes cover broadly the same items as the arrangements being replaced, except that plant and machinery will not be eligible for grant. As your Lordships know, farmers are now benefiting from the new tax allowances on plant and machinery which were introduced on October 27. The standard rate of grant under both Schemes will be 30 per cent. of eligible expenditure. Higher rates of 50 per cent. are payable on certain works and facilities for the benefit of hill land and also on remodelling works which are certified as a consequence of an amalgamation or boundary adjustment approved under the Farm Amalgamation and Boundary Adjustments Scheme. The highest rate of grant is 60 per cent. which is for field drainage for the benefit of hill land. Applications received or approvals issued by March 18, 1972, will attract an additional 10 per cent. grant to give effect to the increased rates announced following this year's Annual Review. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of the main Scheme lists the works and facilities on which smallholdings authorities may qualify for the 10 per cent. supplement payable under Section 51 of the Agriculture Act 1970. Section 51 gives effect, for a period of five years, to a recommendation of the Wise Committee that a special grant should be made available for the reorganisation of smallholdings. The total rate of grant available to smallholdings authorities on the works and facilities specified in the Scheme will be 50 per cent. on applications made by March 18, 1972, and 40 per cent. on applications made between that date and December 31, 1975.
      To qualify for grant under the Schemes, expenditure of a capital nature must have been incurred in connection with an agricultural business. Under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 the agricultural business must be one which is capable of yielding a sufficient livelihood to an occupier reasonably skilled in husbandry. The intention initially is to regard a net farm income of £880 a year as representing a sufficient livelihood in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, the statutory minimum wage for agricultural
      1316
      workers will be used, reflecting the different structure of farming in that country. For the future, the figures will be increased in line with increases in the statutory minimum agricultural wages. Under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4, bare land holdings will not be eligible for grant on the full range of works and facilities listed in the Schedules. An exception is made, however, where a bare land holding was created more than five years before an application is made under the Schemes; or where the land in the holding is newly reclaimed for, or restored to, agriculture; or where the separation of the bare land from an equipped holding was not contrary to the interests of good estate management.
      Agricultural businesses which fail the sufficient livelihood or bare land tests will still be eligible for grant on certain items—mainly land operations—provided that these would continue to be of benefit to the land occupied by the business if it subsequently became part of a larger unit through amalgamation. There will be no tests of whether the proposed expenditure is prudent and economically worth while. These are matters which in future will be left entirely to applicants. In this, the Schemes differ from some existing schemes. A further difference will be that the "benefit to the land" test of the present Farm Improvement Scheme has been dropped. But, as announced at the last Annual Review, grant will not be paid on expenditure totalling more than a "ceiling" figure of £100,000 in respect of any single farm unit in any two-year period. Expenditure which has qualified for the higher rate of agricultural investment grant introduced on March 19, 1970, will count towards the ceiling. The level of the ceiling will be subject to review in the light of experience. The ceiling will be applied administratively as it is under the existing arrangements for the Agricultural Investment Grant on Fixed Equipment.
      In administering the Schemes we shall require the cost of the eligible work included in any one application to be at least £100, as under the current Farm Improvement Scheme. Proposed works and facilities must not be unreasonable in cost, and applicants will be required to obtain written authority from the Ministry before starting work. Applicants will

      1317
      continue to have the choice of claiming grant on either actual expenditure incurred or standard costs, and it is hoped to introduce a new set of standard costs in February to coincide with the introduction of decimal currency. In the meantime, existing standard costs will apply.
      The ending of grants on plant and machinery inevitably affects the amount of Government aid available for the installation of bulk milk tanks, for under the Farm Improvement Scheme these tanks have been eligible for a 30 per cent, rate of grant since 1967. Since March of this year the grant rate has been 40 per cent. This is a substantial grant, and dairy farmers wishing to install bulk milk tanks in the near future can still qualify for it by putting in an application before December 31. But in addition to the grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Milk Marketing Board has received an allowance of ⅜ of a penny per gallon for five years on new bulk milk. This allowance has recently been extended until September 30, 1973. The Milk Marketing Board has used this allowance, together with contributions from buyers, to pay special premiums to producers. These have enabled milk producers to offset over the first three years of operation a substantial proportion of their part of the cost of a bulk milk tank.
      My Lords, as I have already mentioned, farmers are now entitled to new tax allowances on capital expenditure on plant and machinery incurred after October 26. These new tax allowances and the allowance of ⅜ of a penny per gallon to the Milk Marketing Board provide substantial assistance for the farmer wishing to install a bulk milk tank. But it is true that the total assistance would be somewhat less than was previously available. I know that the industry has been concerned that this might affect the progress being made in switching to bulk collection. Because of the benefits brought by bulk collection to both consumer and producer, we are also anxious that this should not happen. The Minister has therefore announced in another place that he will be raising the allowance to the Milk Marketing Board from ⅜ of a penny to ⅝ of a penny per gallon for five years in so far as it relates to milk from bulk tanks installed before September 30, 1973. In broad terms, this increase, which will not apply
      1318
      where farm improvement grant is paid, will offset the effect of withdrawing the grant.
      May I now turn to the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Schemes, which were also laid before the House on December 1? As some noble Lords may be aware, the Ploughing Grants Scheme is one of those which are being replaced by the Farm Capital Grant Scheme. After December 31 it will of course be possible to apply under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme for a 40 per cent. grant on the cost of ploughing land of the type which is eligible for the £12 ploughing grant at present. We therefore need to wind up the existing ploughing grants, and the Variation Scheme makes December 31 this year the last date for receipt of applications under the 1970 Scheme. Applications must reach the Ministry's divisional offices by that date to qualify for the £12 ploughing grant. Farmers whose applications are approved will have until May 31, 1971, to carry out the work. The Farm Capital Grant Schemes have been designed to give more effective help towards profitable investment by getting rid of out-dated restrictions and by providing a single set of basic conditions instead of the differing and complex procedures of the existing grants. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this streamlining was a job that needed to be done. I know that noble Lords opposite share our views on this matter because the Schemes are of course based on legislation introduced earlier this year by noble Lords opposite. We welcomed the principles involved, and we have now given effect to them in these new Schemes. I trust they will have a favourable reception.
      My Lords, I apologise for the length of the speech with which I have introduced these Orders, but they are very complicated and I thought it best to go into them in some detail. I now invite the House to approve these Schemes.
      Moved—
      That the Farm Capital Grant Scheme 1970, be approved;
      That the Farm Capital Grant (Scotland) Scheme 1970, be approved;
      That the Ploughing Grants (Variation) Scheme 1970, be approved;
      That the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) (Variation) Scheme 1970, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
      4.38 p.m.
      LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord need not apologise for the length of his speech. This is an important matter, and there are four Orders here. They are all important and, clearly, the change that has taken place, or is taking place, is such that it is right the House should be informed of it at some length. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having made the speech he has, which will be available for us and others to read in the future.
      I see that the Minister, in discussing these Capital Grant Orders, is reported at column 135 of the Commons Hansard of December 7 as saying:
      "These replace most of the exciting capital grants with a single unified Scheme."
      I imagine that the word "exciting" was a slip of the tongue, or a slip of the Hansard pen; for clearly what he meant was that the "existing" Orders would be replaced. But, my Lords, having said that, I see no reason why we should not regard these grants as exciting—not only these grants, but all the grants that have been made for capital injection into this industry since the end of the war.
      Unless I am very much mistaken, the first big capital injection came under the Labour Government, when £200 million was injected into the industry for this particular purpose. Since then, we have had a number of different schemes, all designed to the same end: to improve the capital structure of this industry. As I look round this industry—and I do have a chance to do so occasionally—I am a little excited by the change that has taken place since the inter-war years, when I got to know this industry fairly well. My Lords, the change has been exciting, and we ought to be glad that we have had the good sense to make it in the case of this important industry within our economy.
      We on this side of the House give a general welcome to these Orders because, as the noble Lord rightly said—he gave us credit for this fact—they closely follow what was said in the March Annual Review of this year and the 1970 Agricultural Act of the last Administration which followed. Something is happening in this connection which is of some importance and the noble Lord rightly
      1320
      stressed it. It is that it is clearly part of these Orders that farmers should be relieved of some of the paper work that bedevilled previous schemes. I know what difficulties this caused, particularly with some of the smaller farmers I know in South Wales.
      This idea of relieving them of some of the paper work is wholly admirable, always provided that sufficient safeguards are left to ensure that the monies dispensed under the Schemes are properly applied. We are talking about taxpayers' money; and a lot of it. They, the taxpayers, have a right to feel that their interests are being adequately safeguarded against fraud. I remember that confidence in the Ministerial powers in this general connection was shaken by the extensive frauds that took place in South Wales not so very long ago in connection with the lime Schemes. It filled the newspapers at that time. Rightly, people came to me and said, "You have had something to do with agriculture in the past."—and I admitted that I had—"What are the Ministry doing to ensure that this never occurs again?" I was not then in a position to tell them what the Ministry might be doing. All that I say to-day is that if this relieving of the farmers of some of the paper work by any chance results in making fraud easier, blame will have to be laid somewhere. I hope that this will not be the case; that the money will go to where it is intended it should go; namely, to the farmers to do the job which they ought to be doing.
      The stringent application and approval certification is a job for the Ministry. They really must do it. I am sure that the noble Lord will convey this thought back to the Ministry, which I am glad to see he now represents in some of these matters on the Front Bench opposite. Large sums of money are involved. He told us a few minutes ago that some of these schemes can result in £100,000 being spent over two years on the same farm unit. That does not necessarily mean that all that money comes out of the pocket of the taxpayers, but a large proportion of it will; and it is only right that we should be careful about how that money is spent and that we should ensure that the nation gets value for the money that is poured out in this way. That is our job here in Parliament.

      1321
      My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that grants on bulk milk tanks and plant, machinery, harvesters and tractors will disappear in favour of a tax incentive allowance of, initially, some 60 per cent. and a writing-down allowance of 25 per cent. of the reducing balance in subsequent years. If those were not his exact words, they ought to have been—because I fished them out for myself. But while he may not have used those exact words, he indicated what the intentions were. The Minister (as reported in column 138 of Hansard of the other place) said on December 7 when speaking of the bulk milk tanks grant in operation under previous Schemes:
      "This is a substantial grant, and those dairy farmers who wish to install bulk milk tanks and can still qualify for the grant by applying between now and 31st December would do well to take advantage of it. If they apply now and if they qualify in this way, they will get the 40 per cent. grant and the 60 per cent. initial allowance on the remainder.… That, incidentally, applies to other plant and machinery including tractors and combine harvesters."
      I am bound to ask the noble Lord whether this is really necessary. Is it right that they should be able to have both the grant and the initial allowance? This brings the amount up to 60 per cent. plus 40 per cent—which is a very large amount indeed. And it will go to those people who are smart enough to read Hansard, smart enough to delve into these Schemes and to make the necessary applications for approval before the end of this year. The ordinary farmer who does not do that will not be able to take advantage of what I am bound to describe as this act of generosity. The smart boys will know of it and will get in straight away. Incidentally, I am bound to say that I doubt whether the tax allowance system will prove as helpful as the grant system on plant, machinery and so on. The small man will not benefit until long after he has made his tax returns—if he benefits at all. The grant system ensured that the money was paid to the man and was paid not long after the job was done. In some cases part of it was paid before the job was half done. Under the new tax allowances system and the initial allowance, "plus, plus", system, he will have to wait until a much later date. I
      1322
      should have thought that this was not particularly helpful to the small farmer.
      My Lords, turning to the drainage grant, I welcome the Order which appears to me to gibe effect to the 70 per cent. grant for drainage schemes approved before March 18, 1972, which was something which was promised in the Annual Review. After that date the amount will be 60 per cent. It must surprise some people that there can be substantial drainage problems on hill farms. People think that all that happens is that rain falls on the hill farms and hurries down to the valleys. It does not. There are to my knowledge vast areas of hill land where drainage is certainly needed. I think that I have previously told the House that I was associated with my brother in a hill farm in South Wales which was 1,000 ft. above sea level. About a quarter of the acreage consisted of very wet, peaty ground. I remember walking over it with my brother and discussing this matter when he perpetrated something which I thought was very much an Irish bull. He said: "We shall never do anything good with this land so long as we have this stagnant water running all over the place." How right he was. We should never do any good with that ground unless we got rid of that "stagnant" water. The fact was that it was stagnant in part but the rest was moving to some extent through the ground. Certainly the ground badly needed a drainage scheme of the kind which would have been possible to us under the Scheme now before us. I think that if we could somehow manage to persuade the hill farmers to find the 30 per cent. they will have to find over and above the 70 per cent. which they can get, it will be a good thing for them and the country as a whole.
      Finally, my Lords, on the whole matter of grants, I have not attempted to cover every aspect of them for obvious reasons. The ploughing grants appear to me to carry on from the old system to the new unified system, and as such appear to me to call for no special attention by the House. They are worthwhile alterations, always provided that the system will permit the grant to be earned and received by the farmers; and I believe that in this case there is no question of their waiting for the tax allowance to benefit. I am happy to welcome these grants and with

      1323
      the noble Lord I commend them to the House.
      4.50 p.m.
      EARL FERRERS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies and has too much of a free run, I wonder whether I might ask him a question. In doing so I should like to say how very much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said at the beginning of his remarks, when he paid tribute to the Capital Grant Schemes. Of all the grants paid to agriculture, it is the Capital Grant Schemes that have enabled agriculture as a whole to move forward and to become the competitive industry which it is now. I have always felt that these have been far and away the best grants ever given to agriculture. If the present Schemes result in a saving of paper work they are greatly to be encouraged. I have always taken the view that it would be far better if the Schemes were designed to be a little less accurate and a lot less cumbersome, rather than going for complete precision with a tremendous amount of paper work.
      One point I was concerned about (I may have misheard my noble friend) was when I thought he said that when a capital grant, or any grant, is paid there is to be a minimum standard beneath which a grant cannot be paid. In other words, if the holding is not considered to be a viable unit it will not attract a grant. Under the old system the viability of a unit was determined by the man-days required to work the unit. As I understood my noble friend, this is now to be changed, and the test will be not the amount of man-days required but the net income that may be obtained from the unit. This seems to be an extraordinary system, and I should be grateful if he would enlarge a little on what he said. I think my noble friend said that the net figure was to be £880 per annum. How is that figure arrived at? Is the individual who is applying for a grant to come with his previous year's accounts to show that he has made £880? He may be an extremely good farmer, but during the previous year, because of circumstances, he may well have made a loss. Would that mean he would be unable to have a grant which otherwise he would have had?
      1324
      I entirely accept that there must be some form of arbitrary level beneath which a farmer may not receive a grant, but I am concerned about what appears to be an extraordinary figure of £880. Why that figure? I think my noble friend said that it would be altered as conditions alter. Is there to be a formula on which the figure is worked out? Will it go up another year by £100 or £150? If so, how and why? It my noble friend could enlighten us a little it would be helpful.
      4.53 p.m.
      LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, for the welcome they have given to this Scheme—I felt it was a somewhat qualified welcome in the case of my noble friend—and I should like to deal with the various points which they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked whether we were confident that the rules have been framed in such a way as to avoid the possibility of fraud. I am advised that fraud has never been a major problem in administering the Schemes under which grant is paid on capital investment. This is because, in general, farmers and landowners have to obtain the Ministry's approval to their proposals before starting work; and approval is normally given only when the Ministry is satisfied that the cost of the proposed work is reasonable. Farmers must also make clear at this stage whether they intend to claim grant on the actual cost of the work or on the basis of the standard cost laid down for various types of improvement.
      When grant is claimed on the basis of actual cost, the applicants must support their claims with receipts or accountants' reports showing the expenditure actually incurred. Any variations from the approved amount, or any discrepancy between the amount claimed and supporting documents is carefully investigated. In many cases the completed work will also be inspected to see that it has been carried out satisfactorily. When grant is claimed on the basis of standard cost, the specification and cost on which grant will be paid are laid down by the Department; that is, for example, £43 15s. 0d. for a standard cattle

      1325
      grid. No opportunity for fraud will arise.
      It is important to keep a balance between the cost of checking against fraud and the risk of fraud occurring. Under the Capital Grant Scheme we shall be streamlining our checks where this can reasonably be done. Where there is other satisfactory evidence of expenditure we may be able to reduce the proportion of finished cases which we inspect at claim stage. However, I can assure your Lordships that in reviewing the various checks on grant claims we shall move cautiously at each step so as to secure the most economical result and to ensure that no unjustified risks are taken.
      My Lords, the noble Lord also asked about the ceiling of £100,000. That ceiling of grant-aided expenditure on any separate farm unit over two years will apply to the total expenditure on works and facilities grant-aided under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme and to expenditure qualifying for the higher rate of agricultural investment grant which was introduced on March 19, 1970. The ceiling applies to the total grant-aided expenditure before deducting the amount received in grant. Thus the maximum amount of grant for which a separate unit can qualify over any period of two years is less than £100,000. If the expenditure is all on buildings and other items which qualify for the 40 per cent. grant rate, the maximum amount of grant payable for that two-year period would be £40,000. The amount of grant would, of course, be somewhat higher if some of the expenditure was in respect of field drainage or improvements benefiting hill land which currently attract a 60 per cent. grant.
      In deciding for the purposes of the ceiling whether the land is separately farmed, we shall consider the farming facts in each case. For example, we shall have regard to whether the unit has its own labour, livestock, machinery and feedingstuffs store; whether it is physically separate from other land on which grant-aided expenditure has been incurred; whether it has its own manager or farm account. A ceiling at the same level is already applied to the 30 per cent. agricultural investment grant. Only experience in operating it will show
      1326
      whether or not it is set at a reasonable level. It will therefore be kept under review. We are anxious to safeguard grant from disproportionate demands from very large enterprises; but, equally, we do not wish to restrict the development of modern specialised units which can lead to greater productivity and stability; nor do we wish to discourage investments on large arable units.
      I had hoped, my Lords, having managed to use the term, "bulk milk tanks" without any accident three or four times during the course of my speech that I was through with it. But the noble Lord has raised it again. As noble Lords are aware, the new tax allowances for plant and machinery, which the Chancellor announced on October 27, apply to expenditure incurred from that date. At the same time, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that plant and machinery would not be covered by the new Farm Capital Grant Scheme. From January 1, when the new Scheme comes into force, no fresh applications for the Farm Improvement Scheme will be accepted and any further proposals will qualify for the tax allowance only.
      This switch from grant to tax allowance raises a difficult transitional problem. Many farmers and landowners will have entered into contracts before October 27 on the assumption that they would get grants; or even if they had not actually placed an order, would have planned their farming on the assumption that fixed plant and machinery was eligible for grant.
      Farming differs from other industries in that orders for agricultural plant and machinery are more often placed orally. Another difference is that the cycle of production is longer and it may be more difficult to make rapid changes in production plans. For these reasons, the Government decided that it would be both impracticable and also unfair to confine grants on plant and machinery to those cases where written contracts had been entered into before October 27. Farmers will, therefore, have until December 31, 1970, to put in their applications for grants on plant and machinery under the Farm Improvement Scheme or, if they intend to go for the agricultural investment grant, to make the actual payments for the plant and machinery they have in mind.

      1327
      Your Lordships may ask why, having accepted that there should be this period during which grant could still be obtained, we did not make a special exclusion from the new tax allowances. The answer is that one of the aims of the new system of tax allowances is to simplify administration. To have made special arrangements whereby farmers who receive the grants were disqualified from the new allowances would have run counter to this objective. It would have meant more checks and fewer administrative savings.
      It is not often, my Lords, that I have heard complaints that the Inland Revenue have been too generous, and complaints that they have been too generous to farmers must be rare in the extreme. I believe that their generosity on this occasion is amply justified by considerations of administrative simplicity. Moreover, their generosity is by no means excessive, since the tax allowances apply only to the farmers' share of the cost, after deducting the grant, and there may well be a balancing charge at the end of the day, if the farmer trades in a machine whose secondhand value exceeds its written down value in his accounts.
      The noble Lord, Lord Champion, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers were worried about the effect on small farmers of replacing grants with tax allowances. The extent to which any farmer, large or small, will benefit from the new tax allowances depends, of course, on the amount of his taxable income. I would accept that the small farmer is less likely than the larger one to derive much advantage from the new allowances, but I think it is a mistake to look at this aspect of the arrangements in isolation, for there are several changes in the new scheme as compared with the existing one which will be very much to the small man's advantage.
      First, and perhaps most important, we have dropped the benefit to the land test. This means that there will no longer be a requirement that the farm must be large enough to produce at least half the food for the livestock. Small farmers with livestock will be free to become more intensive, if it is in their business interest to do so. Secondly, there will be no requirement that all the land occupied by a business must be in single ownership
      1328
      or occupation. In future, therefore, the producer who owns part and rents part of his holding may qualify for grant on the whole of his expenditure, instead of on just the proportion relating to the land he owns.
      Finally, even the very small farmers who do not satisfy the sufficient livelihood requirement will now be able to get grant for many items, provided these would continue to be of benefit to the land if it subsequently became part of a larger unit. In addition, small producers, as well as large ones, will benefit from the simpler requirements of the new and unified scheme. Indeed, they may well benefit more, as they do not always have the same access to advice as the larger producer and so may find it more difficult to understand the complications of different schemes meeting different needs.
      My noble friend Lord Ferrers asked about the minimum limit of a holding to attract grant. Under the present Farm Improvement Scheme, the limit is in terms of a sufficient livelihood, which is taken to be the minimum agricultural worker's wage. Under the agricultural improvement grant there is a different minimum in terms of standard man days. The new Scheme will use the sufficient livelihood concept. My noble friend asked how the figure of £880 was arrived at. This figure is roughly the average earnings of an agricultural worker to-day. In principle we think that there is a case for regarding anything less than that figure as being below a reasonable standard of viability, remembering that it is the test of viability after the investment has been made, not before it. In practice, we are not applying the principle fully. With the minimum wage going up to about £770 a year, it would be reasonable to suppose that the average wage will be at least £1,000 a year. We do not want to make too abrupt a departure from previous standards of viability, which would put sufficient livelihood at £684 now and £770 next January, and so £880 represents a compromise between the current rule and a strict standard of viability. I must again apologise, my Lords, for the great length of time I have taken over moving these Orders.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME 1970
5.5 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we have had an interesting and, I think, useful debate on the Farm Capital Grant Schemes. I should like now to direct the attention of the House to their horticultural counterpart. I beg to move that the draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved. This is the fourth Horticulture Improvement Scheme. Each Scheme in its time has made a valuable contribution to the development of the horticultural industry.
Since the first Scheme was introduced in 1960, improvement schemes to the value of ·70 million have been approved for grant. Since January, 1965, over a thousand acres of new glass has been erected in England and Wales, and there has been a 9 per cent. increase in the area of heated glass, with continuing gains in the use of fully automatic systems for the control of temperature and irrigation in glasshouses. By any standards this amounts to very substantial progress in the modernisation of the glasshouse industry in this country; but the glasshouse sector is not of course the only one to benefit from the Schemes. Fruit growers, in particular, have taken advantage of the assistance that is available for the provision and improvement of temperature-controlled stores, for which works lo the value of nearly ·2 million have been approved in England and Wales during the last four years for grant under the 1966 Scheme—a development of very great value in lengthening the marketing season for home grown fruit.
Grant has also been approved under the 1966 Scheme on investments totalling three-quarters of a million pounds for plant and equipment to control pests and diseases on fruit growing holdings, nearly half a million pounds on fork-lift machinery and other equipment for the movement of produce and materials, and ·379,000 on grading equipment. The vegetable sector has been no less active, particularly in the provision of harvesting equipment, of equipment for grading produce and preparing it for market, and in equipment for pest and disease control; and the growers of hardy nursery stock
1330
have invested quite considerable sums in stores and packing sheds and other buildings and in harvesting equipment. These are, of course, only a few of the items which can qualify for grant. But, broadly speaking, they are where most of the money has gone, and I think that noble Lords will share my satisfaction at this evidence that growers are devoting a very particular part of their attention and resources to ways of improving the handling and marketing of their produce, as well as to the primary operations of actually growing it.
It is, then, against the background of an industry which is constantly progressing, increasing its productivity and making a substantial investment in its own future that I take pleasure in introducing this new Scheme, which continues and furthers the basic policy of encouraging and assisting the horticultural industry to increase its competitive efficiency. The Scheme does not introduce any major shift in policy. Rather it is designed to make life a little easier for the growers who apply for grant, and to streamline the official procedures for dealing with the applications, though it also introduces some new items which recent experience has suggested should be made eligible for grant.
The aim has been to cut out unnecessary restrictions, to reduce paperwork and, within the limits of the eligible facilities listed in the Schedule to the Scheme, to leave it to growers to make their own investment decisions without having to satisfy officials that investment will be worth while. In the same spirit, we are dropping the former requirement that the applicant must provide evidence that he has sufficient security of tenure to make it worth his while to invest in the proposed improvement. This again is something he will obviously consider himself, and the responsibility for the decision is, and should be, his own.
When the new Scheme comes into operation, we shall also modify the administrative requirements relating to the prior approval of expenditure on plant and machinery. Hitherto, grant has been payable only where the applicant has had prior approval, in writing, for the expenditure on which he wishes to claim grant. We propose to introduce simpler arrangements which will allow growers to claim

1331
grant on their investments in plant and machinery without going through all the arrangements for seeking prior approval which have applied in the past. I should emphasise that this applies only to plant and machinery; but these items are of course of particular importance to horticulturists. Prior approval will still be needed where expenditure is to be incurred on improvements to land, or on building works, or on the provision of services for buildings. With these more long-term, and usually more costly, improvements it is necessary to make sure that their construction is technically sound, and that any safety or amenity considerations have received full attention.
In drawing up this new and simpler Scheme, we have taken the opportunity to drop the provision allowing grant to be paid by instalments. It was very little used, apart from the grants made to horticultural co-operatives which now qualify under the Co-operation Scheme, and for which therefore provision is no longer made under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme. Lastly, we have taken the opportunity to bring up to date the list of items eligible for grant. None of the items covered by the 1966 Scheme is being withdrawn, but a number of new items have been added, to bring the Scheme into line with advances in horticultural practice during the last four years. Under the new Scheme, the grower will, for instance, be able to claim grant on structures of approved design for cladding with film plastic, together with the necessary equipment to furnish these structures; on some new items for use in the mechanised bulk handling of produce, and on plant and equipment for pre-packaging.
There has been full consultation with the unions over the changes proposed, and I have no hesitation in saying that the new provisions will be welcomed by the horticultural industry and will contribute to the industry's efficiency. It is as important now as it ever was in the past for growers to provide themselves with the best and most up-to-date equipment that is available. The new Horticulture Improvement Scheme both frees them from past restrictions and reflects the most recent developments in horticultural
1332
practice. I confidently commend the Scheme to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft Horticulture Improvement Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved. (Lord Denham.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord need not have apologised for answering at some length points put in the last debate. They were important. We are grateful to the noble Lord for taking this trouble to secure the necessary answers to the points that we put to him then. I was going to raise something of the same sort of thing in connection with this Scheme—namely, the removal of restrictions on applications and the way in which they are made—but I am bound to say that the noble Lord has convinced me that the Ministry have good answers to the points that I made in connection with the other Schemes.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for his report on past Schemes related to this important industry. I think it shows the value of those Schemes and the advantage that has been taken of them by the horticultural industry. Generally, I welcome the additions that have been made under this Order to the previous items that were available for the grant. I think this is right. If I do not make a long speech on this Order, I hope no one will think that I am not interested in the horticultural industry or that the Opposition are not so interested. Indeed we are. We think that this Order is absolutely right, and for this reason, we give it a welcome.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should be the last person to look a gift horse in the mouth. I learn that this is the fourth Horticultural Grants Scheme, and therefore one assumes that they are doing a lot of good. The object of such Schemes must be to produce more and better produce and, so far as the consumer is concerned, to produce it at less cost. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can give us, in addition to the figures that he quoted, of over a thousand acres more under glass, and various other impressive facts, any evidence that as a result of the Horticultural Grants Scheme the grower is producing more or that the housewife is able to buy more cheaply. I very much doubt it. Therefore I would ask why we go on

1333
with these Schemes, improving them, and making it, as he said, somewhat easier for the grower to get the money, unless we are convinced that they are doing what they are basically required to do; that is, to produce more at less cost.
I think it was a good apple year this year, and again we had the spectacle of large quantities of apples being, if not given away, certainly thrown away. With lettuce, we have again seen them being sold in the market at virtually give-away prices, yet high prices are still charged in the shops. I do not believe that the full benefit of this Scheme, in a national sense, will ever come about until the Government make up their mind that they must have a proper central scheme of distribution. I hope the noble Lord will not regard me as in any way dissenting from the general support given by my noble friend Lord Champion, but perhaps he will try to provide answers to these questions, which I submit are by no means unimportant.
LORD HOY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words on horticulture, having refrained from taking part in the agricultural discussions this afternoon. I would pay tribute to the noble Lord who introduced this Scheme, because, after all, he is saying that we now have, as a result of past policies, a thousand acres of new glass in the horticultural industry. If one can claim some little credit for this, it is a tribute to the previous Government. Horticulture was planned (if I may say this to my noble friend who has just spoken) so that it would be able to hold its own competitively with any other country. I should also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Apple and Pear Development Council, because in this respect I cannot think of any other section of the horticultural industry which has done such a good job in promoting the sale of British apples and pears. And a tribute is due to Sir Richard Boughey and his committee for the work they have done in this respect.
I am pleased to know that the procedure is to be streamlined. We had hoped to do that, and I am certain that the noble Lord who is now carrying it out was aware of the success of the plans that were made before the present Government took office. I did not quite
1334
understand his statement that horticulture could go on and make changes without proving that they were a worthwhile investment. This seemed to me to be a little peculiar, and I should like the noble Lord to explain what he means. Does it mean that any horticulturist can decide to adopt a certain line of action, with Government money involved, and that no Government official or anyone else will have anything to say whether it proves profitable or not; that the decision will just depend on the horticulturist, and that the Government will then be expected to pay their share of the money? That seems to me to be an extraordinary statement. I may not have heard the noble Lord correctly. Perhaps when he replies he can tell me whether that is what he said, because I regard it as somewhat peculiar that anyone can go on spending public money without any responsibility shown to the Government of the day.
The noble Lord went on to say that in respect of plant and machinery regard would not be paid to the old rule of prior approval. I always understood when I was at the Ministry—and I was there for a long time—that before anyone invested money in plant and machinery it ought to be proved that it was going to do good to the person making the application, to the industry, and, eventually, as my noble friend said, to the consumer, and also that they had to prove that it was going to be worth while. What the noble Lord has said seems to be contradictions of all that has gone before. There may be very good reasons for it, but if that is so then the noble Lord ought to spell out what the reasons are. I am not objecting to them, because I do not know what they are, but before we give approval to them I hope that the noble Lord will give an explanation to your Lordships' House.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am again most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for the welcome he has given to this Order. I am most grateful, also, for the constructive criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. Basically, I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, were really making the same point: we are paying out this money; are we getting anything

1335
for it? In the opinion of my right honourable friend and Her Majesty's Government we are.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I was not saying that. I was convinced that we were getting a return for our investment. I was questioning the changes by which people were allowed to invest without approval of any kind. I wanted to know the reason for the change.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if I may direct the first part of my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, these Schemes are intended to encourage increased efficiency, and growers' readiness to invest in capital equipment is surely evidence that they are doing so. Investment in improvements in preparing produce for the market is eligible for grant, and we all know the disadvantages suffered by apple producers when there is a particularly good year. Her Majesty's Government are confident that these schemes are not only worth while, but absolutely vital to horticulturists and to the country.
I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. It was the last Administration who paved the way for the withdrawal of the worthwhileness test by an Amendment which they themselves made in the Agriculture Act 1970. Under earlier Schemes the Minister had to be satisfied that the cost of carrying out approved proposals was not unreasonably high in relation to the benefit derived from them in carrying on the business. Provision for this test of cost-benefit was contained in Section 1(4) of the Horticultural Act 1960, now repealed by Section 31 of the 1970 Act. In considering the rationalisation of the capital grant schemes it was concluded that the decision as to whether or not investment was worth while for the farm business could now reasonably be left to the farmer or grower himself. He would be contributing the major part of the cost; and advice is obtainable from the advisory service. My Lords, I may not have quite satisfied the noble Lord, but I hope that I have gone a little way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FARM AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS SCHEME 1970

  FARM STRUCTURE (PAYMENTS TO OUTGOERS) SCHEME 1970
  5.25 p.m.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, I beg to move that the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on December 1, be approved. With permission, I hope it will be convenient to consider also the Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1970 at the same time, as the two are very much linked together. The Amalgamations Scheme is made under Section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967, and the Outgoers Scheme is made under Section 27, in both cases as amended by Section 32 of the Agriculture Act 1970. By virtue of an order which has been made under Section 29 of the 1970 Act these amendments take effect on January 1, 1971. The draft Schemes would come into effect on that date and would replace the current 1967 Schemes, making several improvements in the existing provisions.
  There are two main reasons for the amendments in the 1970 Act and the new Schemes before us to-day. First, we are intending to pay all our agricultural capital grants under the new Farm Capital Grant Scheme, which your Lordships have already approved, and a new Amalgamation Scheme is required to enable grant on remodelling works arising from amalgamations to be paid under that Scheme. This should make life easier for the farmer who wants to get grant on items in addition to remodelling works, because he will be able to get grant on the lot under one scheme. On the Ministry's part, the unification of the grants will, as I have alreday explained, enable us to save time and reduce paperwork. The second reason for the new Schemes is that a number of defects in the original provisions have come to light and the opportunity has been taken to correct these. The previous Government gave notice in another place that they intended to make it easier for some prospective outgoers to qualify for relaxing the income test. The object of the test is to make sure that the outgoers' payments

  1337
  go only to people who have been mainly dependent on their farm for their income and do not, for example, go to hobby farmers. The test requires that three-quarters of the income of the outgoer and his wife must come from the farm, but before calculating this proportion a certain amount of non-farm income is disregarded. At present the amount of annual non-farm income which is disregarded in deciding whether an outgoer is eligible is £400, and with this low figure some deserving cases have been excluded. The revised Outgoers Scheme increases the amount from £400 to £750.
  We are also making several minor improvements in the Schemes, but perhaps I need only draw your Lordships' attention specifically to the provision which the new Amalgamations Scheme makes for amalgamations which absorb part only of an uncommercial unit—because, for example, the rest is going for amalgamation elsewhere—and also to the additional provision in the Outgoers Scheme to help widows whose husbands die while their applications are being dealt with. I should also mention the new provisions in paragraph 9 of the Amalgamations Scheme, which apply to England and Wales only and which make grants available to local authorities for amalgamations involving the creation of a certain number of permanent intermediate units. These are amalgamations which are not being carried out as steps towards the eventual formation of commercial units, but are, nevertheless, among those which give effect to approved proposals for the reorganisation of smallholdings estates. I think I should add that although the 1967 schemes met with a fairly encouraging response at first, this has not been maintained. In an attempt to encourage more amalgamators to take advantage of these grants the previous Government reduced from 40 to 15 years the period for which amalgamated units are subject to the restrictive conditions of Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act, which are designed to prevent such units from being broken up again. This was a step which we on this side supported.
  The changes which have been made, taken together, should encourage a greater response from amalgamators and outgoers. It is in any case necessary to revise the Schemes at this time so that we can carry through the unification of
  1338
  the farm capital grants. But I must confess to your Lordships that we are not completely confident that the changes made in these Schemes will be sufficient to get the results we want. There must be a much better response than there has been from the current Schemes before we can declare ourselves satisfied. As the Minister of Agriculture has already announced, we are carrying out a fundamental review of the structure schemes to see whether we can give more effective help for amalgamations. If it is decided as a result of that review that further changes are needed, we shall bring forward the necessary provisions, but, in the meantime, I feel sure that the revised Schemes represent an improvement on the 1967 ones. I have pleasure in moving that the Motions now be approved.
  Moved—
  That the Draft Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved:
  That the Draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1970, laid before the House on December 1, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
  LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord paid tribute to the 1967 and 1970 Acts in this connection. Clearly, what was done in those Acts was the right thing to do; namely, to try to secure a condition in which some of these farms which clearly are not viable units are merged into larger ones. We in this country are not as bad as some. Some of the Continental countries, with which we may well find ourselves being closely associated eventually, have farm structures that are positively laughable. I am thinking of the very small units I happen to have seen in South Germany, and certainly some in France, where clearly the size of the farms was such that they could not possibly hope to be viable units. That was partly due to the laws of inheritance. But never mind about what it was due to: the fact was that they were not good farm structures, either for the men trying to farm them or for the country as a whole.
  I am sure that what has been done up to now in this connection was the right thing to do, and I am glad that the noble Lord and his Government have

  1339
  taken on the task of continuing this work and making the minor improvements that appear in the two Orders that are before us to-day. I sincerely trust that the hope he expressed will be realised, that there will be a greater response from some of the small farmers and people who will be interested here to this new initiative on the part of the Government. This is certainly a well worth while thing to do, and I sincerely hope that the money which will be spent on it—and that will be considerable in the end—will have the effect that we desire; namely, of securing that the farms in this country are viable units from which a man can get a decent standard of living and also enjoy the fruits of his labour, as he clearly should do. My Lords, I am glad to welcome these two new Orders.
  LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDGES' REMUNERATION (No. 2) ORDER 1970
5.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970. Both this Order and the following Order which I shall be moving afterwards relate to the remuneration of the Judiciary. The second of the two Orders—the Judicial Office (Salaries) Order 1970—relates to what is called the Lower Judiciary of England and Wales; that is, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the county court judges and the Metropolitan magistrates. With the leave of the House, I propose to discuss both these Orders together, although of course any individual points relating to the second Order can be raised on the second, when I move it separately.
The first Order, the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, relates to the so-called Higher Judiciary, and not merely the Higher Judiciary of England and Wales, but also that of Scotland and Northern Ireland; namely, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President
1340
of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, the Lords Justices of Appeal, the Judges of the High Court of Justice, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice-Clerk and ordinary Judges of the Court of Session, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, the Lords Justices of Appeal for Northern Ireland and the Puisne Judges of the High Court of Justice in the same Province.
Both these Orders are in some sense a result and a necessary corollary of recent announced increases in the salaries of the Civil Service and chairmen of nationalised industries. But whereas the Lower Judiciary and those concerned with the following Order have since the war followed conventionally more or less automatically on the increases in Civil Service pay, the Higher Judiciary have not; and in this case direct comparability with the Civil Service is neither suggested nor desired; although comparability with the Lower Judiciary is, I should have thought, inevitable and therefore some indirect comparability with the Civil Service is unavoidable. The history of the matter is therefore of some importance in discussing both the scales and the timing.
In March, 1969, the National Board for Prices and Incomes published proposals for increases in the salaries of chairmen and members of nationalised industries' Boards. That is contained in their Report No. 107, Cmnd. 3970. Almost immediately afterwards the so-called Plowden Committee, the statutory Advisory Committee on the pay of the Higher Civil Service, published proposals for similar increases in the pay of Permanent Secretaries and higher civil servants. These proposals represented increases respectively of 60 per cent. and 63 per cent. It was accordingly then proposed that these large increases should be made in three stages. The previous Government accepted the increases as regards the first stage, but at first reserved their position as regards the remaining two.
The Permanent Secretaries received the first of their increases in July, 1969, and their second in July, 1970, under, I think, arrangements made by our predecessors. The third was due on July 1, 1971, but by a considered decision of the present Government, announced last August, this

1341
was made effective as from January 1, 1971, instead of July. Under the proposals of the National Board for Prices and Incomes the chairmen of the nationalised Boards followed suit.
Since 1957 an increase in the salaries of the Lower Judiciary has been dependent on Orders laid by the Lord Chancellor and subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. As I have said, in the case of the Lower Judiciary increases have since the war been related more or less automatically to any increases in the Higher Civil Service. This was the case in, I think, 1967. Accordingly it has always been assumed that Orders to give effect to increases corresponding with the Plowden recommendations would follow pari passu with the Civil Service increases, and that parallel action would be taken administratively to keep other members of the Lower Judiciary, who do not need Parliamentary Resolutions, in step.
My Lords, it is at least my opinion that for many years the Higher Judiciary have been less well treated than either the Lower Judiciary or the civil servants. This is largely because until 1965 a special Act of Parliament was required to increase their salaries. But even since 1965 an Order in Council, backed by Affirmative Resolution, has been necessary in their case, though such is not the case with the civil servants. Since no comparability has ever been established between the Higher Judiciary and the Civil Service, the effect has been gradually to erode the position of High Court judges both against the Civil Service and against the Lower Judiciary, with the latter of whom, of course, as I have said, there must be a certain comparability.
Thus, to give an example, a High Court judge's salary was not increased from £5,000 until 1954—no pay rise for more than a century, although of course the standards of living generally had risen very much indeed. It remained at £8,000 until 1966—that is to say, it did not rise for more than 12 years. It remained at £10,000 from 1966 until this year, when it was raised to £11,500 to take into account the first stage in the Plowden recommendations. By that time the Civil Service pay of a Permanent Secretary, which had been only 60 per cent. of that of a High Court judge in 1938, was £400 more than
1342
that of a High Court Judge as at July 1, 1970.
The effect of implementing the third stage of Plowden on January 1, 1971, would have been to give the Permanent Secretary a £2,500 lead over a puisne judge of the High Court. The differential between the higher and the lower Judiciary was also eroded. At the begining of the period—that is to say, before the war—a county court judge received £2,000. but by 1954 the figure was £2,800 and it will now be £7,850. In other words, they have climbed from just over one-third of the salary of a High Court judge to just over two-thirds.
It is not proposed by the present Order to restore the differential, but it has been abundantly plain that to maintain the standards in the High Court Bench further erosion must be prevented. High Court judges are normally recruited from members of the Bar of a class whose earnings may be expected to be very high indeed, and county court judges are often only a little lower. They are all lawyers who can easily obtain employment in the City, either as salaried legal advisers with "top hat" pensions, or on boards of directors or as partners in merchant banks. They have lost whatever advantage used to be obtained by the exemption from income tax on post-retirement earnings.
I now come to the House and seriously say that the rate for the job is certainly not less (and in my judgment ought ideally to be higher) than that now proposed. In spite of the increase in the numbers of judges the volume of work transacted has greatly increased. Criminal appeals (or applications for leave) have risen for the four years 1965 to 1969 by 221 per cent.; appeals heard by 119 per cent.; sitting days in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division by 31 per cent.; the number of criminal trials by 42 per cent.; and the number of civil and divorce proceedings (the latter excluding undefended divorces) by 86 per cent.
I should have liked to give the total number of sitting days in this period in the High Court, but the figures are not comparable since in 1965 (though not now) the sitting days in the High Court were swollen by the presence of county court judges sitting as divorce commissioners, which of course now they no

1343
longer do. Increases in Northern Ireland and in Scotland have, I am told, been greater than in England. Being a High Court judge involves long periods away from home, undertaking onerous duties such as chairmen on commissions, committees and inquiries. Apart from anything else, I must stress that much of the day to day work of the High Court judge has to be undertaken after he leaves his court.
My Lords, percentagewise the increases for the higher Judiciary after allowing for tax—which at that level of income seems to me the fair test, being virtually their take-home pay—is less than 5 per cent. for a Lord Chief Justice (on the assumption that he is married and without young children); 9·16 per cent. for a puisne judge (married without young children), and rather larger figures for the lower Judiciary, who of course have not had a rise as recently as May 15, 1970. In each case these percentages make allowance for the increase in the standard rate recently proposed.
I have not so far mentioned the fact that the higher Judiciary have voluntarily agreed to forgo these increases until July, 1971, which presumably will halve these figures. I do not myself feel that in making these proposals, which will cost £304,650 for the higher Judiciary of the three parts of the United Kingdom, and £172,900 for the lower Judiciary of England and Wales, I am asking the House to spend money unwisely.
My Lords, there is one thought uppermost in my mind as I move these Orders. It is that by this process judges, unlike the chairmen of nationalised industries or civil servants, being compelled to submit to ordeal by Affirmative Resolution, are put in a singularly invidious position as regards other comparable employment. The time has surely come to get rid of the present set-up altogether and to substitute the proposed review body which the present Government have undertaken to set up.
There is only one other thing I should like to add. When the salary increases were announced, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, hinted that the salary of the Lord Chancellor is not affected, with the result that for the first time in history he will be paid less than the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of
1344
the Rolls, or a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. My Lords, I do not complain. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, laid before the House on 8th December, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.45 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining this Order to us. I agree that it is convenient to discuss both Orders together, although I appreciate that for technical reasons they will have to be put separately. In view of the fact that these are the last items on the Order Paper to-day and that there are not many noble Lords in the House, and I believe the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has, or had, a committee to go to—although it is probably over by now—I was tempted to take these Orders as read and to say little about them, but I think that would be wrong.
We live in times when there are those who both think and say that although for many years the Electrical Trades Union has been a moderate and well-conducted trade union, and one which, probably more than any other union in the country, has made notable contributions to increased productivity, the psychological effect of an increase in their wanes of more than 10 per cent. on other persons who have claims pending would be such that it ought not to be allowed. The question has been, and I think is bound to be, asked, what is the psychological effect likely to be if men, however distinguished, who had an increase of 15 per cent.—£29 a week—on their then remuneration as recently as May 29 of this year, now get a further increase of another £48 a week?
My Lords, these Orders are being considered in the other place to-morrow and I think this House would make a mistake if it ran away from, and did not seek in any way to answer, that question. While I do not propose to repeat, because I agree with them, the things which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, I think there are some even wider considerations. We, the people, had a long fight to obtain the independence of the higher Judiciary from the Executive, and as many of your

1345
Lordships know, if one goes to the central lobby of the Central Criminal Court the brass plate which is there in tribute to Mr. Bushell, the foreman, and other members of the jury who tried William Penn, the Quaker, for seditious libel (he afterwards went to America and founded Pennsylvania) was well deserved. They were a good, strong, contumacious British jury. They went to prison for a principle, and in the end the fight was won.
It was enshrined in the Act of Settlement, by which, as your Lordships know, the higher Judiciary could no longer be removed by the Executive but only by Parliament, and their remuneration could be determined only by Parliament and not by the Executive. While none of us would wish to change that, in my opinion it has had the effect that to-day the remuneration, particularly of the higher Judiciary, has fallen markedly behind the remuneration received by the leaders of other professions and persons occupying a similar status in the Public Service, and I think it is right that the reasons for that should be realised.
Of course it is nice to say that the remuneration of the higher Judiciary can be determined only by Parliament, but the first thing to observe is that it has never got before Parliament unless the Executive has put it there; and secondly that the Executive, whatever Party is in power, has in the past shown some reluctance to put before Parliament proposals for increases. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, it has happened only three times in our history, and the last Government was in fact the first Government in our history to propose to Parliament increases in remuneration for the higher Judiciary twice in one Parliament.
The reason why the Executive has shown reluctance, I think, to put such a case before Parliament is this. In the case of the surgeons and doctors in the National Health Service; in the case of the Armed Forces; in the case of Chairmen of boards of nationalised industries; in the case of the Civil Service, and in the case of Ministers and Members of Parliament, every Government which has come forward in recent times with proposals for increases has always been able to say, "We have submitted the question of what is the right remuneration for this group to a wholly independent board or
1346
committee, and these are the rates of remuneration which they recommend". But in the case of the higher Judiciary—and in the case of this group only—the Government has to take the responsibility, because their remuneration has never been so inquired into by any independent body. The Government has to get a figure as best it can, and justify it. I believe that for these reasons the remuneration particularly of the higher Judiciary has been prejudiced in the past.
It is I think known that the previous Government had it in mind to amalgamate the Prices and Incomes Board and the Monopolies Commission into a Commission on industry and Manpower (a title which, if I may say so, I never thought the happiest), because they felt it unsatisfactory to have so many different Committees inquiring into remuneration in the more sensitive fields, and that it would be right to have one overall body, a special panel of which would consider all these five sensitive areas.
I should not myself have agreed to any proposal to change the way in which the remuneration of the Judiciary was arrived at without their agreement. But I took the proper steps to ascertain the opinion of the judges, and they were in favour of such a review applying to them. About what is to happen in the future I am not at the moment at all clear, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether he will be good enough to explain this a little further. The right honourable gentleman, the Lord President, was, I thought, very clear in what he said on December 4, but he was followed by the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister on December 8, and I am quite unable to reconcile what they said.
The Lord President was, if I may say so, quite clear when he said—and I am new quoting from column 1723 and 1724 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for December 4—that the Government intended:
"to establish three Review Bodies to advise on the remuneration of certain groups for whom, for one reason or another, no negotiating machinery was appropriate. One of these"—
that is to say, one of the Review Bodies—
"was to advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the

1347
Armed Forces, and, as the right hon. Member for Sowerby mentioned, such other groups as might appropriately be considered with them. This Review Body, along with the others to be set up, would be serviced by an Office of Manpower Economics which would not be part of the Government machine. Its reports would, therefore, be entirely independent."
He went on to say:
"… such a body would perhaps be better placed than any specially constituted body could be to study this difficult question of the remuneration of Members of Parliament … it would be the Government's intention, when this Review Body has been set up early in the new year, to refer to it the whole question of the emoluments, allowances, expenses and pensions of Ministers and Members of the House of Commons."
That seems clear, my Lords. So far as the Judiciary are concerned, they, with all these other sensitive sectors, are to have their remuneration reviewed by one of these three Review Bodies. What the other two Review Bodies are to do we were not told.
But I cannot reconcile that statement with what the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister, said four days later, on December 8 (col. 255). He referred to the Judiciary, senior officers of the Armed Forces, other public servants, the chairmen and deputy chairmen of nationalised industry boards; and he said:
"Following this announcement, members of the Judiciary were given an assurance that Orders would be laid before Parliament…
Then he said:
"I have to inform the House that senior members of all these four groups"—
and he went on to refer to the offer to forgo the increase for six months. Later, in col. 257, he said:
"Future reviews will come under the group of Review Bodies being set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but no detailed arrangements have yet been made as to the particular Review Bodies before which they will appear … They will include the doctors. There will be a number of review panels"—
the Review Bodies have now become panels—
"but we have not yet settled the different review panels which will consider the situation of these four groups of public servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/12/70, col. 257.]
Apart from the fact that there are five groups, this seems to conflict with the clear previous statement that one of the
1348
three Review Bodies would consider all these five groups.
I am more puzzled when I see that, at the bottom of col. 259, he says:
"That was the purpose of all the Government's actions; but I thought it right and appropriate, in view of the publication of the Prices and Incomes Board Report on the position of the Judiciary",
and so on. I am not clear what that meant at all. I do not know of any Prices and Incomes Board Report on the Judiciary. I would invite the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, to tell us what he can further about that. Have the judges been consulted? If they have been consulted, have they agreed? Will it be one of the three Review Bodies which considers their remuneration as well as that of the four other groups; or will it be a review panel? Does a panel envisage a selection from a larger number? And, if so, what sort of number; and what are likely to be their qualifications?
I took steps to satisfy myself that the special Commission proposed by the last Government would have had on it one or more persons who were familiar with judicial life: the long weeks and months spent away from wives and adolescent children—and judges want to see their children growing up, as much as any other father does; the difficulties of a job in which a judge cannot afford to let his attention wander for a moment, but where everything he does in court is done in public and before the Press, when any incautious observation may be repeated and criticised in every newspaper in the country on the following day. I should have thought it most essential that if, for the first time, the remuneration of judges is to be considered by some Review Body or panel there should be on it at least some who are familiar with judicial life.
Lastly, will the noble and learned Lord be approving the terms or reference? Will these simply extend to remuneration, or will they include pension? It is, I think, well known that the Treasury have never been too happy about conditions of judicial pensions. May I express the hope that advantage will not be taken of this by the Treasury to try to obtain worse terms?
My Lords I think there is an answer to the question which has been asked,

1349
but of course I cannot congratulate the Government on their timing. It does seem very extraordinary just at the present time, when we have been hearing about other men, some of whom have take-home pay of £18 15s., and a wife and three children, and who have taken quite exceptional steps in the field of productivity. I know it is said, and rightly said, that the employers have made a great contribution to productivity by the purchase of the necessary machinery—and of course that is true. But then you have to get your employees to agree to work the new machines. Mr. Cannon, whom I knew well, and whose death I am sure we all deplore, was an outstanding trade union leader who realised that much the best basis for increased pay is increased productivity. I think I am right in saying that, out of a work force of 150,000, their productivity agreement was such that the employers were enabled to dispense altogether with the services of 26,000. That, I should imagine, takes some "selling" to a trade union. It does seem a very odd time, just as this is before the public, and just as it is said, "They may have a very good case; they may have the best case in the world. But inflation, you know! And look at the effect on subsequent pending pay claims if men are to get as much as 11 per cent, at this time!" to introduce these Orders, having regard to the percentages here in question.
6.2 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I wish to pursue a little further the thoughts to which my noble friend Lord Gardiner has given utterance. The announcement of the increases in these salaries has been received, generally speaking, with a sort of congratulatory, and to some extent a self-congratulatory, glow. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, they derive, albeit indirectly, from the National Board for Prices and Incomes. That Report to which allusion has been made was, in my opinion, one of the less fortunate productions of the Board which the Government have decided to abolish. But I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that in those days the Board was in charge not only of salaries but also of prices. This makes an enor
1350
mous difference when we are discussing these problems, because the whole ambit of life at that point was different from that with which we are now confronted.
In my opinion, there is no doubt that that Report on top salaries was one the most unfortunate things that has happened in this country in the last few years, and certainly one of the most potent causes of the type of inflation which then of course, through the Kindersley Report, generally established itself in all professions and gave the most unfortunate impression to everybody else. The salary rises with which we are now confronted are, roughly speaking, of the order of 9 to 10 per cent. per annum in the past four years; that is to say, more than was the average in those years, though of course very much less than the current average. Surely, something which has been condemned ought not to be accepted.
The historical review by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which we have listened with great attention and interest, reminded me, and probably some of your Lordships, of the wrangle between the higher and lower engineering workers as to which of the differentials ought or ought not to be preserved. I feel that a tone which should not really creep into the Judiciary has in this way been adopted. There is, move-over, an implication that the relative remuneration of people, such as dustmen and Dukes, at a certain previous point of time was right and ought to be restored. I cannot possibly accept this. I do not think it is acceptable if we are to have consensus in this country. I do not believe that a consensus is possible except by a much more equal distribution of the national income, which must include salaries.
This leads me to my second point. If we are to prosper in this country, these questions must be settled by consent and consensus, and not by crude forces emanating from unemployment and the mobilisation of public opinion. However, the Government have established three separate bodies. The leapfrogging of salaries which inevitably this will involve is going to have the most unfortunate possible effect on wages. It has been said that the Government are setting up these salary determining bodies in

1351
circumstances where no satisfactory negotiating machinery exists. But is there any trade or industry in which a satisfactory negotiating machinery can exist when you are confronting two highly powerful monopolies? Of course there will have to be an arbitration of one kind or another. What the Government have now decided is that the arbitration should be by ordeal of force—of market forces. And they have decided on an incomes policy. Let it be quite clear that we have an incomes policy at this point in this country, though no prices policy. It is determined by the pull downwards of unemployment and the pull upwards of the monopoly power of the combined industry and trade unions. This cannot lead to anything but bitterness, and the need for permanent deflation, which will put this country permanently behind the other countries of Europe and the industrialised countries of the world, as it has happened in the last twenty years.
I am sorry that the judges and their colleagues have not gone much further than they have gone; and if they could not accept the precept noblesse oblige, at least have acted on the precept of sagesse oblige.
6.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, nearly twenty years ago the judges were due for a rise in pay, very much more modest in those days than it is to-day, and I remember writing to The Times saying that it was not proper to give them a rise in pay and that surtax should be reduced. Needless to say, the letter was not published. But just imagine how things would have improved had that letter been published and the Government of the day had taken advantage of it, because we are now dealing with one of the most ridiculous anomalies that I have ever heard of. The nationalised industries and the top Judiciary are being given rises, the top portions of which are going to be removed by the Government of the day as to 91¾ per cent., and put straight back into the Treasury. It is increasing the overheads of these industries, and it is increasing the cost of the Judiciary. The only person who benefits in the end is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a stupid anomaly and yet we perpetuate it because Government after Government are afraid to tackle surtax.
6.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a word or two in reply to the speeches that have been made. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, very sincerely for the earlier part of his remarks; I thought they were very much in point. It cannot have been an altogether easy speech to have made from that Bench. I welcome very much indeed the implied support which it gives me. I hope that he will take that as a sincere tribute both to his courage and to the integrity of his remarks.
If I may, I will come to some of the other remarks he has made in logical rather than chronological order. In the first place, I was extremely glad that he made no bones about what people will be saying outside about the comparison between, for instance, the claim of the Electrical Trades Union and the other unions and what is now being proposed. I deliberately omitted that from my opening speech because I thought it was inappropriate to my opening speech, and that I should stick strictly to the Orders and the material for them. However, it does enable me to say one or two things which require very much to be said about it.
I do not want to go into the merits of that particular dispute, because in the present context it would be inappropriate for a person of my office even to refer to the kind of thing which the Government and Parliament have been discussing in the past few days. I will say that I share his sorrow at the death of Mr. Cannon, which was almost universally deplored. He was a great servant of his own movement, and he was very widely loved outside his own body of friends. I do not think I ought to allow my remarks to trespass any further on that particular matter, although I think the noble and learned Lord went further than I propose to do.
What I want to say quite plainly to the House, and to the noble and learned Lord, is that when you are dealing with increases in pay you have really to compare like with like. I do not shrink from this any more than the noble and learned Lord did; this sort of thing has to be brought out into the open and discussed quite openly. What is like with like? I

1353
am not talking about wages in the electricity industry, because if you start talking about the pay structure of an industry you do not know a great deal about you obviously make errors of detail which deprive your remarks of the value which they are intended to have. Broadly speaking, over industry as a whole, take home pay consists of wages and a certain amount of money earned by overtime. The lower paid workers do not attract much, and sometimes do not attract anything in the way of direct taxation, but they sometimes make up on a basic salary, or some equivalent, by way of Overtime. Take home pay is, therefore, the right way of judging from the outside of an industry, although it may be wholly inappropriate for the purpose of a Court of Inquiry, or for the purpose of negotiation between employers and employed, who are concerned with the details of the structure. However, take home pay, from outside the industry, is not an unfair yardstick to take when you are discussing the question of wage increases from time to time and their possible effect on inflation.
Take home pay, when you are dealing with the higher Judiciary, or any of the other higher paid posts which we have discussed marginally in connection with this Order, is something very different. Judges do not get overtime or special responsibility pay if they have to head a Commission. I do not know whether the actual Court of Inquiry will be headed by a judge, but one may well be asked to do so, and the noble and learned Lord knows even better than I that almost every few days a Lord Chancellor is being asked by one of his colleagues to provide a High Court judge to chair an independent inquiry.
I will come back to that point, if I may, when I come to deal with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The only point I am making about it at the moment is that the judge does not get overtime for doing it, and does not get anything extra, although he may have extra responsibility and extra time to work. The take home pay for a judge is not basic rate plus overtime; it is basic rate minus surtax and income tax I come back here to my noble friend Lord Hawke. I pointed out, I think accurately, that even if he had not forgone half of it, the Lord Chief Justice, to take an example, assuming he is
1354
married and without young children entitling him to children's allowance, gets less than 5 per cent. on this wage increase. I think it was very much less than generous of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, not to recognise that when you are talking about salary increases you are bound to talk realistically; and if you are going to talk in terms of percentages you must compare like with like.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if he wants to talk realistically about higher salaries, should take into account other things than the surtax and the income tax. I am sure he is far too learned a judge, and far too sceptical in his knowledge of mankind, not to know what high salaries mean in regard to surtax. We know very well what surtax means in this country. The national income of this country has increased tenfold, and the surtax rates have trebled, and the surtax takings have increased twice. I do not wish to imply anything, but if he talks realistically we ought to take into account these facts also, and also the pensions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord was not listening accurately to what I was saying. Obviously, if we are going to discuss the whole question of differentials in industry we must choose another debate to do it. All I said was, and I stick to it, and it was a perfectly fair criticism of the noble Lord's speech, that if you are going to talk in terms of crude increases, in terms of money and in terms of the percentages, you must compare like with like, and not like with unlike. That is the only proposition I was making, and it seems to me to be an indisputable one.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am exceedingly sorry, and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I do want to compare like with like. The pay of a top-salaried person, after surtax, is not comparing like with like when dealing with the take home pay of a worker.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is getting away with this at all. What I was saying to him, and I say it now for the third time and I hope that this time he will accept it, is that if you are going to talk about percentage increases you

1355
must take percentages on comparable figures; otherwise you are misleading people. The Lord Chief Justice and his puisnes are in fact getting very much less than the 10 per cent. which was offered to the unions by the employers in a recent dispute, if you take like with like; my contention being that, for the purpose of calculating a percentage increase, you ought to take take-home pay as a good yardstick if you are outside the industry. I am not discussing, although I will say a word about it in a moment, the general question of surtax, incomes policy, or prices policy, in connection with the present Order. I doubt whether the House would have much patience with me if I endeavoured to enlarge upon the various philosophical concepts which the noble Lord voiced when he came to criticise what is now being done.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I think quite fairly, from his point of view, criticised the timing of this proposal. I greatly sympathise; but the timing really was not, with great respect, of our choosing. Obviously we had to time it to get the increases at the point of time at which they will be effective when they have been promised. It is, therefore, largely as a result of the functioning of the Special Orders Committee of this House, and of the Affirmative Resolution procedure, that we have to do it before we break up for Christmas. The time really was not of my choosing. Therefore, although the criticism is a perfectly sound one from his own point of view, I think he will take it that I do not view the timing with any more pleasure than he does. I would only say this to him—and he has considerably more experience about this problem than I have—that there seldom is a time which is convenient from that point of view for a Government to propose higher salaries for the higher Judiciary. Frankly, I acknowledge the courage of the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues in having twice done it during their term of office. But I venture to think that their memories are not altogether happy ones about the moments they chose, any more than my present experience is a happy one about the moment to which I am driven. But I do not think that the timing point—although it is a fair one, or would have been fair if I had not frankly acknowledged that it was disagreeable to
1356
me—is a point which should trouble the House when it looks at the realities of the situation.
Before I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, I should like to deal in a little more detail with a question which I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He found difficulty in reconciling the statement of the Prime Minister, in answer to a supplementary on December 8, with an earlier statement by the Lord President as part of a more considered set of remarks on the same subject. I sympathise with him, but I must tell him, from experience of another place, that the atmosphere in which one answers supplementaries is not quite as easy as it is in this House; and even in this House I have known Ministers, of both political persuasions, sometimes get their answers to supplementaries a little wrong, when their original Answers were quite right.
The right answer to this point is, of course, that the Lord President was accurately reflecting an earlier statement, which should be treated as the governing statement, by the Secretary of State for Employment who said the following on November 2:
"The Government intend … to establish at an early date three Review Bodies with a degree of interlocking membership. One will advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the Armed Forces and such other groups as might be appropriately considered. … Another will advise on the pay of the Armed Forces generally. A third will advise on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. These three Bodies will have at their disposal and working to their directions a secretariat provided by a new Office of Manpower Economics."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, 2/11/70; col. 668.]
In other words, that, and neither of the statements to which the noble and learned Lord referred, should be looked at as the fountain of wisdom for the moment of Government thinking on this general subject.
That earlier statement in fact answers a few of the questions, though not all of them, which the noble and learned Lord quite properly asked me. Of course I shall consult the Judiciary. I have taken certain steps already, and I have every reason to believe that it will be agreeable to them that the higher group Review Body will be the one to undertake the

1357
reviews connected with them. I am grateful for the points which the noble and learned Lord raised about the desirability of my being concerned as to the composition and the terms of reference. I cannot give him any answer about the matter now, but I am sure that his remarks will be noted as coming from an authoritative source, and I will certainly bring them to the attention of my colleagues. I think that is as far as I can take this particular point.
I come back for a moment to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh. The truth of the matter is that I want these salaries because I want to attract the best men, and men of suitable calibre, to the job. It is vital to the present existence and honour of this country that we maintain the standards of our higher Judiciary and of the new Judiciary—the county court judges as they are now; the Circuit judges as they will become, if and when the Courts Bill becomes law—at an adequate level. Law, and the administration of law, is, in my opinion, the first of the social services and the basis of social morality, without which nothing else can be done. The fact of the matter is—the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, as a devoted Socialist, may deplore it—that earnings at the Bar are very high, and they are even higher in some of the ranks of the solicitors' profession. The fact is that I have to recruit judges from the Bar, and even if the full desires of the solicitors' profession and of the Circuit Bench were met I should have to recruit from an equally high group of men and women, and I have to have a properly paid Judiciary if I am at all to discharge my functions as Lord Chancellor.
The salaries which are being put forward in this Motion are not based on some elaborate theory of comparability with the Civil Service, although I gave my reasons for saying that they have a certain connection both as regards content and timing. They are not based on any profound philosophy about free market forces, or the suitability of a private enterprise system or the wrong-headedness of Socialism. They are based fundamentally on pragmatic considerations. We need a fine Judiciary in this country—we have the best in the world, in my opinion—and I do not believe that
1358
we would get it if we did not pay it properly.
We find—and I said that I would come back to this at the end—that, time and time again, when this country is in trouble of one sort or another, when it wants to set up a commission of inquiry, when there is a scandal in public affairs, when there is a dispute in which absolutely impartial chairmanship of the first water is required, politicians of all Parties come to the Lord Chancellor and say, "Find me a judge." Now, my Lords, what sort of a Lord Chancellor would I be if I were to allow that profession to run down, and how much gratitude would I earn from Parliament if I were to submit to the kind of specious talk that people are only too ready to indulge in—particularly in another place—about the level of salary of the Judiciary? I should be unworthy to sit on the Woolsack. I hope that this Motion will now be passed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES) ORDER 1970
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order be approved. I think that I can deal with this Order formally, since I explained in my former speech what it was about. But of course if there are any particular questions which noble Lords wish to raise about the lower Judiciary, they are now absolutely free to do so and I shall endeavour to answer them.
Moved, That the Draft Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1970, laid before the House on December 8, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, there is one point I should like to raise. As the noble and learned Lord knows, the remuneration of some judges can be dealt with administratively. I have never been able to make any sense out of, or see rhyme or reason in, the distinction between dealing with the lower Judiciary and those whose remuneration can be increased administratively, and those for whom an Order is necessary. I will not ask the noble and learned Lord to deal with this matter now, but I wonder whether he will agree that at some time

1359
or other this point really ought to be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord. I think that some steps towards this are to be taken in the Courts Bill. There is, I think, no contemporary reason why the line of demarcation should be drawn where it is. There is no reason why, for instance, masters and county court judges should require this procedure, and I absolutely agree that an opportunity should be taken to bring the two classes together.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS AND U.K. RIGHTS
  COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS AND U.K. RIGHTS
  MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING STATIONS
  MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING STATIONS